buy prednisone

Archive for the Category » Overview «

August 11th, 2008 | Author:

Much of the effort in Intelligent Design is aimed at demonstrating that it can and does have a place in scientific investigation. William A. Dembski does this in his book The Design Inference. But for the Creationist any rational discussion of the subject of Intelligent Design in the Universe must start with the Word of God. And the statement in Genesis 1:11: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself“, cannot be overemphasized,. Both the phrase “after his (its) kind and “whose seed is in itself” point to two important aspects of life and two major problems for evolutionary theory. The types or genus of living things are after their kind (see Paul Nelson’s article in Signs of Intelligence) Also the means for that life to continue is contained in the life itself and this for the evolutionist brings up the problem of beginnings. In order for natural selection to work and for the possibility for evolution to explain the complexity of life on this planet, there must be an initial living organism that could change (through selection and genetic mutation) and propagate itself. Nor must this “primitive” organism just have life, but it must be able to replicate itself. Cells from the “most primitive” organisms to the most complex replicate themselves through the same amazing process, that being cell division or mitosis. This incredible process is common to and required by every living organism known to man, including those speculated about by Darwin that were the basis for all other life. It would be more probable for a bus involved in a auto accident to be split into two mini vans than for this form of cell replication to have occurred by chance and yet it is postulated as fact by the evolutionists. This imaginary first cell of the Darwinian’s must have already had the capability to divide or it could never replicate itself. And if it did not do so by the means we know life to replicate itself today, it could not be the precursor to the life we see around us.

And even this level of complexity is not enough, but if natural selection is to “work it’s magic” this living thing must be able to adapt (or mutate). It must be inherently more complex than that which is able to sustain and replicate its own life. If not there is no method for it to change or “evolve”. For the evolutionist this life had to have just “showed up on the scene” pre-constructed and ready to go without the intervention of outside intelligence. Intelligent design is calling these monumental assumptions into question as good science, postulating they might be more accurately classified as religion.

As many have pointed out the knowledge of the mechanics of life in Darwin’s time was exceedingly crude. Microscopes could not even see into the cell to understand its workings. Darwin’s observations on natural selection were on a much broader scale, observing entire living organisms. With the increase in our understanding of the underpinnings of life Darwin’s observations become less and less adequate in explaining the ultimate origin of life, as we know it. We now know that even the most basic organisms are incredibly complex machines. The genetic code within living organisms contains data, so much data that Bill Gates referred to it as “far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created” in his book “The Road Ahead” and even the evolutionist Richard Dawkins referred to it as having as much information as “1,000 Encyclopedia Britannica’s” in his book the Blind Watchmaker. Every form of life in extent today uses the same complex system, with the same voluminous informational content. There are no vestiges of another “simpler” form that gave rise to the life in evidence now. Intelligent Design rightly recognizes that complex data alludes to a designer while the evolutionists are unsuccessfully looking for their answers in an alleged “primordial soup”. In the book Signs of Intelligence, a compilation of fascinating articles, Stephen Meyer shows the statistical dilemma resulting from this line of thinking.


Category: Overview  | Leave a Comment
August 11th, 2008 | Author:

Intelligent Design

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

God’s handiwork, His magnificent design, is clearly seen in His creation. For the Creationist this is self evident. But Intelligent Design and Creationism are not equivalent. Intelligent Design is a scientific methodology that detects and analyzes design in the universe. As a scientific methodology it does not, nor does it require the postulating of the identity of the designer, it merely identifies that design has occurred. This distinction is in keeping with the tenants of science.

One of the greatest things the Intelligent Design movement has brought to science is a “common sense” approach to the analysis of scientific data. For instance if one saw leaves and twigs scattered on the ground one would assume they had ben blown there by the wind or some other natural phenomena. But if those same leaves and twigs, etc. were sitting on a tree branch in a circular shape with a hollowed out center one would immediately conclude a bird had plied its skills in making a nest. It is common sense to understand that such things do not organize themselves in nature, since it has never been seen to occur. So we naturally suspect the bird. Intelligent Design asks the question “Why not apply the same deductive reasoning on the bird itself?” Are there aspects of the existence of the bird that lie outside the laws of chance in nature that would indicate the design of an outside intelligence? The answer to this question is yes, and Intelligent Design shows why this explanation is a better fit with the scientific evidence.

Category: Overview  | Leave a Comment
July 07th, 2007 | Author:

Creationism and Intelligent Design are hardly synonymous (and neither are an excuse to get “religion” back in the classroom).  For Intelligent Design Creationism is merely one explanation for the designer. From Creationism’s perspective Intelligent Design is a subset of a Creationist understanding of the origins of things. But Creationism can go far beyond Intelligent Design since all the information in the Bible is available to it.


Category: Overview  | Leave a Comment