CYPRESSWOOD CHURCH OF CHRIST
January 15, 2006
PETITIONS TO GOD:
Our congregation and moving to the end of the Various friends, relatives and co-workers
strip center
Our nation, military and leaders David and James in the military
Our students Anita is recovering at home
INTELLIGENT DESIGN
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
Recently in Dover, Pa., eight members of the local school board who supported teaching intelligent design in public schools were replaced in a November election. The news media stated that it was because of their support of intelligent design. This action prompted one prominent preacher to state that God would not bless Dover anymore. The Kansas state board of education has been under fire for some time because it too is suggesting that intelligent design could be taught in public schools. The powers that be in the scientific community as well as the two major universities in the state have stated that they would not accept the classes of any school that taught intelligent design. What is intelligent design and why is there all this controversy surrounding it?
What is intelligent design? “Intelligent Design holds that the universe and its living things are not simply the product of random chance; an intelligent cause is behind their existence” (Paul M. Weyrich, “Intelligent Design -- A Scientific, Academic and Philosophical Controversy,” The Free Congress Commentary, 12/08/05). Another definition in the same article quotes Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell: “the theory that certain features of the physical universe and/or biological systems can be best explained by reference to an intelligent cause (that is, the conscious action of an intelligent agent), rather than an undirected natural process or a material mechanism.”
By the above definitions, one can see how both secularists and Christians can read God into intelligent design. The group advocating this position is called The Discovery Institute. They have come together to study and make a scientific case for the acceptance of intelligent design. They want to reason from the available evidence that Darwinian evolution and its offshoots are not the only way to see the universe. Michael Behe wrote a book several years ago called Darwin’s Black Box. In it he argues that the cells and DNA of humans is so complex that if any one part is missing, the whole will not work. He compares it to a complex machine that only works if all parts are present. Philip Johnson, who is a lawyer, has written several books including Darwin on Trial, looking at the philosophical underpinnings of evolution. William Dembski is another leading advocate of intelligent design at Baylor who writes from a Christian perspective concerning intelligent design, which caused quite a stir several years ago when a number of faculty members opposed him. There are many scientists who are reading these and others and are coming to accept this view. A number are believers in God. One notable “convert” is the philosopher Anthony Flew, who sees something more compelling behind the universe and is now moved from atheism to deism.
The Discovery Institute has advised the Dover School Board not to push the teaching of intelligent design. They want to gain acceptance from the scientific and academic communities first. That will be a difficult road to follow. One famous atheistic scientist has stated that until intelligent design is given peer review, it should not be taught. The problem though is that the peer review people reject outright intelligent design as another name for creationism, and those who advocate it are attempting to get Bible teaching into the science class. Mr. Weyrich states that “It is too easy for undiscerning critics to lump Intelligent Design in with creationism.” Unfortunately when the media is so undiscerning and critical of anything Christian, this will happen. Alan Sears reports on the Dover school board changes that there was also a contract dispute between the board and the teachers union which we heard little about in the reporting. Even conservatives writers George Will and Charles Krauthammer have both criticized intelligent design in recent editorials which makes one wonder if they have really looked into it or if they have just read the media reports. And Rush Limbaugh accepts the idea that it is just another name for creationism, though he is not necessarily opposed to it.
Why is there such hostility to this view? I thought, as you probably have, that science was about finding facts, about drawing conclusions from the available evidence. It appears that science wants to close the door to any inquiry that does not go along with its evolutionary philosophy and preconceived ideas. Therein lies the problem. We are all affected by some philosophical point of view. I have often stated that what has gone before us has effected us today. That’s why I remind us of Nietzsche’s views, postmodernism, existentialism, and evolutionary philosophical thought as well as various thoughts on the early leaders of the Restoration Movement. Those who oppose intelligent design forget that they are affected by what they have been taught and chosen to believe. They have convinced themselves that Darwinian evolution is true, fact, and that no reasoning or idea will change that. That is why they see intelligent design as a disguise for creationism, which has been rejected outright.
