Intelligent Design

A famous theism-vs.-atheism debate between William Lane Craig and Frank Zindler took place in 1993 at Willow Creek Church and was published as a video by Zondervan in 1996 (under the title Atheism vs. Christianity). The debate is available on YouTube here (in 15 parts). It is available in full here. In that debate, Zindler, taking the atheist side, made the following remark:

The most devastating thing, though, that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people, the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin, there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation, there is no need of a savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.

I’ve addressed Zindler’s objection to Original Sin and the Fall in my book The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World (check out the book as well as a $5,000 video contest promoting the book at www.godornot.com). What interests me here, though, is the logic that’s suppoed to take one from evolution to the death of Christianity — and presumably also to the death of any other brand of theism. Accordingly, evolution — a Darwinian, materialistic form of it — is supposed to imply no God and thus atheism. Simply put, (DARWINIAN) EVOLUTION implies ATHEISM. This implication seems widely touted by atheists. Will Provine, for instance, will call evolution an “engine for atheism,” suggesting that the path from evolution to atheism is inescapable.

Now this implication, though perhaps underscoring a sociological phenomenon (people exposed to Darwinism frequently become atheistic or agnostic), is logically unsound. Theistic evolutionists like Francis Collins, Denis Alexander, and Kenneth Miller provide a clear counterexample, Read More ›

(Note: These are the key books, not science or media news. The Top Ten Darwin and Design Science News Stories for 2009 are here, the Top Ten Darwin and Design Media News Stories for 2009 are here, and my comments on the latter are here. Also, to get the links, you must go here.) My comments follow. 8. The Deniable Darwin & Other Essays by David Berlinski. It only takes one dose of Berlinski to get hooked. His wit, his way with words, his sharp mind, and the ease at which he is able to poke holes in the Darwinian worldview catch you off guard. Those who watched Expelled were treated to a taste of Berlinski as Ben Stein interviewed Read More ›

As you read these words a frenzy of activity is taking place as the light entering your eye triggers a dizzying sequence of actions, ultimately causing a signal to be sent to your brain. In fact, even a mere single photon can be detected in your vision system. It all starts with a photon interacting with a light-sensitive chromophore molecule. The interaction causes the chromophore to change configuration and this, in turn, influences the large, trans-membrane rhodopsin protein to which the chromophore is attached. This is just the beginning of the cellular signal transduction cascade.  Read more

Evolution has to be true, and yet it is not well supported scientifically. If you ask how evolution occurred, you will be told there are various theories grappling with the problem. But if you ask if evolution occurred, you will be told that, without a doubt, it is an unequivocal fact. Evolutionists have metaphysical certainty about the truth of evolution, in spite of the empirical evidence. This is a consistent theme in the evolution genre. Here, for example, is the opening paragraph in a journal paper from last year on the evolution of vision:  Read more

(Note: These are the key books, not science or media news. The Top Ten Darwin and Design Science News Stories for 2009 are here,  the Top Ten Darwin and Design Media News Stories for 2009 are here, and my comments on the latter are here. Also, to get the links, you must go here.) My comments follow. 9. Exhaustive Survey of Evolution Case Law by Casey Luskin. The legal journal Hamline University Law Review, Vol. 32(1):1-64 (Winter, 2009), published a comprehensive collation and summary of the relevant law cases regarding the teaching of biological origins. The teaching of biological origins in public schools remains a contentious scientific, cultural, and legal debate. With the increase of public interest in this topic, Read More ›

In a comment to a prior post Tom quotes a Darwinist article regarding the source of information at the origin of life: “The idea is to give them enough information wherewithal [genetic building blocks] so they can start inventing their own solutions rather than just optimizing existing solutions,” To which Tom responds: The key word here is information. The key issue is how does a philosophy (naturalism) explain the existence of information within the confines of its explanatory resources? Since the very definition of naturalism includes the idea that the universe is causally closed (that is all causes ultimately resolve in physical laws – NOT mind) and therefore that the laws of physics ONLY have explanatory power, how then do Read More ›

Textbook evolutionary theory holds that evolutionary change occurs gradually. It may speed up or slow down but change, when it occurs, takes small steps. But from the fossil record to observed adaptations in the field, biological data do not always cooperate with theory. In fact, populations do respond dramatically to environmental challenges in a time window measured in years—not millions of years—and single mutations or the management of existing genes effect such responses. A review from last week, entitled Revenge of the hopeful monster, summarized the situation as follows:  Read more

