Posted by
JasonC on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 10:27:05 PM
One of the chief arguments by evolutionists
against intelligent design is that it’s not scientific. By why is that?
Why do they consider it “unscientific”? After all, evolutionists and
IDers are dealing with essentially the same body of information, the
same set of known facts. And they are both conducting valid field
research (observation) and labwork. So how can the one be “scientific”
but not the other?
The
obvious, and correct, answer – according to evolutionists – is that ID
is unscientific because it involves the supernatural (some sort of
creator/designer). This fact, according to evolutionists, goes against
established “scientific standards” and offends the dignity of science.
But I disagree on two counts.
First,
it needs to be understood that evolution, depending on just how you
look at it, is either atheistic or agnostic (agnostic, says an
evolutionist acquaintance of mine). But according to the arguments I
laid out in The Big Lie, both atheism and agnosticism
are religions just as much as creationism/Christianity, and therefore,
because they address the concept of God in some way, shape or form,
they bring some sort of supernatural factor into the picture. Now,
since both basic groups (evolutionists and creationists) are working
from the same body of available scientific data, and since you can’t
physically see evolution any more than you can physically see God, it
logically follows that evolutionists are taking as much a leap of faith
as creationists, only in a different direction. It takes as much faith
to believe in evolution as it does to believe in creation.
If
evolutionists would only take the time to consider, in detail, the
arguments set forth by creationists (such as those of Ralph Muncaster
in Dismantling Evolution), they would have the chance
to see that IDers are indeed utilizing scientific methods, working with
scientific data, and using visible results to support an invisible
conclusion – all of this in much the same way that evolutionists are.
The
second count on which I disagree has to do with the Creator Himself. I
agree that it’s possible, though unlikely, to explain everything in
naturalistic terms only, even creation. Some creationists may think
this sounds treasonous or even blasphemous, but consider this: When God
created matter, He created natural things (like cells) and natural
processes (like photosynthesis), so those natural things can be
explained in naturalistic terms – but only to a point: The matter and
the natural processes were still created, so the Creator cannot be left out of the equation.
And
that is precisely my point. If God created everything, then not only
must the supernatural be given due consideration in naturalistic
discussions (since the natural depends on the supernatural for its
existence), but it must be recognized that God Himself stands atop the
mountain as the ultimate scientist. And if God is the ultimate
scientist, how can involving Him in the discussion be considered
unscientific? You can explain to me the process of photosynthesis in
naturalistic terms if you want, but if God created the plant matter in
which photosynthesis occurs, you can’t ignore His involvement in the
situation.