RSS Feed (xml)

Powered By

Skin Design:
Free Blogger Skins

Powered by Blogger

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

article : Understanding Intelligent Design Theory

by Babu Ranganathan
January 19, 2008 01:00 PM EST

Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed so that they can
make other robots just like themselves from raw materials.
Now, imagine an alien visitor coming to the planet and, after many
years of studying these robots, coming to the conclusion that since
science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce
there's no reason to believe that there was an ultimate intelligent
designer behind them.

The analogy above certainly is not perfect but it is sufficient to
reveal the fallacious thinking of those who attack intelligent design
behind life and the universe.

Chance physical processes can produce some level of order but it is
not rational to believe that the highest levels of order in life and
the universe are by chance. For example, amino acids have been shown
to be able to come into existence by chance but not more complex
molecules or structures such as proteins which require that the
various amino acids be in a precise sequence, just like the letters in
a sentence. If they're not in the right sequence the protein molecules
will not function. A single cell alone has millions of protein

There is no innate chemical tendency for the various amino acids to
bond with one another in a sequence. Any one amino acid can just as
easily bond with any other. The only reason at all for why the various
amino acids bond with one another in a precise sequence in the cells
of our bodies is because they're directed to do so by an already
existing sequence of molecules in our genetic code. Without being in a
proper sequence protein molecules will not function.

The sequence of molecules in DNA (the genetic code) determines the
sequence of molecules in proteins. Furthermore, without DNA there
cannot be RNA, and without RNA there cannot be DNA. And without either
DNA or RNA there cannot be proteins, and without proteins there cannot
be DNA or RNA. They're all mutually dependent upon each other for

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A
partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become
complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate
in the open environment, especially without the protection of a
complete and fully functioning cell membrane.
Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic
progam and higly complex biological mechanisms exist to direct the
formation of more cells. The cell's genetic code and biological
machinery will use and direct the raw materials, entering the cell
from the environment, into forming more cells. The question for
evolutionists and naturalists is how did the cell or life come about
when there was no directing mechanism in Nature.

If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to
meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say
about the origin of the genetic code itself!

Contrary to popular belief, scientists have never created life in the
laboratory. What scientists have done is genetically alter or engineer
already existing forms of life, and by doing this scientists have been
able to produce new forms of life. However, they did not produce these
new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do
produce life from non-living matter it won't be by chance so it still
wouldn't help support any argument for evolution.

Even in the recent case, as reported in the news, involving the
creation of what is called synthetic (or artificial) life, scientists
don't actually create or produce life itself from non-living matter.
What scientists do in this case is create (by intelligent design)
artificial DNA (genetic instructions and code) which is then implanted
into an already existing living cell and, thereby, changing that cell
into a new form of life. And, again, even if scientists ever do create
a whole living cell from scratch (and not just its DNA) it still would
not be by chance but by intelligent design. Synthetic life is another
form of genetic engineering. But God was there first. Remember that!
The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the
probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming
into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a
junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!
Considering the enormous complexity of life, it is much more logical
to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between all
species is due to a common Designer rather than common evolutionary
ancestry. It is only logical that the great Designer would design
similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for
different purposes in all of the various forms of life.
What if we should find evidence of life on Mars? Wouldn't that prove
evolution? No. It wouldn't be proof that such life had evolved from
non-living matter by chance natural processes. And even if we did find
evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our
very own planet - Earth! In the Earth's past there was powerful
volcanic activity which could have easily spewed dirt containing
microbes into outer space which eventually could have reached Mars. A
Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this

We know from the law of entropy in science that the universe does not
have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. It
requires a beginning. But, we also know from science that natural laws
could not have brought the universe into being from nothing. The
beginning of the universe, therefore, points to a supernatural

Even the scientific followers of Prigogine, the father of Chaos
theory, have admitted that only a very minimal level of order will
ever be possible as a result of spontaneous or chance processes.
Those advocating the teaching of intelligent design are not demanding
that Darwinian theory no longer be taught. Rather, the advocates of
intelligent design want the merits of both theories taught side by
side when the issue of origins is covered in science classes and
textbooks. This is only fair.

Science cannot prove how life originated since no human observed the
origin of life by either chance or design. Observation and detection
by the human senses, either directly or indirectly through scientific
instruments, is the basis of science and for establishing proof. The
issue is which position has better scientific support. Both sides
should have the opportunity to present their case.
What we believe about life's origins does influence our philosophy and
value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no
small issue!

Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe
operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational
to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws
of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?
Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the
universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected
natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.

If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to
Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to
scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by
chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but
scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.
All of this simply means that real science supports faith in God.
Science cannot prove that we are here by chance (evolution) or by
design (creation). However, the scientific evidence can be used to
support one or the other.

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be
presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in
public schools which receive funding from taxpayers who are on both
sides of the issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or
adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of
separation of church and state.

The best little article ever written refuting the origin of life by
chance is "A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible"
by scientist and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish. Dr. Gish presents
"simple" but profound scientific barriers to evolution of life which
aren't mentioned or covered in Johnny's high school biology textbook
or in college textbooks for that matter. This article is truly great!
Dr. Gish's aricle may be accessed for reading at:
where also links to other articles may be found.

Trust me, Dawkins and all the evolutionists put together can't hold a
candle to the scientific genius of Dr. Gish. Just read one of Dr.
Gish's books and you'll see why. Dr. Gish has successfully debated
hundreds of evolution scientists in secular colleges and universities
across the nation over the past two decades, and students have
consistently voted him the winner in all of those debates. Don't try
looking for this news in the main stream media. You won't find it
there anymore than you'll find a half-evolved chipmunk running around
in your backyard!

There is, of course, much more to be said on this subject. Scientist,
creationist, debater, writer, and lecturer, Dr. Walt Brown covers
various scientific issues ( i.e. fossils, biological variation and
diversity, the origin of life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the
issue of vestigial organs, the age of the earth, etc. ) at greater
depth on his website at Another
excellent source of information from highly qualified scientists who
are creationists is the Institute for Creation Research
(http:// in San Diego, California.

No comments:

Search by Google

Custom Search

Search Engine Optimization - AddMe

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner