Science has been so successful explaining other phenomena in terms of purely unintelligent natural forces, why should evolution be so different? That is the primary argument against intelligent design, and it is the reason that Darwinism, an extremely implausible theory which becomes even more implausible with every new biological and biochemical discovery—but the best theory materialists have to offer—is still so popular today. And it is the main subject of a video which was introduced at Evolution News last June, and which has now been translated into three languages.
Most non-scientists intuitively understand that explaining how plants and animals, and intelligent, conscious humans, could have arisen from a lifeless, barren planet is a very different and much more difficult problem than others solved by science, but most scientists are still confident that nothing could possibly be beyond the reach of their science. In the last decades, an increasing minority of scientists are finally recognizing that the layman is right, that evolution is different. The first half of the video attempts to make clear, in terms that even scientists can understand, why evolution really is different, and requires a very different type of explanation, involving intelligent design.
The Spanish subtitles were written by myself and Fabian Fuentes of Tepotzotlan, Mexico, the Polish subtitles by Dr. Adam Wojcicki of the En Arche foundation, and the Dutch subtitles were provided by Andries van Renssen. There are also English subtitles.
The second half of this video addresses the other main reason such an implausible theory as Darwinism is still more popular than intelligent design among scientists: the similarities between species, which suggest common descent. “This doesn’t look like the way God would have created things,” is the argument, one used frequently by Darwin himself. But the video points out how similar the fossil record is to the record of human technology, with similarities between each new invention and previous designs but with large gaps where major new features appeared, for the same reasons: gradual development of the new organs that gave rise to new orders, classes and phyla would require the development of new but not yet useful features. So Darwinism could not explain the development of these new features even if they did occur gradually—and they don’t. So if the history of life looks like the way humans, the only other known intelligent beings in the universe, design things—through careful planning, testing and improvements—why should that be taken as an argument against intelligent design?
But even these “unintelligent” forces of Nature, which so many scientists insist must be able to explain the origin and evolution of life, give strong evidence of design themselves, as a new video “A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design” points out. This new video is based on an October 28 Evolution News article in which I listed six areas where we can see evidence for design in Nature. This video has Spanish subtitles, and Polish subtitles are being prepared.