When looking for an explanation, is it not simply good practice to consider more than
one possibility? Of two explanations, one may very well be proven
wrong, eventually, and then the other would be more sure. And
yet in the case of the origin of life, only one possible
explanation is put forward in schools, and it is one that has not been proven.
Rather, it is one that has been proven to be very shaky indeed.
The refusal to consider
alternate explanations is dishonest, unwise, unbalanced, and just bad practice. And it's not just refusal. It is protest marches, court cases, hate mail...
it is pulsating forehead veins! I say stay this madness! Education has been
hijacked by the dogma of the staunchly irreligious.
Logic seems to
dictate loudly that intelligent design is not only a credible
explanation in talking about the origin of complex systems, but a far
more likely explanation than unaided evolution is. We must remember,
however, that they are very different types of explanation. While one
of them is purely based on science, the other admits that science alone
cannot always be used to prove what can be proven logically or
philosophically. But is it really so strange that a thing,
contemplating itself, is unable to explain its own origin using observation and analysis?
Why then such fury? Is it
anything more than a gross overreaction to the hint of a religious
flavor? It is a fury that causes evolutionists to become more narrow and
religious in their thinking even than their counterparts! For which is more narrow and dogmatic, to accept nothing but what the
scientific method can prove, or to accept some element of the
unexplainable? Is it more narrow to believe only in the natural, or
to leave room also for at least the possibility
of the supernatural?
But
logic gives the greater argument. Setting aside the question of life,
let us ask this: What complex system, showing clear order, do we know
of that did not come
about from something even more complex and orderly than itself? A
complex thing like a book can only exist because it came from a more
complex author. A complex ECG printout can only exist because it came
from a much more complex printer. A complex ant hill, can only exist
because it came from a much more complicated ant. What about a
beehive? A melody?
In
fact, we cannot find anything
complex and orderly that did not originate from something even more
complex and orderly, and with a specific creative intent.
It would be madness to try to explain a book by postulating that a
nearby printing press exploded, and the letters, ink and paper all
fell down together coincidentally, and in the right sequence to
produce intelligent text. It would be lunacy to try to explain a pop song
by postulating that there was an accident in the recording studio,
and all the instruments were knocked about while the record button
was pressed. It is madness and lunacy precisely because even the
dullest of us recognize the signs of intelligent design in literature
and music.
We
cannot find anything
complex and orderly that did not originate from something more
complex and orderly. And yet in the case of the most
complex and orderly thing of all, life, we are taught to believe that
the opposite is true. Even with absolutely no precedent, we are
taught to deny these clear principles. We are taught to believe that life did not originate from something more complex and
orderly, but instead that the universe exploded and that all the
pieces did indeed fall down together coincidentally and in the right sequence.
Is
this not simply madness? It may very well not
be madness, it may in fact be true. In the case of life, perhaps the
printing press may well have exploded to produce the book. But what
about the likelihood
of those two contrasting explanations? We are talking about
astronomical figures here. What sane person, finding a book, would
assume such a far-fetched explanation? And yet, this is how we are
taught to think!
Is
it the apparent absence of an author that leads men to think this
way? They look around, and see no obvious sign of an author (besides
life itself), and so they wrack their brains for centuries in order
to come up with any explanation that is at least feasible. And then they tell it to themselves for
centuries more, until they they actually believe it is true. That is
precisely our situation! Evolution may be feasible, but is it likely?
Is it not more likely that we simply have not found the author?
Actually,
it is not the apparent absence of the author only, but it is the
intentional unwillingness for there to be
an author that has caused us to take the most unlikely explanation
imaginable, and elevate it to the dogma of our age. Why? For many
reasons. For intellectuals, it is because believing in God means
accountability. For
non-intellectuals, it is because believing in God is so damn
unfashionable. Also, because religion through the ages has proven to
be so damning, men will believe anything to escape it. Is it really
so foolish to imagine God away for the sake of self-preservation?
But
intellectual honesty must at some point prevail. And even though we
may hate the idea, we must admit the obvious. As clearly as we know
that a beehive is the result of the intelligent bee, we can see that
life is also the result of something, or someone intelligent, beyond
our ability to fully explain or perhaps ever understand. Either that
is true, or we are betting on the feasibility of a theory with a
likelihood of somewhere between a number astronomically minuscule,
and zero.
So
why is there such vehement protest against the theory of intelligent
design? Why do we insist only on the dogmatic indoctrination of
evolution? Bias, nothing more.
SPF
