Adventist Online

Phillip Johnson is known as the father of intelligent design which he adopted and developed after he saw Darwinian evolution came up short,  in explaining how all organisms, including humans, came into being. Johnson taught law for over 30 years at the University of California at Berkeley and is the author of the book 'Darwin on Trial', in which he argues that empirical evidence in support of Darwin's theory is lacking.

Now here is a definition from

"The Definition of Intelligent Design

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago."

So it should be pretty straight forward that these are scientist and others who have found issues with evolution or feels it fails to explain how the universe came to be. Now not too long ago a well known magazine came out with a subtle attack on Christian beliefs in their piece on faith and scientific progress, basically a radical condemnation of God-centered religion. It was Time magazine, and it showed how a position is being promoted by a group of scientist against intelligent design and who look at their disciplines' increasing ability to map, quantify and change the nature of human experience. They see the advancements of  technology will negate any belief in the biblical creation or in any form such as intelligent design. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Scientist dont like it as it cannot be quantified and probed in the manner they are used to.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

Intelligent design is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. Intelligent design proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. This stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on experimentation to explain the natural world through observed physical processes such as mutation and natural selection.

Scientitst against intelligent design point to advances like brain imaging that illustrates the physical seat of the will and the passions, challenging the religious concept of a soul independent of glands and gristle. Brain chemists track imbalances that could account for the ecstatic states of visionary saints or of Jesus. Religion has been cast off and technology has become the new Bible leading the way.

They have become their own religion, Catholicism's Christoph Cardinal Schönborn has dubbed the most fervent of faith-challenging scientists as followers of "scientism" or "evolutionism," since they hope science, beyond being a measure, can replace religion as a worldview.

It is not an epithet that fits everyone wielding a test tube. But a growing proportion of the profession is experiencing what one major researcher calls "outrage" at perceived insults to research and rationality, ranging from the alleged influence of the Christian right on science policy, to the fanatic faith of Muslims, to intelligent design's ongoing claims. Some are radicalized enough to publicly pick on the idea that science and religion, far from being complementary responses to the unknown, are at complete odds.

Scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins, came out with a book called "The God Delusion", whose position is very clear as to where it stands. His book attacks faith philosophically and historically as well as scientifically, but leans heavily on Darwinian theory, which is Dawkins' expertise and as an explicator of evolutionary psychology.

Dawkins and his peers have many theological opponents, the most ardent of these have issues with his science, and an argument in which one party stands immovable on Scripture and the other immobile on the periodic table, and foremost among them is Francis Collins. Collins' devotion to genetics is, if possible, greater than Dawkins'. He was Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and headed a multinational 2,400-scientist team that co-mapped the 3 billion biochemical letters of our genetic blueprint. Collins wrote a book, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief", which laid out some of the arguments he brought out.

The introduction of intelligent design basically makes the theory of evelotion a choice now instead of the only idea on creation. So why are scientist and evolutionists against it, seems that if they are not allow to control "truth" as they see it, then they attack it to destroy it before it shows the flaws in evolution. Intelligent design must be looked at and presented as a alternative and allow new students of the sciences make up their own minds as to what is truth and what is theory.

Views: 21

Reply to This

Site Sponsors


Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free

USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:


© 2020   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service