The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Intelligent design theory is not religious (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Jump to: navigation, search
Talkorigins.jpg
Response Article
This article (Intelligent design theory is not religious (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.

Claim CI001.1:

Intelligent design (ID) is scientific, not religious.

Source: No source given.


CreationWiki response:

Unfortunately, Talk Origins does not give a source for this claim, thus there is no way of checking the basis for it. The truth is that any time you are dealing with the question of origins it is by definition religious in nature. Evolution—despite the claims of its adherents—is religious as well.

For example, if macroevolution has occurred, it has done so in direct violation of known natural and scientific laws: The law of biogenesis and the second law of thermodynamics to be specific. Thus, by definition, evolution is neither scientific nor natural. It is a supernatural process.

If then both creation and evolution are believed in blind faith, and these options rule out all other possibilities of the origin of life, how can we know which model is the correct one? This is where Intelligent Design comes in. Intelligent Design is a scientific tool; deduction that points to the correct model, which happens to be Special Creation.

As an example, one can deduce that a car had a creator. This is deduced by the evidence, not because the investigator saw the creator build it, but simply because it is obvious it had a creator. Which is more scientific: To claim the car had a creator, or to claim the car did not have a creator?

At its core, evolution is an attempt to explain the origin of man, and the universe, by natural means. In doing so, evolution seeks to remove God from the equation, thereby promoting an essentially atheistic worldview. Of course this does not mean that all evolutionists are atheists; however, evolution does render God superfluous, and evolution is certainly logically inconsistent with a belief in the God of the Bible.

The real error being made with this claim is in trying to separate science and religion where they overlap. This notion of a separation between science and religion is intended to give proponents of the atheistic model of origins (evolution) the ability to claim that only their model is scientific.

The fact is that all origin models—including evolution—have religious and philosophical underpinnings. The real issue regarding science is: Can those religious and philosophical underpinnings be used to produce testable scientific theories?

Personal tools