by Carl B. Garner

It’s been in all the papers. “Intelligent Design.” It is really making some folks nervous because “Design” and “Darwin” don’t quite fit. Everything about “Darwin” says “random” or “chance,” but what we see all around us says “design.” It may be hard to believe, but there are some, even within the world of science, who suggest “design” should be included in science classes. Others, however, say, “We can’t do that – It’s nonsense to mix religion with science.”

Not all of those who suggest “design” should be included in science classes want “creation” to be taught. However, they are aware of the complexity of life, and they know that complexity is an indication of “Intelligent Design” within. Those who are pushing for “Intelligent Design” to be included in science classes are individuals who concede that some form of “intelligence” had to be behind all the “design” evident in man and in the universe.

Follow the Evidence

We should not be surprised that this subject of design and complexity is getting a lot of attention. Less than a year ago we learned that Antony Flew, considered a capable champion of evolution and atheism, renounced many of his former views. Why? He said he just “followed the Evidence”!

For example, when Flew studied the immense complexity of man’s DNA, he concluded that there had to be “intelligence” of some kind that brought this about. While Flew still accepts some of Darwin’s views, he said he cannot accept “a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.” It is similar to Hugo DeVries’ statement that Darwin’s Natural Selection might explain the “survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.” No, life must come from life, and that is science speaking, not only the Bible. The Law of Biogenesis harmonizes with the scientific method, common sense – and with the words of Genesis 1:1 and Psalms 33:6-9.

Why is This Subject Up-to-date?

Yes, it’s in all the papers – and the magazines. Who is involved in this dispute? From the heads of news bureaus all the way to the President of the United States. A recent political cartoon in a California newspaper revealed a line of transitional creatures manifesting evolutionary changes led by President Bush – wearing his boots and carrying a flag touting INTELLIGENT DESIGN. The President was portrayed as a throwback to the lowest of man’s evolutionary “stages”. Asked his opinion about including “design” in science classes, the president said:

“You are asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas. The answer is yes…both sides ought to be taught…so people can understand what the debate is all about.”

That is what makes Darwinists nervous. They fear that if people – including school children – hear both sides of the debate, they just might reject Darwin. To set the record straight, the respected Gallup Survey organization has for years consistently found that less than half of the American people accept Darwin’s theory. In a 2001 poll reported in USA Today, Gallup found that only 35% said Darwin’s Natural Selection is a “scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence.” No wonder evolutionists are nervous.

Why Do Evolutionists Resist “Design”?

Intelligent Design is the very opposite of evolution. It declares that when we see design and complexity we see evidence of a Designer. William Orr’s little booklet on the human body describes how intricate is that creation from God. Describing the human eye, Orr focuses on the qualities and wonders of the retina:

The retina, which is the living plate at the rear of the eye, is filled – and I do mean filled – with light sensitive rods and cones, which in reality are nerve ends. There are over one hundred million of these nerve ends in each eye. Some are for color, some for distance, some for shape and some for size. Attached to these cones are nerve cables – 338,000 of them, which carry the light impulse, or what we call the pictures of what the eyes are seeing, swiftly to the brain. Seeing is done something like the process of taking pictures, all with points of lights. With pictures, however, we use only about 50 dots per centimeter, while the eye uses 3,500 dots per centimeter. God fashioned our eyes, and no one is quite so blind as those who fail to see Him.

Evolutionists say the human eye came about merely by chance. What do you think? You and I know better, and that makes evolutionists very, very nervous.

Carl B. Garner

“I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.”

Sir Fred Hoyle, Cambridge University

“At that moment, when the RNA/DNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt.”

Biologist I. L. Cohen

“My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than forty years have completely failed.”

Evolutionist N. H. Nilsson