Christian Darwinism Intelligent Design

If you find Darwin’s God at your church, show him the door politely, will you?

Spread the love

Ken Miller of Brown University, author of Finding Darwin’s God , knows that there cannot be design in nature, based on, among other things, the elephant. Here is what he has to say:

This designer has been busy! And what a stickler for repetitive work! Although no fossil of the Indian elephant has been found that is older than 1 million years, in just the last 4 million years no fewer than nine members of its genus, Elephas, have come and gone. We are asked to believe that each one of these species bears no relation to the next, except in the mind of that unnamed designer whose motivation and imagination are beyond our ability to fathom. Nonetheless, the first time he designed an organism sufficiently similar to the Indian elephant to be placed in the same genus was just 4 million years ago—Elephas ekorensis. Then, in rapid succession, he designed ten (count’em!) different Elephas species, giving up work only when he had completed Elephas Maximus, the sole surviving species. (Finding Darwin’s God p. 97.)

So? Is there some sense in which elephants, of whichever family named, are evil or unhappy or out of sync with their ecology? How would we know that God didn’t explicitly intend or design elephants? I mean, really, exactly. Forget sneery suggestions about “busy” and “stickler.” We should hold the things we cannot ourselves dream of creating from scratch with awe.

Population geneticist J.B.S. Haldane (a traditional Darwinian atheist) argued something similar when he said,

The Creator would appear as endowed with a passion for stars, on the one hand, and for beetles on the other, for the simple reason that there are nearly 300,000 species of beetle known, and perhaps more, as compared with somewhat less than 9,000 species of birds and a little over 10,000 species of mammals. Beetles are actually more numerous than the species of any other insect order. That kind of thing is characteristic of nature.

So God cannot create as many beetles as he thinks right? The Darwinist, Christian or non, does not offer us anything but a sneer in response to questions.

All the while, any given beetle, munching the pot plant in the office in which the Christian Darwinist types away, could be a far more wonderful work of engineering than the computer  he uses.

Could any Darwinist, Christian or otherwise, afford a sneer-free investigation of the facts at this time?

10 Replies to “If you find Darwin’s God at your church, show him the door politely, will you?

  1. 1
    Bilbo I says:

    I think a sneer-free investigation would involve comparing the genomes of different species of beetles or elephants and trying to determine whether the differences could have been achieved by random mutations. If yes, then I think the Darwinist would have a good case. If no, then I think their case is much weaker.

  2. 2
    sagebrush gardener says:

    Seriously? Is this the best they can do? Let me try to follow the “logic” here. Paleontologists (in their taxonomic exuberance) have surmised nine Elephas species (all of which are more remarkable for their similarities than their differences) over a supposed period of 4 million years. Therefore there is no designer — or one only worthy of mockery.

    Even the staunchest YEC admits to variations within a kind, not to mention variation due to habitat, age, nutrition, environment, etc, etc… How is this evidence against design?

    “If a wise man has an argument with a foolish man, the fool only rages or laughs, and there is no rest.”

  3. 3
    Bilbo I says:

    But I wouldn’t show a Darwinist, Christian or non-Christian, the door of my church.

  4. 4
    Granville Sewell says:

    For millions of years there were no automobiles, then within 100 years of the appearance of the first, hundreds of different species of automobiles have appeared. And we are expected to believe that each one of these species bears no resemblance to the next? That is why I have never been able to believe that intelligent design had anything to do with the appearance of automobiles, they must have arisen naturally.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    There is a subtle irony in Darwinists proclaiming that they, beings of finite knowledge, know exactly how God, a being of infinite knowledge, should or should not create life on this world, in that if their materialistic worldview was actually correct then no true knowledge would be possible:

    Do the New Atheists Own the Market on Reason? – On the terms of the New Atheists, the very concept of rationality becomes nonsensical – By R. Scott Smith, May 03, 2012
    Excerpt: If atheistic evolution by NS were true, we’d be in a beginningless series of interpretations, without any knowledge. Yet, we do know many things. So, naturalism & atheistic evolution by NS are false — non-physical essences exist. But, what’s their best explanation? Being non-physical, it can’t be evolution by NS. Plus, we use our experiences, form concepts and beliefs, and even modify or reject them. Yet, if we’re just physical beings, how could we interact with and use these non-physical things? Perhaps we have non-physical souls too. In all, it seems likely the best explanation for these non-physical things is that there exists a Creator after all.;max=1

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Though William J Murray is currently doing this line of thought way more justice than I on his thread, knowledge of the world depends on a perspective outside of the world, a independent mind which is not subject to the whims of the world. Moreover, non-guided randomness, i.e. chaos, which Darwinists hold to be the ultimate source of creativity in the world, is absolutely antithetical to reliable knowledge of the world:

    notes to that effect:

    The Great Debate: Does God Exist? – Justin Holcomb – audio of the 1985 debate available on the site
    Excerpt: The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,,

    Random Chaos vs. Uniformity Of Nature – Presuppositional Apologetics – video

    This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed ‘Presuppositional apologetics’. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.

