By Burt Jones
I would like to approach this never- ending discussion concerning the intelligent design vs evolution question, not as a gospel preacher, nor as a Christian. Rather, let us examine this strangely popular viewpoint simply as a curious soul seeking information. Never mind the fact that classic evolution remains a theory, not a fact or law; there still are many serious unanswered questions about its validity.
The very fact that communities all across our nation are debating the issue of evolution vs. intelligent design is all the more reason to dissect these thoughts with both students and citizens. They should not, in the name of liberal thought, be “protected” from the debate.
From the intelligent design view, there is sometimes an anxiety about evolutionary theory that makes many people want to trash it. Nevertheless, to deny us, in the name of science education, information about alternative viewpoints to evolution is to treat us as unable to make assessments of our own about one viewpoint vs. the other. Friends, that is not education; that is indoctrination! And to defer to the courts and to a judge in a cientific debate is rather ludicrous; to resolve the issue in that manner questions whether we, as a society, are sincerely searching for truth.
Dr. Brad Harrub, a strong defender of Bible truth, recently told me that, “Researchers are not going to allow acts of kindness to be reduced to ‘love and cooperation’ because that would collapse their evolutionary underpinnings.” Evolution cannot explain acts of kindness and altruism. How is this truth ruled upon in a courtroom?
While we recognize that microevolution small changes within a species does occur, the organic (general) view of evolution still has enough unanswered questions to fill several large volumes. It is not a proven fact. And debaters of the issue surely must concede there is ample scientific evidence (astronomical observations, biological research) that nurtures the conclusion of “irreducible complexity”—pushing us to at least give consideration to intelligent design as an explanation of those observations.
These are not religious fanatics orignorant clods attempting to brush hayseed from their hair. These are reputable university professors. From the biochemical side, Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University explored the utter complexities of our immune system, the coagulation system of blood, our color vision, etc. arguing the statistical impossibility that those systems could have developed by chance,as I read a few years ago in a book, (Darwin’s Black Box, 1996).
From the cosmic vantage point, Drs. Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richard produced a book and accompanying video viewed by this writer some years ago on the Discovery channel. They brazenly deny the evolutionary idea that our Earth is just one among many earths. They suggest that the evidence points to its utter uniqueness. Now, these are peer- reviewed scientific authors, not casual inquisitors. Shouldn’t their observations be given fair treatment in textbooks?
When those of us as preachers, elders, personal workers, leave the room of a brand new mother who has just given birth to a healthy infant with all systems “Go,” we often leave the hospital repeating, “that makes evolution laughable.” The very existence of life is a major stumbling block for evolutionists. If by evolution we mean some chance emergence from a formless slug on the ocean floor eons ago, then I must respond as we used to say in my home state of Alabama, “You can’t get here from there!” And so, as a Christian, with the very real promise of heaven, I say, let the debate rage on. We need not attempt to legislate the conclusion. Too many societies have done just done that. What are they afraid of? Let young, intelligent souls hear the whole range of ideas. Let them ponder what they have heard and hear. Let them weigh the evidence and then let us more fervently quote that Old Testament Scripture, “In the beginning God…” (Genesis 1:1).
