In the News

Dr. Michael Behe and Dr. Vicent Cassone (Dept. head of biology at Texas A & M) discussed and debated the merits of ID.

A report, filed by Ji Ma and Steven McReynolds, appears in The Battalion.

"Science cannot deny the existence of a creator," Cassone said. "We cannot use science to affirm one. I believe that science should be outside these realms."

And this is the mantra of materialists. They are searching for the right kind of answers (materialistic), which may be counterintuitive and dead wrong.

Consider the movie Contact, where a message from another galaxy which contained specified complexity, was rightly deduced to have come from intelligent agents. Because these agents were a part of the material universe, no controversy was generated when intelligent agents, instead of pulsars or other natural sources, were deemed to be the source of the message. This movie could have been even greater if Dr. Ellie Arroway (played by Jodie Foster) would have looked at the specified complexity or irreduicible complexity of DNA and machines in living things, and concluded that these things came about through an intelligent designer too. But, using her materialistic philosophy, she would not even consider the evidence for a supernatural intelligent designer because that would be religion, not science. This is what the scientists of today are claiming, and it makes little sense. When searching for Truth, let's search for the right answers, not the right kind of answers.

For the full article, click HERE.

Deidre Pike, of the Tucson Weekly, seems to write a fairly balanced story on the Darwinism - ID debate, but some slanted language shows what side she comes in on. It's the same old characterization of the debate as between science and religion, as is seen in the subtitle: Scientists and educators fear conservative political muscle could force religious ideology into public-school classrooms.

Bill Dembski says that "this search for a designer goes deeper than science--and involves the way humans view the world." So true. While ID is searching for the right answers about ultimate reality, science seems content to just search for the materialistic, or right kind of answers, even if they may be counterintuitive and dead wrong.

For instance, if you come across a dead person with five bullet holes in his chest, what would you conclude. An ID proponent could rightly conclude that he died at the hands of an agent with a mind. Darwinists would have to conclude that he died due to natural causes, because in their narrowing, materialistic view of reality, evidence for intelligent agents cannot even be considered.

When we study the history of life and the earth, we are dealing, in large part, with forensic science, and events which may or may not be repeatable. We are building a case in favor of an intelligent agent, or mindless, materialist processes with no intended goal. Much evidence is in, and the verdict, at this time, should be clear.

For the full article, click HERE.