• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

About Intelligent Design: Isnt Science Interested in Determining Causality?

Posted on: Thursday, 1 September 2005, 09:00 CDT

These letters are in response to the Aug. 27 editorial, The politics and science of intelligent design.

Stifling debate

Its terrible when a newspaper advocates shutting down debate.

The controversy is about causality, not religion. The debate is over what system of two competing philosophies will be used to interpret the ample evidence.

Only two rational possibilities can answer the causality question: an intelligent designer or some mindless, purposeless process called neo-Darwinism. Both possibilities are faith-based. Science cannot prove anything that happened once, eons ago. Problem is, neo-Darwinism wins by default because the only other alternative, intelligent design, is excluded from consideration.

Thinking critically tells us that if there ever was a moment in eternity past when absolutely nothing existed no matter, no energy, no God if you will, only absolutely nothing what could possibly exist now but absolutely nothing? For out of nothing, nothing can come.

Since when is science not interested in determining causality?

Carlton B. Rader

Suffolk

13.7 billion years ago

You say there is no scientific evidence that God created man in his image, as stated in the Bible, or that a designer created the world, and that belief in either story as fact comes from faith, and faith alone.

Evidence from NASAs WMAP satellite, gravitational lensing, etc., indicates the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Scientific evidence indicates the universe didnt exist until it sprang into existence 13.7 billion years ago.

There are 2 trillion billion stars in just the portion of the universe that is within 13.7 billion light years of Earth. Scientific reasoning should tell us that the universe, visible and beyond, with all its stars and planets, must have been created by a creator. If not, how did it all come to be?

Biological evolution explains why common pseudogenes and retroposons are found in humans and other primates, like chimpanzees, at the same DNA locations. The Genesis creation account helps to explain why we are here.

I believe the Genesis creation account and biological evolution are both true. Whats wrong with introducing these and other origin ideas to students?

Wayne Mckellips

Virginia Beach

Just a pile of fossils

You state that there is ample evidence that countless creatures evolved over time, from one form to another. However, the truth is that the scientific evidence is a pile of fossils found in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the Earth. How they got there or even how old they are is a great debate, but we will never know how or when, because we werent there. We can only speculate.

You also state that evolution can be seen in the laboratory. However, the truth is that evolution i.e., life springing from inanimate material has never been observed or duplicated, even in very controlled circumstances.

Finally, I note with amusement your editorial pages Frank Batten quote, stating your commitment to First Amendment freedoms, and yet your editorial advocates denying that very freedom to our up and coming scientists.

Larry Tate

Windsor

Lots of questions

Your editorial sounds so reasonable, but its not. The statement that no legitimate scientific dispute exists over the role of evolution and natural selection is stunning, and spoken like a true believer.

Since Im not a scientist and Im guessing neither is the writer of this editorial, let me ask a few questions:

* Do you really think the fossil evidence for macroevolution is strong? Do any good, clear, examples come to mind?

* Where does the information in DNA come from?

* Do you think there are no scientists who have expressed doubts about any aspect of the theory of evolution?

* Do you know that the theory of evolution is true, or do you believe it is true?

* Putting faith aside, is it totally unreasonable to think that, given the complexity of just a single cell, not to mention sight, hearing, smelling, the coagulation of blood, etc., there is at least a possibility that an intelligent being of some kind might have had something to do with all this?

Bruce Decker

Elizabeth City, N.C.

Source: Virginian - Pilot

More News in this Category