(Intelligent Design) vs (Darwinian Evolution)
Here is a question worth pondering: If a creature looks like a dog, barks like a dog, smells like a dog, feels like a dog, and pants like a dog, doesn't the burden of proof lie with the person who insists the creature isn't a dog? Generally speaking, the burden of proof lies with those who deny our natural intuitions about the world.
Still, as strong as our intuitions may be, they are not themselves enough to help people withstand the pressure in our culture from Darwinian naturalism. We must also advance a scientific case for design.
The intelligent design movement describes, "Life is too complicated to have arisen from natural forces, so it must have been designed." Nature exhibits patterns that are best explained as the products of an intelligent cause (design) rather than an undirected material process (chance and necessity).
Consider this, when archaeologists find an oddly shaped rock, they have two basic options: Is it a tool, or arrowhead(design)? Or is it merely an odd-shaped rock (chance and necessity)? Similarly, ripple marks in the sand can be explained by the fortuitous motion of waves, whereas "John loves Mary" written in the sand clearly indicates design.
Resource: Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language by William A. Dembski and Sean McDowell, p. 25-26
No comments:
Post a Comment