« Harry Reid’s BYU Visit | Main | A Conversation between a Leftist and a Mormon »
Intelligent Design, Darwinism, and Ben Stein
By Trenton | November 3, 2007
Ben Stein’s new film, Expelled: the Movie, is being hailed by some intelligent design proponents as long overdue. The interesting part to me is that there are so many neo-darwinists that must tell everyone how wrong ID is, despite their claims that ID has nothing to offer. Well, if that’s the case, then why all the fuss?
I read through many of the comments on the Expelled website. Some of the opponents of Intelligent Design are just out of control. Some act as though the very mention of ID causes their skin to blister. Some are outraged that anyone would ever question the truth of Darwinism. Still others demand that proponents of ID provide proof that God exists before they will even begin to consider debating the issue.
This last group are the ones that get my goat. They take a position that amounts to this: “Intelligent Design suggests the existence of God. You cannot prove the existence of God, therefore Darwinism is true and Intelligent Design is false.” The logic is so badly flawed as to cause me to wonder if these people have ever passed a philosophy course. One thing is certain: they flunked Science, because they never could quite grasp the need for the scientific method.
Sadly, this is where the proponents of ID have the Darwinists on the ropes and many don’t even realize it. Darwinism is a theory. Period. Under the scientific method, theories are not held as law until there is no longer any doubt that the phenomenon being observed will consistently produce the same results every time it is tested. In other words, a theory stands until someone or something demonstrates that it is not true, at which point another theory must be proposed. In between all this demonstrating and proposing is a series of tests that determine if the theory will continue to hold its place. This is the weak point of Darwinism; it fails in the testing. Intelligent Design provides specific questions that Darwinism cannot answer.
So how does a disproved theory hold its position of preeminence over many decades? Well for one thing, its supporters could say things like, “It doesn’t need to be tested. We have all the proof we need right in front of us!” Or, “You wouldn’t understand the mechanics of Evolution.” Misdirection, obfuscation, and outright falsehoods is how.
What the supporters of ID need to show, according to the scientific method, is this: the theory of Darwinism proposes that all life on earth is the result of gradual, beneficial changes in the genetic structure of organisms that result in the appearance of new physical characteristics and traits that lead to the rise of new species. The observable facts described by Intelligent Design say that gradual change is not possible in the creation of certain specific characteristics and traits, and therefore Darwinism cannot accurately describe the origin of species and must be discredited.
Intelligent Design does not attempt to prove the existence of God, and its supporters should not entertain arguments that are built on that assumption. It does pose questions that Darwinists must answer to maintain the theory. If Darwin’s theory cannot answer the questions that ID poses, it must be considered disproved. Attempts by Darwinists to debate the existence of God when discussing Intelligent Design are a red herring.
So far, the Darwinists have carried the day because most people are not educated sufficiently to know when and how a theory is disproved. They rely too much on the opinions of those who have degrees in that sort of stuff.
Ben Stein’s new movie may help to point out that Evolution is a non-theory being propped up by the false logic of its adherents. Or, it may only be of interest to those who are educated enough to know why it is important. One of the disheartening effects that Darwinism has had is the false idea held by so many people that talking about Intelligent Design in school amounts to a prohibited discussion of Religion. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I engaged a local talk radio host in a brief debate over this issue. His position was that Intelligent Design refers to an intelligent being that designed all life on earth. That being would be appropriately called God, or a god. Therefore, discussion of Intelligent Design should be restricted from the classroom because of our doctrine of separation of Church and State. Incredible. In other words, this guy wanted one set of truth for Science, and another set for Religion, and never the twain should meet.
If we were someday able to scientifically prove the existence of God, would that information then be banned from our science classes because of its religious overtones? Would our children be prohibited from learning about the single most important scientific discovery in the History of Mankind, simply because it supports the claims that every religion on Earth from time immemorial has ever made? It is frightening to know that some people would say, emphatically, yes. It is appalling to know that others would go along with it, only because they think someone else knows better.
Topics: Evolution, Intelligent Design, Religion and Faith, Science |
January 28th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Hello, I found my way here from your blog at Townhall.com.
Very interesting post. I don’t have a problem with Evolution being taught in school as long as it’s taught as a theory. Since it’s just a theory, I see no problem with other theories being taught as well. Like others, I had assumed that teaching ID would inject religion into the classroom. (not that I think that’s bad, per se, but more because it’s my job to teach my kids about religion and I worry what might be taught) But presented in this way would be a good counter to the Darwinists. One of the best presentations of the origin of life was from the Nova special “Origins”. It just laid out what we already know. This happened at this point in time, and this happened in this point in time, etc. I was impressed with it. In fact, it seemed to me that it inadvertently supported the Creation story in the bible. It just occurred to me(if you don’t mind me rambling) that it seems that the bible was way ahead of science in explaining the origin of life. It’s not the first time that science has told us things we already knew because we learned it in church.