Eighty years after the Scopes “Monkey” Trial, the public still refuses to accept the idea that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for complex biological phenomena. In fact, opinion polls show that fewer people are willing to accept the idea that human beings developed from earlier species than they were just ten years ago.

In Britain—a country that is not exactly known for fundamentalist Christianity—fewer than half accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life. (And more than 40% of those polled believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.) Even doctors, who are more informed about biology than the general public, overwhelmingly (60%) reject the claim that humans evolved through natural processes alone.

Why do so many people have such difficulty accepting the theory? Is it due to a resurgence of religious-based creationism? Or is it that the Discovery Institute and other advocates of Intelligent Design are more persuasive? I believe the credit belongs not to the advocates of ID but to the theory’s critics.

Had the critics remained silent, ID might possibly have moldered in obscurity. But instead they launched a counter-offensive, forcing people into choosing sides. The problem is that the more the public learns about modern evolutionary theory, the more skeptical they become.

I won’t argue that critics of ID are always wrong or that ID is always—or even mostly—right in its claims. But I do think a compelling case can be made that the anti-IDers are losing the rhetorical battle. Here is the first five in a list of ten reasons ways in which they are helping to promote the theory of intelligent design:

#1 By remaining completely ignorant about ID while knocking down strawman versions of the theory. – Whether due to intellectual snobbery or intellectual laziness, too many critics of ID never bother to understand what the term means, much less learn the general tenets of the theory. Instead, they knock down a strawman version of ID that they have gleaned from other, equally ill-informed, critics. The belligerent or paranoid advocates of ID will assume that the misrepresentation is due to dishonesty or a conspiracy by “Darwinists.” But even those who are more charitable will agree that when a critic misrepresents the theory, it undermines their own credibility.

#2 By claiming that ID is stealth creationism. -- Resorting to this red herring is one of the most common arguments made against ID. While it’s true that ID could be used to promote a particular religious agenda, this is not a sufficient argument against it being a legitimate scientific research program. There is no a priori reason why a research program could not be completely in adherence to accepted scientific methods and yet be completely compatible with a particular religious viewpoint.

But it also refuses to acknowledge the vast majority of people throughout history have believed in at least a basic form of creationism. Most people believe that some form of intelligent being (i.e., God) created the universe and everything in it. For most of these people, “creationism” is not a derogatory term. The phrase “stealth creationism” might appeal to the pseudo-intellectuals (those who know almost nothing about science but do know that they despise “fundamentalist Christians”) yet for most ordinary people it sounds like bigoted nonsense.

#3 By resorting to “science of the gaps” arguments. – Critics of ID often claim that the theory relies on a “God of the Gaps” “argument. (Don’t understand how something occurred? Well…God did it. Case closed.) As scientific reasoning, this method is obviously flawed. Yet the critics of ID often resort to the same tactic, only instead of saying “God did it” they claim “Science will find it.”

The problem is that this almost never happens. Closing a "science gap" almost always leads to the discovery of other, even more difficult to explain gaps in knowledge. For example, when evolution was first proposed by Darwin, there was no explanation for the mechanism of transmission of traits from one generation to the next. With the discovery of DNA, Watson and Crick closed that particular “gap.”

But as physicist David Snoke notes, no one today has an adequate explanation for how this highly complicated molecule arose out of nowhere. Also, we do not have an adequate explanation within chemical evolutionary theory for the appearance of the mechanism that gives us a readout of the information, or for the appearance of methods that replicate information with out error, or for the appearance of the delicate balance of repair and maintenance of the molecular systems that use the information stored in DNA.

Scientific discoveries tend to find that nature is even more complex than we imagined which makes it even more unlikely that a process like natural selection is a sufficient explanation.

#4 By claiming that ID isn’t science since it's not published peer-reviewed literature...and then refusing to allow publications of ID papers in peer-reviewed journals. – The hypocrisy of snubbing ID because it lacks peer-review was exposed by the treatment of Richard Sternberg, a journal editor who made the career-killing mistake of actually publishing an article that was sympathetic to ID.

The resulting controversy exposed just how close-minded some scientists were to criticisms of neo-Darwinism. As Sternberg—who is not an advocate of ID--said after the incident, “It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. The reaction to the paper by some [anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community."