    Presuppositional Apologetics – easy to use interactive website

    Comprehensibility of the world – niwrad
    Excerpt: ,,,Bottom line: without an absolute Truth, (there would be) no logic, no mathematics, no beings, no knowledge by beings, no science, no comprehensibility of the world whatsoever.

    “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way.. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.”
    Albert Einstein – Goldman – Letters to Solovine p 131.

    “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter”.
    J. B. S. Haldane [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.

    “One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears… unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.”
    —C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry (aka the Argument from Reason)

    “Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning…”
    CS Lewis – Mere Christianity

    Alvin Plantinga has fleshed the argument from reason out:

    Alvin Plantinga – Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism – video

    “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” – Charles Darwin – Letter To William Graham – July 3, 1881

    I strongly suggest watching Dr. Craig’s following presentation to get a full feel for just how insane the metaphysical naturalist’s position actually is when the position is exposed down to what its root implications actually are.

    Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? – William Lane Craig – video


    “God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.”
    —II Timothy 1:7


    Time Lapse: Island in the Sky (La Palma) – video

    La Palma, the island featured in the preceding time-lapse video, is one of the islands that has become semi-famous for the work that Anton Zeilinger and company have accomplished there. Work in quantum mechanics. Work which has dramatically challenged the way most people view reality. From the 38:38 minute mark to the 40:32 minute mark of the following video, the quantum teleportation experiments between the Canary Islands of La Palma and Tenerife are clearly explained. The snippet features a small clip of Anton Zeilinger.

    Anton Zeilinger on Quantum Teleportation – video

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    The Hard Problem (Of Consciousness) – video

    Darwinian Psychologist David Barash Admits the Seeming Insolubility of Science’s “Hardest Problem”
    Excerpt: ‘But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.’
    David Barash – Materialist/Atheist Darwinian Psychologist

    Neuroscientist: “The Most Seamless Illusions Ever Created” – April 2012
    Excerpt: We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.
    Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor

    A neurosurgeon confronts the non-material nature of consciousness – December 2011
    Excerpted quote: To me one thing that has emerged from my (Near Death) experience and from very rigorous analysis of that experience over several years, talking it over with others that I respect in neuroscience, and really trying to come up with an answer, is that consciousness outside of the brain is a fact. It’s an established fact. And of course, that was a hard place for me to get, coming from being a card-toting reductive materialist over decades. It was very difficult to get to knowing that consciousness, that there’s a soul of us that is not dependent on the brain.
    Dr. Eben Alexander

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Precise measurements test quantum electrodynamics, constrain possible fifth fundamental force
    Jun 04, 2013
    Excerpt: Quantum electrodynamics (QED) – the relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics – describes how light and matter interact – achieves full agreement between quantum mechanics and special relativity.,, QED solves the problem of infinities associated with charged pointlike particles and, perhaps more importantly, includes the effects of spontaneous particle-antiparticle generation from the vacuum.,,, Recently, scientists,, tested QED to extreme precision..,,, can be interpreted in terms of constraints on possible fifth-force interactions beyond the Standard Model of physics,,

  9. 9
    Barb says:

    The larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproduce only “according to their kinds.” The fossil record provides confirmation of this. In fact, it indicates that each “kind” appeared suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous “kind,” as required by the evolution theory.

    I’m really trying to wrap my brain around the stupidity contained in this book. There are many varieties of elephant. Therefore, there is no God. That is a classic non sequitur. Do the Darwinists really think that resorting to logical fallacies proves them right?

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: The Easter Question – Eben Alexander, M.D. – March 2013
    Excerpt: More than ever since my near death experience, I consider myself a Christian -,,,
    Now, I can tell you that if someone had asked me, in the days before my NDE, what I thought of this (Easter) story, I would have said that it was lovely. But it remained just that — a story. To say that the physical body of a man who had been brutally tortured and killed could simply get up and return to the world a few days later is to contradict every fact we know about the universe. It wasn’t simply an unscientific idea. It was a downright anti-scientific one.
    But it is an idea that I now believe. Not in a lip-service way. Not in a dress-up-it’s-Easter kind of way. I believe it with all my heart, and all my soul.,,
    We are, really and truly, made in God’s image. But most of the time we are sadly unaware of this fact. We are unconscious both of our intimate kinship with God, and of His constant presence with us. On the level of our everyday consciousness, this is a world of separation — one where people and objects move about, occasionally interacting with each other, but where essentially we are always alone.
    But this cold dead world of separate objects is an illusion. It’s not the world we actually live in.,,,
    ,,He (God) is right here with each of us right now, seeing what we see, suffering what we suffer… and hoping desperately that we will keep our hope and faith in Him. Because that hope and faith will be triumphant.

Leave a Reply