Design or Accidents?

The basis for scientific investigation is the belief that some pattern of design and order can be found in the natural world. This view is held by all scientists, evolutionistic scientists included. The evolution-oriented publication LIFE Science Library confirms this with their statement: “The work of the scientist is based upon a conviction that nature is basically orderly. Evidence to support this faith can be seen with the naked eye—in the design of a honeycomb or a mollusk’s shell. Scientists come upon order at every level of being. The physicist finds it in the arrangement of atoms on a needle’s point, the entomologist in the structure of a mosquito’s eyes, the crystallographer in the architecture of crystals.” (The Scientist, p.16.) Design and order, especially complex design and elegant order, is easily recognized by those of even less than average intelligence. Multi-layered design can even be awe-inspiring. It clearly cannot be achieved without intelligence.

Intelligent design is just common sense. Even if we believe in intelligent design, we are not obliged to believe that the Designer is the God of the Bible. However, it is religion-friendly, because it is parallel in thinking. But evolutionism is contrary to common sense and against religion. We have many social laws that are parallel to teachings of the Bible, such as, “Do not kill,” and “Do not steal.” If we deny everything that is parallel to the Bible, what kind of society are we going to have?

Is this world, with all her marvels, a product of design or accident? Creation means the world was designed with a Creator’s mindful planning and purpose, and evolution means accidents due to blind, unknown, mindless force produced the universe.

Let us say I have a friend who just had an accident in which his automobile was mangled, both his wife and his only son died, and he lost a leg himself. If, upon hearing the news, I go and congratulate him for the accident and wish him many more of its caliber, then I have just offended my friend. He thinks I am an idiot and rightly so.

Did accidents produce a bicycle or computer for our use? Did accidents put our eyes on the front instead of the back of our heads? Did accidents give us a heart that beats more than 100,000 times in a single day as long as we live? Did accidents provide all kinds of fruits, all kinds of flowers, and all kinds of animals for our enjoyment? Did accidents produce the beautiful people we love?

Accidents never accomplish anything meaningful. They are rather almost always destructive. Have we ever seen or heard of an automobile or its driver improved after an accident? If we believe in creation, we are wise; if we believe in evolution, we are simpletons. Why not choose to be wise?

Science has been known as refined common sense; common sense is the foundation of science. But those who locked themselves inside a naturalistic paradigm have refined common sense out of science, making their science refined nonsense!

There is a legal battle being fought in American courts which will determine whether the Intelligent Design theory can be mentioned alongside the theory of evolution in biology classes. We do not know what the outcome may be, but whatever decision is made, it is not definitive; only truth itself is definitive. The evolutionists are afraid of competition; they like to continue to enjoy long-standing hegemony. Thus they make scientific theory a dogma to keep, impeding the progress of true science. It is ironic that in the name of science, evolutionists defend a theory that is a product of the early 19th century when there was no electron microscope, no molecular biology, and no detailed knowledge of components of a living cell and their functions.

It is unnatural and illogical to believe in evolution. Everything seen and observed defies the theory. Creation is not a fairy tale; it is simply common sense.

(Dr. Timothy Ho has been studying and writing about science and Christianity for more than 30 years. He has published three books and numerous articles, mostly in the Chinese language.)

Article Link: http://ccmusa.org/read/read.aspx?id=chg20060205
Reprint please credit to Challenger, 20060406 2006. CCMUSA.