#5 By making claims that natural selection is responsible for all behaviors and biological features. -- Instead of saying that “God created X”, Darwinists tend to claim that “Sex selection created X.” Take, for instance, this statement made by zoologist Richard Dawkins:

"Why did humans lose their body hair? Why did they start walking on their hind legs? Why did they develop big brains? I think that the answer to all three questions is sexual selection," Dawkins said. Hairlessness advertises your health to potential mates, he explained. The less hair you have on your body, the less real estate you make available to lice and other ectoparasites. Of course, it was worth keeping the hair on our heads to protect against sunstroke, which can be very dangerous in Africa, where we evolved. As for the hair in our armpits and pubic regions, that was probably retained because it helps disseminate "pheromones," airborne scent signals that still play a bigger role in our sex lives than most of us realize.

Why did we lose our body hair? Sex selection. Why do we retain some body hair? Yep, sex selection. Why do humans walk on two legs? Again, the same answer, sex selection. Why do dogs walk on all four? You guessed it, sex selection.

The same goes for human behavior. Hardly a week goes by that some newspaper or magazine article does not include a story claiming how “evolution” is the reason humans do X, avoid Y, or prefer Z.

Even scientists grow weary of hearing such faith claims presented as if was “science.” As Philip S. Skell, emeritus professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, notes in a recent edition of The Scientist:

…Darwinian explanations for [human behavior] are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self- centered and aggressive - except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed - except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.

Even those who flunked high school biology can see that when a theory can be used to prove any behavior that it ceases to be science and enters the realm of faith. Yet when evolutionists make such claims they are often flummoxed by the public’s skeptical reaction. They can’t understand how we could be so stupid as to not accept their claims. And we wonder how they could be so stupid as to think we are really that gullible.

Put your mental seat belts on, folks!

Irrespective of whether there is evolution, abiogenesis, or not...

...the universe obviously could not have created ITSELF.

It came from somewhere, right? Christians (and Jews, for we all agree on this matter) say that it came into being as a result of a Creator, who exists outside of the universe, and is eternal.

Even scientists agree that the universe is not, and cannot be, eternal.

Oh, they've tried--Oh! How they've tried!-- to make it an eternal universe!

An eternal universe, you see, would have no need of a Creator. That's what they want: They don't want to answer, to be accountable, to anyone. It comes down to personal hubris. It comes down emotion--they're own emotion--not fact. But I digress.

When I was a kid, they tried to foist the Steady State Universe theory on us. (A cyclic universe, one that wouldn't "need" to have ever been created. What a dodge, eh?)

It didn't work--results from Hubble and other observations with regard to cosmic microwave background radiation have now completely discredited that line of thinking.

What is not commonly known is that the chief proponent of that (now thoroughly discredited) theory, Sir Fred Hoyle, Director of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge, once made a comment to the effect that he favored such theories because he feared the implication of a Creator. I don't have it handy, but those of you who are more studied certainly know of it, and any of us could produce it if necessary. (Anyone want to challenge it? Gotta eat your flames if I prove ya wrong, buckos!)

Ok, so we've established that our Universe ain't steady state, ain't eternal, and had an origin in time.

Now, understand, that until about 1927 (or so), scientists since Aristotle had been claiming the universe was eternal.

Christians had argued for two millennia that, no, you're wrong, the universe was created at a definite point in time, and is finite in age.

Scientists argued for 2,000 years that it was eternal.

Guess who was right?

Comes along Georges LeMaitre and Edwin Hubble, upsetting the scientific apple cart. (Mind you, I support science, generally over my brother Christians, but in this case, I have to call the scientists to account and spank 'em.) LeMaitre proposes a Big Bang, scientists mock him, claiming that his stupid Big Bang proposal (he didn't call it that, btw) was merely a transparent ploy to put Genesis on a scientific footing.

In other words...scientists FOUGHT AGAINST THE BIG BANG THEORY! They did so...because they didn't want to support any theory that implied the existence of a Creator.

Today, no one seems to remember this.

Today, it's fashionable in science to postulate, without any evidence whatsoever, entire alternate universes, entire "other realities," other dimensions (they're up to 11, now!), String Theory and Brane Theory--another parallel universe smashing into our own, spawning all matter and energy into our own.

