First Person Life

2006-01-03

Will Intelligent Design Win?

I can't agree at all with Nancy Pearcye's article Why Intelligent Design will Win. Her final reason is the downfall of her entire argument:
Which suggests the final reason ID will win--because it accords with the ideals of a free and open society. In our pluralistic age, schools should train students in critical thinking to prepare them to engage respectfully and intelligently with a wide range of worldviews, both religious and secular. Yet under current rules, public schools may present evidence for scientific theories that imply a strictly materialistic or secular worldview, while they are not allowed to present evidence for scientific theories that imply a non-materialistic or religious worldview (though the latter may be mocked and ridiculed, as the KU course proves).


[MORE]
The reality is that Intelligent Design will not "win" so long as the scientific community is more interested in overt atheism than they are academic honesty. If the scientific community were truly interested in seeking the truths of the universe, they would seek where evidence leads. However, they are deluded by their "naturalistic" presuppositions.

The truth is that the scientific community has constructed an alternate universe that operates on its own rules. Since the courts will always concede that the scientific community can define what is and is not science, Intelligent Design will never get past "go" in any court. It is no longer about "science" it is now about "religion."

The religion of the scientific community is institutionalized atheism. This can be seen in the National Academy of Sciences publications especially as they relate to evolution.

The fact is that evolutionary science is no less "religious" in its faith based character than is creationism. Neither can be definitively proven and are built upon presuppositions which are taken by faith. Evolution takes it on faith that the "natural world" operates by a process of slow changes with all existing forms built upon forms of the past. This is a religious presupposition. The fact that it does not command a belief in a metaphysical reality doesn't negate that.

The scientific world can define what "science" is and isn't -- and that's fair. But let's not allow them to define what religion is and is not.

The Christian world view posits that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That is, there is ONE reality, ONE truth. God is the creator and author of both. Some 10,000 "Christian" Clergy have allowed themselves to be deluded into believing there are two truths, one spiritual, the other physical.

Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is ONE Lord!

------
Thanks to Dr. Veith for pointing out the article.

Technorati Tags:

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home