Intelligent Design -V- Evolution

The debate over evolution and creation not only continues to rage, it is heating up. Some education boards and some state legislature are considering the teaching of Intelligent Design along with the theory of evolution. Naturally, the scientific world is up in arms, not to mention the ACLU. The evolutionists insist that the Intelligent Design theory is just a way to insert religion into school and claim that this is strictly forbidden by the constitution. Well, that is pure nonsense, but that is their argument.

On the Abrams Report on MSNBC the other night, Abrams had the leader of a scientific organization, an evolutionist, and a scientists who believes in Intelligent Design on his program. All the evolutionist could do is repeat the same mantra: “Intelligent Design is religion. It is not science!” To be honest, I got tired of hearing her say the same thing over and over again, and not offering one single logical argument. On the other hand, the Design scientist kept insisting that he was not seeking to teach the God of the Bible, nor to specifically identify the Intelligent Designer. However, what he stated was that scientists constantly see, recognize and admit that there is design in the world. In case after case, that design is so complex, so incredible, that there is no other way to explain it other than to admit that it was in fact designed. And, design demands a Designer.

An incredible new find is an example of this. Paleontologists have found the eggs of Pterosaurs, flying reptiles of long ago. When fully grown the adults would have had a wing span of 65 feet! Can you imagine that? Wow! Anyway, the scientists studying the bones of unborn pterosaurs have written of the incredible design features of these little beasts. They could have flown within days, if not hours of birth! The challenge of explaining how something like this could have evolved by accident is simply mind boggling, and unbelievable, literally. You can read about this discovery at

Anyway, what was so distressing about the Abrams program was the incredible bias of the scientist and of Abrams. At one point Abrams snobbishly said “Until I see something supporting Intelligent Design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, I am not going to believe it!’ The Design scientist retorted that he had written such a review in the Smithsonian journal of science! Abrams just dismissed it by noting that his article was ridiculed by the scientific consensus of the day, and therefore, not worth consideration. Ask yourself, how many times has the “scientific consensus” has been dead wrong? History is full of examples!!

Do you realize how prejudiced the scientific world is against truly honest, objective investigation of the world around us? It is illustrated in the statement of the evolutionist. She stated: “Science seeks for natural explanations of the world. Intelligent Design suggests that God is the explanation of some of the mysteries around us, but that is unacceptable!” Not her precise words, but close.

Do you see the horrible logical fallacy? “Science is looking for natural explanations for our world” Thus, by defining the scientific method as the search for “natural explanations” that excludes the consideration of a Designer, although they are forced to admit the reality of Design! That is illogical and blind. True science, objective science, honest science, would say, we are going to look for any explanation for the world around us. If our investigation demands a Designer for the design we see, then we will proclaim that fact. And of course, the truth is that “the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows forth His handwork”