A Case for Intelligent Design
by Robert Driskell 2/04/2011 / Christian Apologetics
Evolution scientists say that the human race evolved over millions, perhaps billions, of years from simple organisms into more complex organisms through a concept often referred to as the "natural selection".
However, the scientist's very own second law of thermodynamics negates that theory by stating that "...the total amount of entropy in nature is increasing. Entropy is the measure of randomness and disorder in a system. Put simply, the second law of thermodynamics means that things run down. They wear out. Systems left to run on their own always evolve from order to chaos, and never the other way around." (MacArthur, John. p.180)
So these scientists, on one hand, say that we came into existence by a process of evolving from simple forms to more complex forms, by changing from a chaotic system into an ordered one, and moving from a state of randomness to a more organized state. However, on the other hand they assure us, with the second law of thermodynamics, that this could not be the case.
Either there was a force that not only put creation into motion but also oversaw and guided it, or the universe, and life as we know it, materialized accidentally. Scientific laws dictate that the former is the only logical conclusion.
"The hypothesis that the earth is billions of years old is rooted in the unbiblical premise that what is happening now is just what has always happened. This idea is known as uniformitarianismnaturalism itself is a religious belief. The conviction that nothing happens supernaturally is a tenet of faith, not a fact that can be verified by any scientific means. Indeed, an a priori rejection of everything supernatural involves a giant, irrational leap of faith. So the presuppositions of atheistic naturalism are actually no more "scientific" than the beliefs of biblical Christianity." (MacArthur, John. pp. 50-51)
"Science can only deal with present processes, to which alone it has access. It should be completely clear to all who are not willfully ignorant that the universal processes of conservation and disintegration could never produce a universe requiring almost infinite processes of innovation and integration for its production." (Morris, Henry. pp. 80-81)
How Life Began
How did life initially begin? Scientists use the idea of time, millions or billions of years, to explain how life began from nothing. Is it reasonable to believe that life began by accident? Could nothing plus nothing equal something?
"This, by the way, represents one of the inexplicable steps of creation that evolution simply cannot explain by any reasonable theory: the generation of life from that which is inanimate. As author and biochemist Michael Behe has pointed out, evolution can deal only with "systems that are already working." By definition, that which does not function simply cannot "evolve." It is therefore impossible for inanimate matter to produce biological systems by "evolution." Before any evolution can occur, some type of living organism would first have to be produced directly and immediately. In Behe's words, even in an evolutionary framework, the original biological system could not have been produced gradually. "It would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to work on." So evolution utterly fails as an explanation for how life came about. (MacArthur, John. pp.97-98)
True science is based upon empirical evidence, facts, testing, and results. No human was present when the universe was created. Therefore, everything we know is supposition and hypothesis based upon what we can deduce from the things we now observe. However, many scientists begin with a pre-supposition that excludes the supernatural, so they MUST explain everything by natural processes.
"The conflict is not between science and Scripture, but between the biblicist's confident faith and the naturalist's willful skepticismTo many, having been indoctrinated in schools where the line between hypothesis and fact is systematically and deliberately being blurred, that may sound naïve or unsophisticated, but it is nonetheless a fact. Again, science has never disproved one word of Scripture, and it never will. On the other hand, evolutionary theory has always been in conflict with Scripture and always will be. But the notion that the universe evolved through a series of natural processes remains an unproven and untestable hypothesis, and therefore it is not "science." There is no proof whatsoever that the universe evolved naturally. Evolution is a mere theory-and a questionable, constantly changing one at that. Ultimately, if accepted at all, the theory of evolution must be taken by sheer faith." (MacArthur, John. p. 28)
In the spirit of fairness, if both evolution and creation are technically theories or hypotheses, should not both at least be presented to students? It seems intellectually dishonest to present only one side of an argument.
MacArthur, John F. The Battle for the Beginning. Thomas Nelson, 2001.
Morris, Henry. The Genesis Record. Creation-Life, 1976.
Seeking to introduce people to Jesus Christ and to help them become "transformed by the renewing of their mind."