Monday, September 28, 2009

Science (2 of 2)

Lesson 5b: Science

This week's continuation of the science topic leads us to keep the "big picture" ideas of the Truth Project in mind. What is true ... and what is the man-centered philosophy that constitutes the lies we see in the culture? Our study of science allows us to examine the "stuff in the box" to see if the Christian worldview holds up to these questions under scrutiny. What we find is a level of design in the creation that points clearly to the work of a Creator who fashioned this world and the life that inhabits it with and incomprehensible degree of complexity and order. Though these design inferences we make do not "prove" that the God of the Bible is the Creator (see last week's notes), they do show that life, and the design in the world that is needed to sustain that life, infers that the degree of care the Creator put into this creation is perfectly consistent with what the Bible teaches.

It is important to note that Intelligent Design is not a retreat to ignorance as its critics claim. It is not a way to throw our arms up in the face of all this incredible evidence and just say, "It's too overwhelming. We can't figure it out, therefore God must have done it!" Nothing could be further from the truth. Intelligent Design is an "inference to the best explanation." It is a recognition that, in our collective experience, the only kind of source for things like the information and design we see in living systems has been that such things originate from an intelligent mind. Studying the stuff in the box has done nothing but confirm that idea and undermine the naturalistic alternative.

Origin of Life The are several issues about how life originated on this planet that defy a naturalistic explanation. If you are interested in a little more detailed discussion of some of these you can go here: No Engines, or here: Origins of Life, but in a nutshell here they are: Darwinian Evolution Theory says that:

  • Life began in a "primordial soup," but modern science has shown that no such soup existed.
  • Natural Selection decides which forms of life are best suited for survival, but the origin of life scenario was a first event. By definition, natural selection had nothing from which it could select.
  • Life must have evolved gradually, but the actual evidence shows that life appeared instantaneously in the planet's geologic history.
  • First life must have been simple, but evidence shows that even the simplest forms of life are mind-bogglingly complex.
  • The presence of oxygen in the early atmosphere would have inhibited the formation of life, but without oxygen, life can also not sustain itself -- a classic "chicken-and-egg" scenario.
  • First life must have been able to self-replicate and metabolize, but doing so requires proteins and you cannot produce proteins unless you first have DNA -- another classic "chicken-and-egg" scenario.

The Fossil Record By Darwin's own account, the Earth should be littered with billions upon billions of "intermediates" or "missing links" that would show the gradual development of every form of life. Yet 150 years after Darwin's pronouncement about that, the "latest discoveries" are few and far between. When we look into the claims of the latest "missing links" they always prove questionable at best, faked at worst, or are later found to be undermined by newer discoveries.

In other words, a look at the evidence from the actual stuff in the box shows that Evolution does not pass the truth test. It does not correspond to the way the world actually is. Still, the mythology of Darwinism is perpetuated in our schools, in our books, and by a news media that is quick to jump on the naturalistic bandwagon. Intelligent Design is mocked and ridiculed as "not being science" simply because those who control the science cannot accept the implications and accountability that goes along with admitting that there may be something to the stuff outside the box.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Though I do not moderate comments, I reserve the right to delete any comment that I deem inappropriate. You don't have to agree with me, but I don't tolerate abusive or objectionable language of any kind.