Another thought is confusion…
…over what to believe about God, Darwin’s theory and the apparent conflict between science and religion. However, both religious teachers and scientists use the term “creation” frequently. It is a word that helps convey the meaning that some force has acted on material substances to form something orderly; having a higher level of complexity than the substance from which it came.
When the word “creation” is put together with the word “science” it implies that there is purposeful, directed and often miraculous manifestation in the order of the Universe due to a super-natural agent like God. The concept of creation science is haply adopted by religious folk as a spiritual answer that explains the complexity of living things especially human beings; giving us hope, purpose and a destiny. Creation science is also a serious starting point used by some scientists to approach their field of study. They assume the Bible is without error in its revelation of God and his dealings with early man. Through a special people, the Israelites, a history of prophetic utterances were made to bring man into a joyful relationship with the Creator. Fundamentalists of every Christian denomination understand at least this much that through the Jew’s recorded history, the Bible, God fulfilled these prophecies through Yeshua (Jesus) the messiah and Savior of the world. Now, even 2000 years later, people of every nation have opportunity to be reconciled to God and are guaranteed eternal life through that reconciliation.
Why is this religious discussion important to a scientist? There are only two possibilities to explain the origin of all things. Either God is to be believed and scientific research should be expected to support His revelation or matter has an intrinsic property to self organize, the result of which has brought us to this moment in time thus far. In the last case we should also expect research to support this view.
A third option is to have no preconceptions either of materialistic or spiritual foundations but let the research lead the researcher to a logical conclusion. If the research leads to the conclusion that our observations demand an intelligence to explain the existence of data then God or someone like Him is a viable hypothesis. Further research should be done to test this hypothesis. If the evidence furthers the hypothesis of intelligence at work then God is at least one of the possible solutions. There remains the possibility that a plurality of intelligences were at work to bring about the existence of the material world. Much of this sends us to theology and a search for contacts and evidences that go beyond the physical world. This third option has been termed Intelligent Design Theory. It is an attempt to be realistic and honest (and rational) with the interpretation of the data, much of which concludes that no material explanation justly explains our observations. Rather than force the existence of imaginary chemistries (molecular evolution), improvable scenarios (evolution of life), mystical forces (dark matter, dark energy), unseen events (planetary collisions) and invoking a reversal of the laws of physics to create the sun and stars (fundamental gas laws) and call this valid science, intelligent design theory allows for science to consider all rationale possibilities. I.D., as it is labeled, does not fear conclusions that are sensible. It generally does not dabble in describing who the designer is but from the level of life’s complexity much can be inferred. Enough evidence has already accumulated in every field of science to make I.D. viable. Therefore creation by intelligent agent(s) suddenly becomes not a religious prejudice but a practical and formidable tool by which to approach scientific research.
I.D. uses the tools of reverse engineering to comprehend the world. If intelligence created the order we see then we should expect material to follow fixed laws in nature. We should be able to dissect cellular and organismal chemistry and predict functional pathways in the same ways we read blueprints. If the order of the Universe is irreducibly complex, we should be able to disassemble it in every way we would tear down an engine. Cures for disease should be solutions that fix the pathway in a logical and meaningful way; repairs that follow the designer’s intended blueprint.
Are you ashamed of creation science? Do you think I.D. is fraudulent science? Tell me one thing you know to be true about evolution. Show one gain of function that has been witnessed within a living population of any life form that wasn’t already in the blueprint.
This is the challenge of Creation. This is the beauty and purity of I.D. as a theoretical basis for scientific research.