Intelligence Requried to Undertand Intellegent Design
Tony Beam Dr. Tony Beam's Weblog
- 2005 Aug 08
This weekend I discovered a huge nest of wasps who had decided they really liked my front porch. Since the danger that many stinging insects posed was a real danger I decided they had to go. I poured half a glass of gasoline, stood a safe distance away and through the gas the next. My plan would have been huge success if I had actually hit the nest but all I managed to do was anger and stir up the wasps. They flew off in all directions looking someone, anyone to sting. I barely escaped only to return later after they had settled down and this time I successfully sent them packing.
The moral of the story is if you want to stir up a wasp nest just throw gas in their general direction without hitting them. If you want to stir up a nest of liberal scientists who believe Darwinism is more of a religion than a reliable theory just suggest that the universe might have come into being some other way.
When President Bush suggested Intelligent Design be taught in the public school system along side Darwinism, the liberals went off in every direction looking for someone to sting. Paul Krugman of the New York Times flew immediately in the direction of the nearest "creationist" accusing them of pretending to be engaged in science. He warns that the "political muscle of the religious right, may be enough to start a process that ends with banishing Dawin from the classroom."
It might be a good idea for Paul Krugman and other liberal pundits to do their homework before they consider any questioning of Darwin to be nothing more than right wing religious posturing. Recently in Greenville South Carolina a group of well-respected scientists came together for a forum titled, "Uncommon Dissent: Scientists Who Find Dawinism Unconvincing." These scientists had at least three characteristics in common. First, many of them were world renowned in their field if expertise. Second, they all agreed that Darwinism for purely scientific reasons is not a plausable theory, and finally not one of them claimed to be an evangelical Christian.
Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe author of the book, "Darwin's Black Box" made a compelling case for intelligent design by using Darwin's own words against him. Darwin once concluded "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." What Darwin was saying was that if there existed an organism which was "irreducibly complex" (that is to say it could not function without all of its parts working together) his theory would be disproved.
Since 100 years ago Darwin had no way to see inside a living cell he thought that cells were extremely simple...nothing more than a blob of protoplasm. Today we know that each living cell is an irreducibly complex molecular machine that simply could not have evolved piece by piece. Even when you consider the flagellum, which is attached to some bacteria like a tail, you have to marvel as the complexity of its design. The flagellum operates much like a tiny propeller requring dozens of precisely tailored, intricately interacting parts which just could not have evolved in a piece by piece fashion.
When I speak about the Christian Worldview I often touch on the importance of realizing the majesty and complexity of the world we live in. I often use the illustration of a family traveling to South Dakota for a vacation where their children see Mt. Rushmore for the first time. They would probably excitedly ask something like "Mommy, Daddy, how did the faces of those presidents get up there on the mountain?" I think even our children