When the Scopes Monkey Trial occurred back in 1925, the Christian view was dominant. Now that has been reversed and anything Christian must stay out of the schools and science. What this particular scientific philosophy has forgotten is that if it were not for Bible believers like Newton and Galileo, among others, observing an intelligent universe, there would have been an entirely different view of the universe. Today, many of us ordinary folk do not understand why intelligent design or creationism could not be mentioned in science classes to show that there is more than one way to look at the universe. What we see is an attack on our beliefs and on God, hence the cultural war that we are in with various worldviews.
What is the philosophy behind this opposition to intelligent design? This is a very basic view of this philosophy. One, man is an accident; we just happened, no God and no need of God. Two, man is an animal, no better or worse than any other animal. Hence animal rights arise out of this view so that the Thanksgiving turkey is seen as a holocaust. Three is the survival of the fittest. The strongest will survive while the weak perish. Much as they might not like to admit this, Nietzsche developed this idea from Darwin and that led to a very violent 20th Century in which 174 million people died at the hands of their own government, not in war but in peace (R. J. Rummel, his recent update after reading two books concerning communist China). We also see this idea of survival in the abortion industry (40+ million in the U.S. alone), as well as in the advocates of euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research.
There are other ideas that come into play in an evolutionary philosophy taught today. It ignores any moral values or consequences of scientific research boundaries. That is why we hear so much today about cloning, about harvesting sperm and eggs for research, about creating some type of life. Adult stem cell studies have led to advances in treating various illnesses and physical problems, but we hear little of that today. Don Ho, the Hawaiian singer (famous for the song “Tiny Bubbles”) just recently was treated in Thailand with stem cells from his own blood for a heart problem. At home recovery, he said it was the best thing he could have done. What do we hear much about? Embryonic stem cells is the “magic cure” if only there was enough money for research. Well, research has been going on and no advance has been found; rather these stem cells have been found to be unstable and destructive. Because of Hollywood figures as well as some politicians, this effort will continue, and because of a lazy media, it will be seen in the headlines anytime they can make a case for a certain politician or hurt another. With no morals or values, research will continue, no matter how destructive it is to life. Just consider the sperm banks we hear about. Women not wanting a husband but children go and have a baby. Sounds good. But now those children are aging to the point that they are asking about their dads, where they came from, what is in their human past; and the banks don’t have the answers. These children are left as islands in a sea of selfishness. We also see the same type of resistance in the abortion industry. Medical advances in sonograms and surgery on babies in the womb show that there is life there. That is why the abortion advocate uses “fetus” instead of baby because otherwise it will be seen as life and they could not get what they want.
Finally, the Darwinian evolutionary philosophy is hostile to God and to anything in the Judeo-Christian ethic. Like other secularists, they do no want anything from this perspective taught. Why not? It challenges them and their limits. The realization is that if there is a God, then there is right and wrong. If there is a God, then He is King and they are not. They have power and they want to hold on to that power. Like Herod, they will destroy any “child” who threatens their throne. If Jesus is Lord, then they are not. All of this should sound familiar because we see it in New Testament days when the gospel was challenging the powers that be; Rome in particular.
How should we approach all of this? We do it by carefully reasoned arguments. We need to know what we are talking about. We do it by living faithfully before God no matter what the secular community thinks. We live radically, loving those who hate us, seeking what is best for them. We pray. We live a humble life before all. Would I like to see talk about God and creation in the public schools? Of course. But it will be better if it came from those who believe and not from forced laws or requirements. Like communism, the scientific, evolutionary community thinks it can eliminate God from peoples minds; but as long as there are believers who live Jesus Christ before their peers, it will not happen. Poll after poll finds that a majority of Americans believe in God and in the Genesis account of creation despite decades of evolutionary teachings in public schools. Those who think they rule really do not.
I hope this helps a little. I like what the intelligent design movement is saying. One final point. They will not argue about the age of the earth. They do not think this is a worth while effort in convincing people about intelligent design. There focus is on the complex ideas found currently in research. I think this is a wise decision. We can distracted by things that we just cannot nail down.
George B. Mearns