Comes now the Design Debate

So now comes again the fight in the “intelligent design” debate.

Three articles in today’s WND: Bill Press, Sam Blumenfeld, and David Limbaugh

Bill:

According to intelligent designer backers, certain higher forms of life – like cell structure, molecular design or the human eye – are too complex for us to understand. They couldn't have just evolved that way. They must have been set in motion ahead of time by some intelligent designer: namely, God (unless you believe in space aliens).

This is, first of all, a ridiculous theory. There are a lot of things we don't understand. I don't know how my TIVO works, but that doesn't mean God made it. Besides, throughout history, our understanding and knowledge have grown with the advance of science – which is one good reason for not derailing science by replacing or confusing it with fairy tales.

David:

Many of ID's cynical detractors patronizingly frame this entire debate in terms of a struggle between faith and science. Intelligent design, they say, is but a thinly disguised argument for biblical creationism and its proponents threaten to obliterate the "wall of separation" between church and state by cleverly sneaking creationism back into the schools inside the Trojan horse of ID.

But that is simply false. ID is fundamentally science-based. The fact that scientific inquiry leads certain scientists toward a conclusion compatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview – that intelligent causes were behind the creation of the universe and life – does not disqualify them as scientists any more than the militant secularism of many Darwinists disqualifies them.

Then from Sam:

But since intelligent design infers the existence of a designer – God – it is likely that evolutionists will resist any change in their views, since the acknowledgment of the existence of God is too nightmarish for them to contemplate.

It is ironic that only the intelligent design advocates acknowledge the inferences of their advocacy. Darwinism infers moral relativity, the absence of standards, and an inevitable decline in the value of creation; even while it claiming for its advancement. For so long Darwinists have denied the theological implications of their ‘strongly held beliefs”. Do they now believe their own lies?

The fact that science has it’s theological implications has never been lost on society. The fact that some will allow the latter to intrude on the former is likewise never lost. Aside from the Darwinists own presumption that they alone are immune from this tendency, we see little to support their assertion. It is they who bring religion into the arguments, it is they who form arguments based not upon science, but upon the straw men they prop up. Witness Bill Press's argument above. While Bill may not the inner workings of a TIVO machine, a 2 minute internet search will present quite a few who do. Do the same on the origin of life issues, and you won’t find anyone. Not one. Lots of people who say they think they know, but nobody who was there, nobody who can explain with intricate detail how one thing involved into a higher form. The fact that they can't is one of the greatest argument for design in itself.