Spring Break
Weighing in on Design (vs. Darwinism)
Roger Parks, Contributing Writer
Issue date: 4/20/07 Section: Opinion
It's been a couple of days now since the controversial and oh-so-dangerous ("harming us with pseudoscience," to quote Ben Wells) conference on Darwinism vs. Design hosted by the machiavellian Discovery Institute at the invitation of Dedman Law School's Christian Legal Society. As an educated lay person (though not a biologist or anthropologist), I would like to respond to the hue and cry over the trampled rights and freedoms of materialists, agnostics and atheists everywhere.
Newsflash: Mainstream science has chosen, a priori, to ignore massive evidence (evidence, I said, not proof) of a designer, or creator, if you will. Arguments from design go at least as far back as Plato, predating Christian arguments by centuries (see "Teleological Argument" in Wikipedia, for example, for a helpful summary). To make the leap from "I accept no evidence that would point to a designer" to "Everything can be explained without invoking a designer" requires one to have one's head in the sand, or in some other location that does not receive much sunshine. I, for one, am weary of this arrogant stranglehold on knowledge, and science so-called, as if there were a single scientist or philosopher anywhere in the world who was there when it all happened (evolution, creation, the Big Bang) and saw God not do it!
This is not to dismiss evolution as an elegant and powerful theory, nor any other theory based on observation alone. It is only to call for a little humility in interpreting the evidence. And it is not my intention here to champion the Discovery Institute, per se, other than to say, "Thank God someone is stepping up to provide a little balance." One of its nefarious goals is to "drive a wedge" into "scientific materialism"? (To quote Ben Wells in Friday's Daily Campus, and the six "brave friends" in Tuesday's edition). It's about time. Bring it on. Scientific materialists have been force-feeding me their one-sided perspective on reality for way too long.
Point: If there is no creator, or if he (or she) set the universe in motion, then took a long vacation, what we observe around us is the best and only evidence we have for the origin of the Universe, the origins of species, etc. Counterpoint: If there is a Creator, then what we see around us is at best the debris of the creation event, whatever form it may have taken. Would you put much confidence in a Theory of French Cuisine based only on an analysis of the egg and flour spillage on the countertop and floor?
Newsflash: Mainstream science has chosen, a priori, to ignore massive evidence (evidence, I said, not proof) of a designer, or creator, if you will. Arguments from design go at least as far back as Plato, predating Christian arguments by centuries (see "Teleological Argument" in Wikipedia, for example, for a helpful summary). To make the leap from "I accept no evidence that would point to a designer" to "Everything can be explained without invoking a designer" requires one to have one's head in the sand, or in some other location that does not receive much sunshine. I, for one, am weary of this arrogant stranglehold on knowledge, and science so-called, as if there were a single scientist or philosopher anywhere in the world who was there when it all happened (evolution, creation, the Big Bang) and saw God not do it!
This is not to dismiss evolution as an elegant and powerful theory, nor any other theory based on observation alone. It is only to call for a little humility in interpreting the evidence. And it is not my intention here to champion the Discovery Institute, per se, other than to say, "Thank God someone is stepping up to provide a little balance." One of its nefarious goals is to "drive a wedge" into "scientific materialism"? (To quote Ben Wells in Friday's Daily Campus, and the six "brave friends" in Tuesday's edition). It's about time. Bring it on. Scientific materialists have been force-feeding me their one-sided perspective on reality for way too long.
Point: If there is no creator, or if he (or she) set the universe in motion, then took a long vacation, what we observe around us is the best and only evidence we have for the origin of the Universe, the origins of species, etc. Counterpoint: If there is a Creator, then what we see around us is at best the debris of the creation event, whatever form it may have taken. Would you put much confidence in a Theory of French Cuisine based only on an analysis of the egg and flour spillage on the countertop and floor?
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 28
Scott Rewak
posted 4/20/07 @ 2:37 AM EST
Back to the same tired "let's hear both sides debate." Once more, nobody is objecting to a debate on whether or not there is a God. The objection is as to the SCIENTIFIC LEGITIMACY of ID, of the which there is NONE. (Continued…)
Ben Wells
posted 4/20/07 @ 3:54 AM EST
Professor Parks,
I would like to clarify a few points you made in your article. I did not write my op-ed piece out of a belief that "the trampled rights and freedoms of materialists, agnostics and atheists everywhere" was an issue in the Discovery Institute's lecturing on campus. (Continued…)
kmac
posted 4/20/07 @ 9:15 AM EST
"Scientific materialists have been force-feeding me their one-sided perspective on reality for way too long."
You mean reality? Is that the one sided perspective you are arguing so poorly against?
"Darwinism has a 150-year head start!"
Intelligent design proponants have existed for as long as religious creation myths have existed, and there has been plenty of time to analyze these stories, in great detail. (Continued…)
Boo
posted 4/20/07 @ 12:15 PM EST
Newsflash: Asserting something is not the same thing as providing evidence. If ID advocates actually have evidence, they're doing an extraordinary job of keeping it under wraps. (Continued…)
Russell Allsup
posted 4/21/07 @ 3:41 PM EST
Ha-ha. I love reading Park's writings. They have so much energy to them. Keep standing against nonsensical, obloquial tirades.
Boo
posted 4/22/07 @ 4:20 PM EST
"ID has no "religious underpinnings." It is dishonest to say that it does. ID has (for some) religious implications, that come after the evidence. This is what naturalists get wrong every time, and why many of them refuse to take a look at the evidence. (Continued…)
MPW
posted 4/22/07 @ 11:25 PM EST
Mr. Parks: "One of its nefarious goals is to 'drive a wedge' into 'scientific materialism'? ... It's about time. Bring it on. Scientific materialists have been force-feeding me their one-sided perspective on reality for way too long. (Continued…)
Boo
posted 4/25/07 @ 12:11 AM EST
"Fine, you're a Christian. So am I. I cannot accept Darwinism, not because I am a Christian, but because of the evidence that exists. Darwinism's days are numbered. (Continued…)
Boo
posted 4/25/07 @ 12:59 AM EST
"Dembski is merely aknowledging that mind comes before complex organisms can exist."
If he wants to claim there is scientific evidence of this, the burden is on him to provide it. (Continued…)
MPW
posted 4/26/07 @ 11:33 PM EST
Re: Mark Bersch, posted on 6/25/07 @ 6:30 a.m. (Man, the comment reply function on this board leaves a lot to be desired.)
Mark sez: "It appears you don't understand the term "materialism" which is a philosophy, not science. (Continued…)
Post a Comment