Intelligent Design

So how did he rub the A.A.A.of S. the wrong way?

He published a paper called: "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories". Read it on the Web - but be warned, its not easy reading.

Here's the problem. Meyer wrote: "An experience-based analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally adequate--and perhaps the most causally adequate--explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals and the novel forms they represent."

The American Association for the Advancement of Science has proclaimed that Intelligent Design is "unscientific by definition." How do they know that? Well, they just do - so there!

He upset fellow scientists by saying that religion and science were converging. Now he's been given the $1.5-million Templeton Prize on Wednesday for progress in spiritual knowledge. The L.A. Times quoted him as saying: "No greater question faced humankind than discovering the purpose and meaning of life - and why there was something rather than nothing in the cosmos."

So why is the theory of intelligent design not being taught to your high school student? The theory presupposes a Designer. We can't have that in a school classroom. Having come this far with Darwinism it would be unthinkable to abandon all we've gained just because the mounting evidence is going in the "wrong" direction. Teaching Intelligent Design is like thinking that "all people are created..equal."

Religion has been guilty of the same tactics. Its best illustrated by a pastor's visit to the Sunday School class. He began his talk with: "I'm thinking of a small furry creature with a long bushy tail. It jumps from tree to tree and gathers acorns for food. What is it?" Within the religious constraints of the class, a boy said: "Pastor, I know the right answer is Jesus, but it sure sounds like a squirrel to me!" The boy felt the pressure of dogmatics. Scientists feel it too.

Mr. Meyer sent his paper the Biological Society of Washington. It's a scientific journal affiliated with the Smithsonian Institute's National Museum of Natural History. An editor is out of work today because the paper got published.

Presumably at 89 Prof. Townes no longer cares about the coercion to conform. He believes it "extremely unlikely" that the laws of physics that led to life on Earth were accidental. Townes claims that the differences between religion and Science "are largely superficial". He adds: "The two become almost indistinguishable if we look at the real nature of each."

The heart that refuses to worship would prefer not to "look."

Here's a confrontational verse from the Bible: "The fool says in his heart: there is no God." The Bible isn't pretending it's easy to believe. It is however saying that in the light of the testimony of the natural world it's foolish to keep asserting we are here by chemical accident. Its like claiming that there's no square root of Pi just because there isn't as yet a definitive mathematical answer. Finding the root is based on an algorithm called Newton's method. The trouble with Pi is that the answer looks infinite.

My question to the scientist who rejects Intelligent design is this: "Just because the scope and complication of the universe - if it were designed, would require an architect of infinite wisdom and power, is that sufficient reason for the tiny human mind to reject the probability?"

Begin to pray. Not to get, but to reach out to God. The Creator longs for relationship with the created - that means God and you, perfect together!

Update: Bush endorses teaching intelligent design