Intelligent Design....

Time Magazine came out with another subtle attack on Christian beliefs in their piece on faith and scientific progress, it is a radical condemnation of God-centered religion. The anti-religion position is being promoted with increasing insistence by scientists troubled by intelligent design and excited by their disciplines' increasing ability to map, quantify and change the nature of human experience. They have become so intelligent with the help of technology that they dont need God anymore and have started a war against him in any form such as intelligent design. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Scientist dont like it as it cannot be quantified and probed in the manner they are used to.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

Intelligent design is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. Intelligent design proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. This stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on experimentation to explain the natural world through observed physical processes such as mutation and natural selection.

Scientitst against intelligent design point to advances like brain imaging that illustrates the physical seat of the will and the passions, challenging the religious concept of a soul independent of glands and gristle. Brain chemists track imbalances that could account for the ecstatic states of visionary saints or of Jesus. Religion has been cast off and technology has become the new Bible leading the way.

They have become their own religion, Catholicism's Christoph Cardinal Schönborn has dubbed the most fervent of faith-challenging scientists as followers of "scientism" or "evolutionism," since they hope science, beyond being a measure, can replace religion as a worldview.

It is not an epithet that fits everyone wielding a test tube. But a growing proportion of the profession is experiencing what one major researcher calls "outrage" at perceived insults to research and rationality, ranging from the alleged influence of the Christian right on science policy, to the fanatic faith of Muslims, to intelligent design's ongoing claims. Some are radicalized enough to publicly pick on the idea that science and religion, far from being complementary responses to the unknown, are at complete odds.

Scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins, has just come out with a book called "The God Delusion", the rare volume whose position is very clear as to where it stands. His book attacks faith philosophically and historically as well as scientifically, but leans heavily on Darwinian theory, which is Dawkins' expertise and as an explicator of evolutionary psychology.


Dawkins and his peers have many theological opponents, the most ardent of these have issues with his science, and an argument in which one party stands immovable on Scripture and the other immobile on the periodic table, and foremost among them is Francis Collins. Collins' devotion to genetics is, if possible, greater than Dawkins'.

Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute since 1993, he headed a multinational 2,400-scientist team that co-mapped the 3 billion biochemical letters of our genetic blueprint, a milestone that then-President Bill Clinton honored in a 2000 White House ceremony. Collins continues to lead his institute in studying the genome and mining it for medical breakthroughs.

He is also a forthright Christian who converted from atheism at age 27 and now finds time to advise young evangelical scientists on how to declare their faith in science's largely agnostic upper reaches.

His summer best seller, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief", laid out some of the arguments he brought out and some excerpts are featured in Time's story.

Intelligent design proponents say that while evidence pointing to the nature of an "intelligent cause or agent" may not be directly observable, its effects on nature can be detected. Proponents of intelligent design regard it as a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes. Intelligent design studies the effects of intelligent causes and not intelligent causes per se. One cannot test for the identity of influences exterior to a closed system from within, so questions concerning the identity of a designer fall outside the realm of the concept.

The introduction of intelligent design makes the theory of evelotion a choice now instead of the only idea on creation. Why scientist and evolutionists fight against it, can't they allow for other ideas to exist or are they the new abitrators of truth. It seems that if they are not allow to control "truth" as they see it then they attack it to destroy it before it shows them to be just small minded pretentious defenders of evolution. Intelligent design must be debated and presented as a alternative and allow new students of the sciences make up their own minds as to what is truth and what is theory.

We must allow our minds to encompass all of the wonders of the vast universe and not let the mind police of these so called scientist and evolutionist shut us out of the full spectrum of truth so they can protect their shallow minded theories.

Here is some of Dr. Walter J. Veith writing on the issue (he used to be a evolutionist):
"Natural selection in itself is not a scientific principle, as it is based on circular reasoning. By natural selection, less fit organisms are eliminated and fitter organisms survive to propagate the species. Organisms thus survive the process because they are fitter, and one concludes that they are fitter because they survive.
The process operates by elimination not addition. In order for the fitter to survive, there must have been a less fit that did not survive. Natural selection does not create features, adaptations, or even life, it merely selects for the feature that provides greater survival value. The features themselves must still come into existence by random chance processes. Moreover, because the mechanism of natural selection operates by eliminating the less fit, it must eventually lead to less and less diversity unless the random chance "creation" of features outstrips natural selection in pace. This is an extremely unlikely scenario.
The question therefore arises, how can a mechanism that creates less and less, create more and more diversity? After all, this is what the evolutionary paradigm requires, in order for more and more complex diverse life forms to have evolved form a simple ancestor. If natural selection is to take the place of God, then it is a god of elimination. Platnick (1977) already wondered, if there is any difference in the noted evolutionist Ernst Mayr's concept of "an all-powerful natural selection" and that of an all-powerful Creator. (Mayr, Ernst. 1976. Evolution and The Diversity of Life. Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, Cambridge.) (Platnick, N.I. 1977. Review of Evolution and the Diversity of Life. Systematic Zoology 224-228)
A look at the palaeontological record will reveal a far greater diversity of life in the past than in the present. Moreover, as environmental pressures increase, more and more species are becoming extinct. Natural selection appears to be doing a good job at eliminating life forms and if given a little bit more time, might complete the job in the not so distant future. Thus, if variation did not come about by natural selection, the question arises, where did it come from? "

If you want to read the full text, email me at (omitted so as to stay within the rules) and I will get it for you....

We have been sharing his DVD videos and it has started a outpouring of the Holy Spirit on our church, everyone from the pastor, first deacon, head elder, first bottle washer.....has been amazed and I dont quite understand it but each video in the set seems to reach a different person, one here on evolution, another on creation, another on false doctrines, another on paganism........ It seems that there is a individual message for each person I give it too, and I hope and pray God is blessing his ministry as it is bringing our church back to life and energized in a manner that I would have expected from only the latter rain...