Here, Access Research Network has published the Top Ten Darwin and Design Resources for 2009. Most interesting. As executive director Dennis Wagner comments, “I would never have predicted that an atheist would name a book about intelligent design as one of the top books of 2009, while another atheist would write a book defending intelligent design? This is a sign that open minds in the academic and scientific communities are beginning to take the evidence for intelligent design seriously,” (Note: The Top Ten Darwin and Design Science News Stories for 2009 are here, and the Top Ten Darwin and Design Media News Stories for 2009 are here, and my comments on the latter are here. Also, to get the links, Read More ›

“SAN DIEGO: Can life arise from nothing but a chaotic assortment of basic molecules? The answer is a lot closer following a series of ingenious experiments that have shown evolution at work in non-living molecules. For the first time, scientists have synthesized RNA enzymes – ribonucleic acid enzymes also known as ribozymes – that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components. What’s more, these simple nucleic acids can act as catalysts and continue the process indefinitely. “There’s nothing in biology in this system: no proteins, no cells, no biological matter. We just provide them with the building blocks,” said molecular biologist Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego.

The researchers began with ribozymes known to occur naturally, and put these in a growth medium, heated them and allowed the ribozymes to replicate.”

Read More ›

Science Daily reports on new work examining cellular motors: Life’s smallest motor — a protein that shuttles cargo within cells and helps cells divide — does so by rocking up and down like a seesaw, according to research conducted by scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Brandeis University. The researchers created high-resolution snapshots of a protein motor, called kinesin, as it walked along a microtubule, which are tube-shaped structures that form a cell’s “skeleton.” The result is the closest look yet at the structural changes kinesin proteins undergo as they ferry molecules within cells. “We see for the first time how kinesin’s atomic-scale moving parts allow it to pull itself and its cargo along Read More ›

I’ve evolved, and here’s my evolution: Richard Dawkins became Antony Flew who became C.S. Lewis. (Of course, I’m not in the same league as Flew or Lewis, and God forgive my Dawkins past.) Things that are made. I have a faint recollection of this phrase from some ancient text I once read. Things that are made are designed and engineered. We all can recognize them. I would like to offer the following hypothesis: The universe was rigged. It was designed for discovery (a thesis put forward in The Privileged Planet), but also designed in such a way that there would always be an escape clause in the contract for those who are committed, for whatever reason, to reject the obvious. Read More ›

My grandfather, about whom I have written before in these pages, was an extraordinary man.  Born in 1910, he left school after the second grade to go to work shortly after the great flu pandemic of 1918.  He was, however, a prodigious autodidact, and when he died his library ran into the thousands of volumes.  He had many talents, but his true genius lay in things mechanical.  He was a highly skilled tool and die maker at a multi-national manufacturing company, and it was ironic but not unusual for college educated engineers to consult with this second grade dropout on particularly thorny problems.

Papa also made machines for his own amusement, and what wonderful, whimsical, marvelous machines he made.  I remember one machine in particular.  On a large platform stood several mechanical men about six inches tall.  The men were animated by an electric motor attached to a series of pulleys and levers out of sight underneath the platform.  Read More ›

Two years ago, “the most primitive bat known” was reported in Nature. It was not primitive in its wings and body, but “the morphology of the ear region suggests that it could not echolocate, making it a possible intermediate link between bats and their non-flying, non-echolocating mammalian ancestors”. At the time, the find was suggested to settle the question as to which came first: flight or echolocation? The answer was a definite flight first. “The problem of understanding bat evolution dates back at least to Charles Darwin, who in The Origin of Species enumerated a list of difficulties he saw with the theory of evolution by natural selection. The example often discussed is the origin of the eye. But Darwin Read More ›

In a comment to a prior post lastyearon writes: I’m simply not understanding how it is possible to detect that certain things were the result of design if everything is the result of design. If you hold that the laws of nature were Fine-Tuned for life, then that position seems incompatible with the notion that it is possible to detect that certain things were the product of Intelligent Design. IDers say they can detect design by distinguishing designed objects from products of natural ‘undirected’ causes. But if natural causes were designed for life, then doesn’t that invalidate that claim? I reply: You seem to imply that “IDers” are the only ones who claim to be able to distinguish between designed Read More ›

In a prior thread mikev6 asked: “If God is required to be moral, and I don’t believe in God, does that make me immoral?” I responded: “mikev6. Just because you are an atheist you will not necessarily act in an immoral way. No one said you would. It is a fact, however, that you are unable to ground your morality on anything other than your whim at the moment.” Ov responded to me: “Barry Arrington, in response to mikev6, said: “It is a fact, however, that you are unable to ground your morality on anything other than your whim at the moment.” I agree that such morality having an absolute grounding is not the case, but calling what mikev6 holds Read More ›