What the public doesn't realize is that there is NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THESE "PET" THEORIES, AND THAT ONLY A MINORITY OF SCIENTISTS EVEN SUBSCRIBE TO THEM.

Stupid, eh? I mean, it really sounds...well, stupid.

They're begging the question, and they expect to get away with it!

"Begging the question" is one of the many logical fallacies. They're beggin' it because, when you ask them--and it's legitimate to ask them--don't let them browbeat you!--"From where did our own universe come from?" they will beg the question by saying, "oh, it came from...this other universe, over here" but they can't (1) show where it is, as it only exists in their minds, and (2) if, indeed, our universe did come from there (and I'm actually not opposed to that idea, mind you!) they can't account for where that universe came from.

They're essentially appealing to something they feel they don't have to explain to us.

They accuse Christians (and Jews) of appealing to a Creator to explain those things they can't explain, and are QUICK to point out that we're committing a logical fallacy by appealing to an unknown authority.

...and I say: They're doing the same! Committing the same logical fallacy. Appealing to what they don't know, and have as little evidence for--even less evidence for, as it's only on a chalkboard, to be replaced by the theory du jour of next month.

At least our faith allows us to infer DESIGN from the abundant and rather obvious evidence for it!

So...if our universe were created by Brane Theory (an alternate universe "bumping" into ours), then what created that other universe? And what created the one after that, and the one after that?

One has to argue for the existence of a First Cause. That's what Christian theologians have argued for. Like Georges LeMaitre. There had to have been an "Uncaused Cause."

Since:

(1) I have never known a "thing" to have created another "thing," but only have seen living things create new things, and

(2) since only living things possess "intent" (and therefore able to impart designer's intent),

I would argue for the existence of a Creator. I think it's rational to believe in one.

Further support of this belief as a rational one is found in the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which I restate as follows:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Ontological Arguments for the Existence of God • Thomas Aquinas: Arguments for the Existence of God. • Proof of God by Kurt Gödel

From: W. L. Craig: “Professor Mackie and the Kalam Cosmological Argument,” in: Religious Studies, No. 20 (1985), p. 367.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument, as opposed to the Thomistic and Leibnizian, is one of the better-respected arguments for the existence of God. Because its validity is not controversial, because it aligns with the most prominent scientific theories of the universe, and because it agrees with general philosophical insight concerning properties of infinities, it is one of the more interesting pieces of religious philosophy. It can be stated as follows:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of existence.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(2.1) Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:
(2.11) An actual infinite cannot exist.
(2.12) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
(2.13) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
(2.2) Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition:
(2.21) A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
(2.22) The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
(2.23) Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

In my opinion, anyone who is not at least a deist, is a coward, and will never admit to the existence of a Creator.

Anyone who can't understand the Kalam Cosmological Argument--well, read it once, twice more. It's implications are that the universe MUST have had a beginning, and on top of that, it was a CAUSED beginning. The implications for some kind of Creator are very powerful.

That said, I think the existence of God is inherently not scientifically provable, though if one uses a courtroom standard of evidence, there is far more than enough circumstantial evidence to ascertain His existence.

My $0.02. YMMV (your mileage may vary).

I have been watching Dawkins and his ilk, and they're so full of fear of the implications that would follow the existence of a Creator that they're never going to acknowledge Him.

We could expand the argument, if you'd like:

BIOLOGY: Can't prove God, but there sure is an overwhelming mass of evidence supporting conscious design.
ASTRONOMY: Can't prove God, but we now know that the Christian thinkers of the last two millennia were right, the universe did have an origin.
CHEMISTRY: Can't prove God, but we are amazed at the remarkable characteristics of many molecules, and how if any characteristic were different...we couldn't exist. (Anthropic Principle, anyone? But it cuts for and against Christians, and doesn't prove a thing.)
PHYSICS: Can't prove God, but we are amazed at how "serendipitous" the universe is--stable, permits life--there are well over two hundred "coincidences" that have been cataloged, from the weak force to gravitational force, etc., any one of which would have precluded the development of Life.

Some mental food to think on: The Universe needs an "Uncaused Cause" in order to ever have existed. It's that simple.

Sauron

(A good link follows)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/hoyle.asp

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.