Letter to the California State Board of Education:
For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without evoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world round us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.AN ESSAY ON SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN FAITHWhile the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion—that everything in the universe happened by chance—would violate the very objectivity of science itself.
Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system or the human eye?
It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happened by chance.
For me the idea of a creation is inconceivable without God. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be a divine intent behind it all.I'm impressed with the clarity with which he expressed these concepts which I never encountered until another generation had gone by and we had people like Michael Behe.Some evolutionists believe that the creation is the result of a random arrangement of atoms and molecules over billions of years. But when they consider the development of the human brain by random processes within a time span of less than a million years, they have to admit that this span is just not long enough. Or take the evolution of the eye in the animal world. What random process could possibly explain the simultaneous evolution of the eye’s optical system, the conductors of the optical signals from the eye to the brain, and the optical nerve center in the brain itself where the incoming light impulses are converted to an image the conscious mind can comprehend?
The strongest argument in favor of evolution is the "Emperor's New Clothes" argument: "You're a back-woods hillbilly if you don't believe in evolution." This is the single weapon that is pulled out on every occasion by the evolutionists. Yet how many of those who use that argument would want to place their resume next to Werner von Braun who is not only the "father of space travel," but apparently the "father of intelligent design" as well.
What you postulate appears to have been inacted on this thread. Ignore the message and destroy the messenger.
The source web page also has an excellent article on Gregor Mendel which is very much worth reading. At the same time that the charlatan Darwin was foisting his psuedo-science on the gullible, real science that has become the basis of real genetics, not the phony Darwinian kind, was being done by the Catholic monk Gregor Mendel. His years of dedicated scientific work and observation led him to genuine breakthroughs and allowed him to realize how false were the fairy tales for atheists being proposed by his contemporary, Darwin.