Scopes 2005: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

The nation’s conglomerate of Darwinian disciples is currently in a state of panic. They are hanging in suspense, frozen in horror at the prospect that the youth of the nation might be exposed, via the public school system, to an idea that is different from that advanced by Charles Darwin, a mid-19th century naturalist from Great Britain.

It is the notion that all living creatures have evolved from an initial spark of life that accidentally generated itself from inorganic components a couple of billion years ago. No idea must even be entertained that is alien to this naturalistic concept — that “matter” is all there is, ever was, or ever will be.

In a Pennsylvania courtroom, the battle is being fought between the advocates of organic evolution and the proponents of “Intelligent Design.” The Darwinian Evolutionists maintain that the Universe commenced by accident; something came from nothing, or else “matter” simply always has been — in some form.

On the other side stands the advocates of “Intelligent Design” (ID). These are highly accredited scientists who contend that the constituents of biological life are simply too complex to have been thrown together by the “random forces” of nature (whatever those are supposed to be). Conveniently, these mystical forces may be dubbed the “Father Time plus Mother Chance” Theory.

The issue, then, chiefly is this. Should scholarly apologists for both views be allowed to advance their argumentation in the science curricula of the national education system? The Darwinist segment says, “No!” The “idea of ‘intelligent design,’” they allege, is not “science”; it is “religion,” and religion must not be taught as science.

It is curious that those who claim a modest quotient of intelligence seem to be unable to logically fathom the idea that if ID is “religion,” because it suggests the possibility of an “Intelligent Designer,” i.e., God, why it is not equally true that “Evolution,” which opts for strict “naturalism,” should not be recognized as “anti-God.” “Naturalism,” by definition, is “anti-supernaturalism.” How can it possibly be consistent to rule out an argument “for God,” but perfectly acceptable to protest “against God”? But then, one supposes, “logic” must not be allowed into the equation — for it is not science!

The Darwinian crowd insists that the subject of origins must exclude that which cannot be subjected to the scientific method, in brief — observation, verification, and either elimination or validation. Well, if one may borrow an old proverb, let’s see if the “sauce” that is good for the “goose” is also good for the “gander.”

A few years back, Science Digest published an article by astrophysicist, John Gribbin. The essay addressed the matter of the origin of life on earth. Let us reflect upon what the gentleman wrote, and evaluate it in the light of current demands that only a “scientific” view of life’s origin will be tolerated.

bq."Our ancestors fell to Earth from space after evolving in the warm, wet nucleus of a comet. Single-celled bacteria developed not in Earth’s oceans but in these cometary pools, feeding off the rich mixture of molecules present in interstellar clouds, blowing across the galaxy propelled by the pressure of starlight on their tiny cells and ultimately landing on our young planet.

“This startling scenario, suggested by Sir Fred Hoyle of the University College in Cardiff, Wales, and his colleague, Chandra Wickramasinghe, is part of a new theory about the origins of life that characterizes the Universe as a vast biological machine and comets as cosmological Johnny Appleseeds spreading the germ of life wherever they travel” (Science Digest, April, 1981).

This is “science” at its finest hour! “None of that ‘religious’ myth stuff for us. We pride ourselves in being scientific. We want nothing to do with the ‘God’ fanatics. We are ‘Johnny Appleseed groupies!’”

Where is the “scientific” data for this “spaced-out” theory? There is not a micro-molecule of evidence for this notion, but it may be entertained in the classroom, so long as it is divorced from any religious aura.

Is there anyone, with an ounce of organized “grey matter,” that cannot see the inconsistency in the Darwinian opposition to ID? Indeed, the utter hypocrisy of it all absolutely reeks.

The truth of the matter is this. The Darwinian crowd is terrified of what would happen if intelligent people were exposed to the argumentation of both sides of the controversy. Why not lay them down, side-by-side? Why not see what the evidence actually is, and logically analyze it?

Here is an interesting question: why is it that the ID people are perfectly happy to let both sides of the argument be heard, while the Evolutionists want only their position presented in science classes? Does that not speak volumes?

The answer is quite apparent. Some while back, a “science” propaganda sheet advised evolutionists to refrain from debating creationists. Why so? Among a barrage of slanderous charges was the rationale that the creation arguments tend to make an impression on simple-minded people who are unable to appreciate the complexity of the evolutionary case.

Yeah! Like the “Johnny Appleseed” argument. All that argument needed to make it complete was the preliminary, “Once upon a time ...”