|
|
I was reading in bed tonight, and I had an idea. Not wanting to wake my wife, I quietly got out of bed, turned out the light, and came downstairs to share this idea with anyone reading this blog.
In the same way human beings rage about abortion, politics, and religion, and in the same way all families with more than one child seem to possess a constant state of sibling friction from what I informally refer to as the "Cain and Abel" effect, and in the same way our more recent U.S. presidential elections are hair's-breadth close in the popular vote... well, basically, we are somehow statistically guaranteed (as a species) to not agree in certain fundamental ways of looking at the world. Darwinian Dogma vs. Intelligent Design. That's what the 'modern' argument regarding biological evolution boils down to. For clarity here, I will state that modifications to a species are proven to occur, so that is not in dispute; it's when Darwin's theory is extended to the creation of new species that the controversy arises. To date, there is neither conclusive fossil nor reproducible experimental evidence of the creation of new species via natural selection. Thus the 'creationists' won't be silenced, regardless of intellectual intimidation and other censoring methodologies of the neo-Darwinians. Each side is inflexibly devoted to its own view of the universe, but the two separate approaches to the debate are not at all similar. Intelligent Design (ID) proponents obviously formed their universe-view from a belief in some sort of creative higher intelligence, whatever it may be. The origin of this belief is not in dispute, although neo-Darwinians claim that this particular belief is the hidden basis of the ID agenda. The more accurate description of the ID camp is that they simply want to look at evidence from a different perspective. While the core motivation of ID proponents may be religious, their desire to examine the physical evidence from a different angle can hardly be called ignorant or superstitious. History is more than full of examples of how correct explanations of previously not-understood phenomena were initially considered too fantastic to be believable. And... hasn't quantum physics sufficiently demonstrated that reality doesn't always conform to what our intuition tells us is correct? Darwinian devotees, however, due to their unwillingness to examine the evidence through any lens but the suggestions presented in "The Origin of Species," have backed themselves into the ugly corner of constantly defending the various recognized discrepancies in the theory. When a conclusive answer is not available, the neo-Darwinian's official response is always some form of "the fossil record is incomplete," or "the critics are being unscientific." And the standard catcall of the Darwinian scoffers? Isn't their ultimate objection to Intelligent Design that it simply isn't a viable, scientific, legitimate explanation? Not true science? Or more simply stated, they reject all criticism of the Darwinian paradigm by declaring that "what value is criticism without a 'viable' alternative explanation for the origin of biological life?" For once, it would be nice to experience a little honesty, instead of all the vehement adherence by both sides to their own beliefs. This is what it truly comes down to: the same tunnel vision that causes humans to bicker about abortion or the death penalty is the same strange trait that makes us feud about the origin of biological life. We bring our own preconceptions to the table; both sides are guilty of this. All the accusations of ignorance, dogma, lack of scientific license, dishonesty, etc...they are a waste of time and breath. The truth is our origin may forever remain a mystery, or better yet, when the empirical truth is finally discovered, it may be something that surprises both sides of the evolution argument. What was the idea I had while reading tonight? Try this on for size... While an actual proof of the existence of God may never be possible in this reality, there is something I do believe is possible: an alternative explanation for existence that is empirically testable in a controlled environment. Make no mistake; I am referring to an alternative to Darwin's theory, as well as an alternative to the assumption of the random, big bang universe. Why do I believe these alternative explanations are possible? Because I'm working on them. I'm a crazy nut? We'll see. Of course, there is the odd aspect of human stubbornness that God Himself could come to earth, get more TV coverage than the Superbowl, eliminate disease and pollution, perform a whole host of other miracles... and there would still be people insisting that it was all attributable to 'natural,' randomly occurring phenomena. Such is the considerable depth of the Cain and Abel effect I mentioned at the beginning of this blog. |