|
|
|
|
T W I N
C I T I E S
C R E A T I O N
S C I E N C E
A S S O C I A T I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE HYPOCRISY OF OPPOSING INTELLIGENT DESIGN
October 3, 2005
An article in the Pioneer Press October 3 by Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr. compares people who don't believe in Darwinian evolution to people who believe that the Ku Klux Klan was a positive organization formed to save the South from corrupt black governments and restore decency. This absurd analogy is insulting more to the intelligence of any reasonable person than it is to the proponents of teaching Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution as a theory of the origin of life. Evolution is a theory that is based on a 19th century understanding of biology. It is debatable whether evolution belongs in the category of science as opposed to philosophy or religion, as some of its basic ideas are not only unproven, but are arguably impossible. For example, there is no proof that random mutations have the capability to cause an organism to change from one species to another, even allowing for the leap of faith of millions of years to overcome the odds. As Michael Behe wrote in his book, "Darwin's Black Box," living organisms are so "irreducibly complex" on the molecular level that it is impossible for enough gradual changes through mutations to occur to produce the number and kind of changes required to lead to different species of life.
The reality is that when science teaches an unproven theory as science and rejects any scientific criticism of the naturalistic explanations for the origin of life, that science has become less scientific and more akin to a religion or philosophy of sorts. Mr. Pitts rests his beliefs on popular opinion based on the "overwhelming consensus of the mainstream scientific community," which appears to contradict his own personal belief in God as the "sovereign author of creation." Scientists also once believed that the earth was flat but that is no reason to cut off the debate. It seems that the proponents of teaching Intelligent Design as a theory are the ones with open minds. They propose teaching it honestly as an alternative theory. They are basing their theory on science and logic, in contrast to the blind acceptance of the opinion of the majority. Isn't it really the evolutionists who are trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us and not the other way around?
Paul Baertschi, Attorney
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|