3:31 p.m. PT: Intelligent Design (ID), an evidence-based, scientific theory of the origin of life, is one of many topics I intended to blog about but never got around to covering. Perhaps now that I’m off politics…
One doesn’t have to believe in the God of the Bible to hold the view that life’s complexity is evidence of an intelligent agent. The idea that an undirected, random series of events caused something as wonderfully complex, specifically magnificent, and infinitely beautiful as life is, to put it mildly, ludicrous. Living things look designed because they were designed.
Contrary to common belief, ID is not a negative argument against naturalistic evolution. It’s a positive argument for an intelligent designer based on observing the same informational properties in nature that are found in human-designed structures.
Darwinian evolution proponents twist themselves in knots trying to explain how something as complex and information-rich as a DNA molecule, for example, was the result of random processes. Utterly ridiculous. Information implies intelligence.
I’ve been in touch with several ID bloggers, intending to write this post or that article, and I look forward to reconnecting. In the meantime, check out a Christianity Today review of The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, authored by former atheist Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt. The book is a response to The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, famous naturalistic evolution proponent.
An excerpt from the review:
Dawkins next proposes that evolution shaped human brains to believe religious hypotheses (even though religion is itself not evolutionarily beneficial). McGrath is at his finest here, observing that while Dawkins is a scientist writing about religion, he fails to study religion scientifically. In fact, Dawkins does not even offer a rigorous definition of religion.
Like watching one schoolboy do another’s work, McGrath’s true gift is pointing out what Dawkins is obliged to show in order to make his case. Different propositions are, unsurprisingly, processed differently by the brain. So if Dawkins is to proffer religious belief as a byproduct of our evolution, it is incumbent on him to tell us what category religious statements belong to, what other sorts of statements religious thoughts may piggyback on, and how the brain processes them—none of which Dawkins seems aware he should provide.
ID blogs/podcast:
Related post:
