During my post concerning education, I made comments over how evolution can be taught in a classroom without affecting the worldview of the students. Thanks to the comment from someone on the article, I got to thinking about the opposite side, creationism/intelligent design. How could one introduce these theories and ideas without imposing a worldview on your students? Now unfortunately I cannot think of a way to introduce these views without introducing some sort of God, but they can be introduced by using the Deistic God, who is an impersonal being that started the universe and then left everything alone within this creation. A deistic god does not push a specific worldview per say, but it does point toward a supernatural being that cannot be scientifically proven in the classical sense, so some people may already be throwing up their hands and claim multiple problems with teaching these ideas in school. The two big objections that pop into my head are by using a supernatural being that I am calling God, I am permitting non-science to be taught as science. The second objection would be that since I have to use a god in these ideas, I am mixing religion and state, at least in the United States. To answer the first objection, a lot of the theories we use in science, the big bang theory, origin of life with respect to evolution, and other theories, cannot be tested in the classical sense. If the evidence presented points toward the supernatural, is it not rational to follow the evidence where it leads or should we toss out this conclusion because we don’t like where it goes? For the second objection, I am using God as a theory or a possible explanation here. I am not advocating any religious view of God, just his consideration as an agent in the creation of the world. Now, after this longer-than-normal introduction, I would like to introduce a list of evidence that I think could be taught on the side of creation/intelligent design, without advocating any individual religion.
1. The Big Bang: This is certainly a good starting point for this list, if you will pardon the pun. William Lane Craig and other philosophers have written much on the defense of a supernatural being responsible for the beginning of the universe. A basic exercise in showing this would be the kalam cosmological argument. Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Premise 2: The universe began to exist. Premise 3: The universe had a cause.
2. The Cambrian Explosion: This is an event about 550 million years ago where most of the animal phyla came into existence. This goes against one of the evolutionary views that species emerged over many thousands of generations with gradual genetic change between each generation. This can be evidence toward a rapid creation event perpetrated by a supernatural being.
3. The improbability of chance and necessity: This argument points toward the probability of the right elements coming together to make the right amino acids and those amino acids coming together the right way to make the first protein and so on. The probability of all of this happening without intelligence behind it requires more time than the universe has existed.
4. The fine-tuning of the universe: this argument looks at the values of the fundamental constants in chemistry and physics and questions why each constant has that value and why isn’t it more or less than what it is? The conclusion of the argument is that the universe must have been “fine-tuned” for life.
5. Junk DNA?: One of the primary arguments used for evolution is descent with modification. This was also used by Francis Collins to support Theistic Evolution. Junk DNA is essentially the fragments of DNA that our ancestors passed on to us, but through evolution and modification this DNA became broken and non-functioning. According to a report from September of 2012, this “junk DNA” actually serves a purpose, so the term has become misleading. This would seem to point toward an intelligent designer that had a plan for every piece of DNA within the human body.
6. Irreducible Complexity: This is a key idea in the intelligent design movement. This idea states that there are certain aspects of organisms that cannot work if all of the correct parts are not there. An example of this that has been used are the flagellum in certain cells or the way the blood clotting mechanism occurs in humans.
This list is definitely not all of the theories and ideas that point toward a creator, but it is enough to get started. If you have any additions to this list, feel free to comment and add to this list. God bless you and have a good rest of your day.
Popular posts from this blog
What I want to do today is to write a brief summary of each of the arguments for the existence of God that I have come across in my studies; that seem to hold any water (I won’t be calling on the youtube video that argues for design just because a human hand can hold a banana). If I miss any that you believe to be a part of this review, please contact me and I will research the argument and update my post here. The Kalam Cosmological Argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0 – This argument focuses on the prime mover, or the uncaused first cause. The argument goes as such: everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause. Dr. William Lane Craig is the biggest proponent of this argument, and further develops the characteristics of this prime mover and shows that the God of Christianity is the best fit for this uncaused first cause. The Contingency Argument https://w…
I saw a video during my Sunday service about the floods of people that are coming to church for Easter or Christmas, maybe they only come once a year, or are interested in what all the hubbub is about. For those interested, it follows that they might have questions. Now, I have written plenty about scholarly questions to Christian faith, but does this mean that everyone should have these answers? Not necessarily, because many times the questions are not scholarly, but emotional. We should be able to answer these as well. These types of questions will be case by case, so a systematic rulebook of answers cannot be written here. However, the Bible does give us some guidelines in how to talk to one another. We are called in Colossians to let our speech be seasoned with salt and grace (Colossians 4:6). In 1 Peter 3:15, we are commanded to deliver our answers with gentleness and respect. These are general sweeping statements on how we are to conduct our speech, so let’s apply them to our …
I’m sure the current political climate in the United States needs no introduction, so I can dive straight in to this post. Should Christians get involved in politics, and should we be taking sides with each political controversy? This falls into a previous post of mine, describing the role of emotions in truth arguments. What I would like to do is have a short post describing my thoughts on the current political process, and why Christians should be interested in truth over politics. I think as Christians, truth and justice should matter over politics. I will admit that neither left, right, or moderate has a monopoly on these. I think that we should be looking at each political issue on a case by case basis, and deciding what is best there, regardless of what side of the aisle it falls on. I think what matters is whether or not our answer aligns with scripture. For instance, environmentalist political policies are mostly considered left-wing by conservatives, but we know as Christians…