Spring Break
Proponents of creationism don't have a hidden agenda
Issue date: 11/5/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
Editor,
Regarding the debate about intelligent design, and specifically Mark Erasmus' letter printed in the Daily Lobo on Friday, the question is not whether intelligent design is real science. The question is what do we do with the intelligent design we observe in nature?
Michael Behe and William Dembski are not necessarily interjecting religion into the debate, but they are addressing the elephant that is sitting in the middle of the room. Erasmus did not deny the existence of design in nature, because intellectually, he cannot. It is there. And for evolutionists, it is a problem.
How can something that is so intricate and complex in its natural state - the human genome, for example - have come about by random processes? There have been proposed solutions such as punctuated equilibrium posited by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. One other possible solution is intelligent design as posited by Behe, Dembski and others. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but to dismiss these latter gentlemen as people with a hidden agenda is rather foolish, as most of them are scientists and researchers highly respected in their fields.
It would be just as foolish to dismiss Gould because he is an atheist. As to Erasmus' argument that intelligent design is by nature seeking the supernatural, I would argue that evolutionists are continually avoiding it and perhaps wishing the argument would go away. Many evolutionists, such as Gould, are atheists, and they approach and apply their theories from this bias. But if to acknowledge the existence of God is to enter the realm of religion, then to deny the existence of God is doing the same. If science is truly objective, then it should look at all the facts coldly and consider all possible solutions. It is my argument that there is evidence of a creator all around us. And I have it on good authority that he isn't going anywhere.
Shay Talley
Daily Lobo reader
Regarding the debate about intelligent design, and specifically Mark Erasmus' letter printed in the Daily Lobo on Friday, the question is not whether intelligent design is real science. The question is what do we do with the intelligent design we observe in nature?
Michael Behe and William Dembski are not necessarily interjecting religion into the debate, but they are addressing the elephant that is sitting in the middle of the room. Erasmus did not deny the existence of design in nature, because intellectually, he cannot. It is there. And for evolutionists, it is a problem.
How can something that is so intricate and complex in its natural state - the human genome, for example - have come about by random processes? There have been proposed solutions such as punctuated equilibrium posited by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. One other possible solution is intelligent design as posited by Behe, Dembski and others. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but to dismiss these latter gentlemen as people with a hidden agenda is rather foolish, as most of them are scientists and researchers highly respected in their fields.
It would be just as foolish to dismiss Gould because he is an atheist. As to Erasmus' argument that intelligent design is by nature seeking the supernatural, I would argue that evolutionists are continually avoiding it and perhaps wishing the argument would go away. Many evolutionists, such as Gould, are atheists, and they approach and apply their theories from this bias. But if to acknowledge the existence of God is to enter the realm of religion, then to deny the existence of God is doing the same. If science is truly objective, then it should look at all the facts coldly and consider all possible solutions. It is my argument that there is evidence of a creator all around us. And I have it on good authority that he isn't going anywhere.
Shay Talley
Daily Lobo reader
Anonymous posts are no longer allowed. They will not show up.
You must be logged in to post!
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 22
Erik in SF
Erik
posted 11/05/07 @ 1:08 PM MST
"How can something that is so intricate and complex in its natural state - the human genome, for example - have come about by random processes?"
This statement seems to sum up the sole argument for ID. (Continued…)
mastada007
M. Erasmus
posted 11/05/07 @ 6:23 PM MST
I am intellectually denying "design" in nature. That is specifically what my article addresses. You do not bring a single ounce of intellectual capacity by simply saying that it is "designed". (Continued…)
mastada007
M. Erasmus
posted 11/05/07 @ 6:43 PM MST
One more thing. The extent of your argument is, biology is complex, therefore it is designed. Now THAT is ignorant! Oh, and Santa Claus is at your door. (Continued…)
rippsfan
jr
posted 11/06/07 @ 12:31 AM MST
I have just one question for Mr. Erasmus. In your opinion, is there any meaning or purpose to your existence?
mastada007
M. Erasmus
posted 11/06/07 @ 6:29 PM MST
Ok, now I feel bad because my mom (staunch Catholic) says that same question to me rippsfan. So, for being condescending, I apologize. You are free to believe whatever you wish. (Continued…)
garand
Jesse
posted 11/07/07 @ 6:08 PM MST
Well Shay, the scientific method requires any hypotheses or theories to be falsifiable. That rules out supernatural explanations, and Intelligent Design is a supernatural explanation. (Continued…)
Lee Bowman
Lee Bowman
posted 11/08/07 @ 9:08 PM MST
QUOTE: "Well Shay, the scientific method requires any hypotheses or theories to be falsifiable. That rules out supernatural explanations, and Intelligent Design is a supernatural explanation. (Continued…)
Post American
Post American
posted 11/09/07 @ 4:02 PM MST
Things become both more complex (simple hydrogen stars becoming more complex helium+ stars, simple self-reproducing chemicals becoming multicellular organisms) and simpler (house cats have slightly devolved from wild cats, having smaller brains; stars blow up into random scattered bits). (Continued…)
mastada007
M Erasmus
posted 11/09/07 @ 8:38 PM MST
Since an emotion is experienced as an immediate primary, but is in fact, a complex derivative sum, it permits men to practice one of the ugliest of psychological phonomena: rationalization. (Continued…)
Lee Bowman
posted 11/10/07 @ 2:41 AM MST
[erasmus] "Wrong, if you are familiar with genetic engineering, there is still much randomness to the way codes are read, for example; what is the purpose to exons?"
Our genetic engineering is at an early stage. (Continued…)
Post a Comment