Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
After reading both “Being Stalked by Intelligent Design” and “The Lynching of Bill Dembski”, I came to the conclusion that the most believable “theory”, is the latter article on using mathematics to prove intelligent design. Underlying this reason is the fact that anything complex shows thoughtful and careful planning. An analogy that may be overused is one where trash or miscellaneous materials are thrown together haphazardly without any plans, blueprints, or any thought and up comes a man, a watch, and a house. Though all material may have been there that was necessary, there would be no automatic construction. Even a catalyst would have to come from somewhere, even if it was “outside” or extra-terrestrial. Though the concept of micro-evolution can be “proven” through an organism‘s ability to “adapt” to its environment, this would have no bearing on macro-evolution. The difference between a man and a chimpanzee is the fusion between chromosome 13 and 2 in a man, whereas they are still separate in the chimp. Even simple organisms, like that of amoebas and viruses, are complex. Their complexity is like that of bigger organisms but is still shown to be of complex structure, far from being merely “simple”.
As far as being taught in school, the proven points of each should be taken into consideration on the basis of showing what’s definitely known. The “theory” on each should then be discussed openly and objectively, leaving room for an open mind on reason, leaving no room for biased discussion, thinking, or reasoning. For both to be taught in a public setting, reason would have to lead to having both presented. Intelligent Design would be the most likely candidate for being taught as true, since evolution is derived mainly from imagination, and not fact. The main thing being, how the “constructive material” got there in the first place when matter can’t be destroyed or created.
The article: “Being Stalked by Intelligent Design” is greatly biased and doesn’t allow any room for objective reasoning, no matter how substantial it may be. What “The Lynching of Bill Dembski” is showing, was that science was a source of proving or disproving through mathematics the source for belief in a “higher power”. Bill Dembski wasn’t trying to disprove science, but to enhance it with a more objective view. Science is about finding truth, and if actions like what happened to Bill continue, then it would be no different then when the Catholic Church went after Galileo and the like for proposing what seemed to be “opposing” concepts that the church deemed to go against God. Science isn’t actually against God, but actually proves God.
