God exists. He’s the Big Guy behind Intelligent Design.

Before you choke on your just purchased Starbucks, dear Reader, allow me to explain.

The Nice Guy in Heaven isn’t running or dictating your life, and the books He’s written in and about Himself are merely man-derived texts to hold humans morally accountable with the promise of immortality. Sure, He probably designed you, your monkey-suited boss, the waterbug scuttling over yesterday’s dishes, and the stars flung across an endless black sky, but He’s not coming after you in the afterlife, because there’s no afterlife to come after you for.

So believes 81-year-old philosopher Dr. Anthony Flew, having irked atheists in the scientific and philosophical circles recently for stating such conclusions and (gasp!) becoming a deist--accepting there’s a God--in the process. Impressed by recent scientific developments that suggest the universe is the product of intelligent design, Flew explains, “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.� While the religious among the populace are pouting over Flew’s take on morality and his absolute refusal to see sacred texts as one’s playbook for life, the Darwinists aren’t too thrilled that one of their own gave the Creationists an edge for a long overdue debate that may finally be served justice ... and one that will show both sides have an agenda.

Why?

Both sides are partially right.

Starting with the Darwinists and their stance on Flew’s conclusions: Nope, they decry, we’re merely here by cosmic accident. Evolutionists steadfastly see the world and life as having been here for 6,000 plus years, the planet and the cosmos evolved on its own from a cosmic soup, so to speak, and that all life derived from a single cell to the complex. We’re then, in this belief and data suggests, second cousins once removed, to Michael Jackson’s former companion Bubbles or Koko, Jane Goodall’s primate friend from “Gorillas in the Mist.� And, evolutionists whine, this is a ruse for those pesky Christians to reintroduce God in the school system. Same Edsel, they say, different paint color. Court rulings echoed this sentiment in favor of the Evolution Theory, and decided that, because creationism cannot be scientifically proved as well as it is considered a thinly disgusted attempt to reintroduce God to public schools, Darwinism stays, creationism can take a long walk west until their religious hats float. Creationists can pack up their camels, go back to their backwards trailer parks and dusty churches with splinter-filled pews, and sing Rock of Ages to their make-believe God. Leave the science to the learned, you idiot hick Christians.

That argument, Darwinists, holds a few flaws. Charlie D.’s been dead for some time. However, legions of disciples follow his Evolution Theory and will go apeâ€"sorry, bad pun, couldn’t help itâ€"to defend this belief in his evolution theory and not allow other arguments to counter this belief. After all, it is still theory. Therefore, isn’t belief in Darwinism, philosophically speaking, also dogma?

The second problem with this argument: Darwinists haven’t clearly identified this missing link and will counter that creationists dismiss intermediaries as the link in the humans-primates connection. Darwin’s Theory originally suggested this missing link to be the intermediaries, but ongoing studies are still pending on this one. Logic asks: If, in time this link is to be found, why then are the Darwinists so quick to say that ID didn’t design that link, or the rest of life as we know it? And, why are the Darwinists telling the Creationists to prove the intermediaries aren’t the missing links, when it was Darwin’s Theory to suggest these intermediaries to be the missing links in the first place?

Thirdly, Darwinists cannot readily explain away Austrailia’s eco-system and the koalas, roos, platypi or lungfish living there. Nor can they explain why albino plants cannot live ling enough to sustain life, if they ever could live past a few days in the first place. Why aren’t there any full grown albino elm, oak or maple trees? How did the platypi and lungfish get here? If Darwinism can’t support this, based on the one cell bifurcating to many cells and many creatures theory, how can these be explained? Cosmic accident? For a community that’re sticklers to scientific proof, “cosmic accident� sounds pretty implausible at best, and downright kooky, at worst.

Convinced and committed Darwinists aren’t taking Flew’s viewpoints without a fight, but anyone or anything challenging the status quo never fought fair to begin with. In August of 2004, Dr. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute for Science and Culture published an article defending Intelligent Design, and it ran in the widely respected and peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society in Washington. That article passed the test of scientific scrutiny---even passing muster with the Journal’s editor, an evolutionary biologist---as has past papers submitted to the publication for review. Meyer's article argued that materialistic theories of evolution can't account for the "origination of new biological forms" (platypi, newly discovered species, koalas, kangaroos, lungfish, or no albino elm trees) during the period known as the Cambrian Explosion, and suggested Intelligent Design as an alternative. The Darwinists still complained, as members of the Biological Society in Washington and the National Center for Science Education wrote to the Journal, stating the Meyer article was “substandard� (although they hadn’t read the submission). A statement issued from the Journal’s governing council, the Biological Society states: “the paper deemed inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings� and even goes insofar as to declare: "Intelligent Design … will not be addressed in future issues of the [journal]."

So the scientific community and Darwinists can put the kibosh on Intelligent Design theory as an infeasible argument, but won’t allow it to be argued, although Meyer’s paper made it to a peer-reviewed periodical, but the article reached the periodical wrongly because it’s from the Intelligent Design school of thought? This
brand of censorship doesn’t really bode well for Theory of Evolution, does it? If this theory is ironclad as the science community suggests, wouldn’t it withstand scrutiny
with Intelligent Design compared to it? Looks to me the Darwinists are scared of the
very real possibility there’s a Designer behind the platypus and the kangaroo.

Supporters of Darwin have taken the science out from under Intelligent Design to undercut its validity of point/counterpoint. They have engaged in censorship, politically and nothing else, simply because ID may cause Darwin’s Theory to be questioned more than it has been in the past. Recently, an Iowa State University Associate Astronomy Professor, Dr. Guillermo “Memo� Gonzales experienced this ideological strong-arming by his peers. He asked if ID could be introduced in his classes. 124 of his colleagues circulated a petition to the President of ISU asking that Dr. Gonzales not be allowed to teach ID to the students. Where can Darwinism explain the unexplainable in astronomy?

This debate isn’t going away. Both sides are gearing up for an ugly academic, political, maybe even a judicial battle in this Darwin/Designer boxing match. Unfortunately, many people of America hold an ADD mentality that’ll have them shifting gears to more pressing issues of the day: when is Jennifer Lopez giving birth and is Brittany going to name her kid a strange moniker like Apple, Lexus, Pirate or AsheTré. Christians won’t gain inroads of stating “Look, Ma, God did it!â€? to the scientific community without valid proof there are just some things beyond explaining and just areâ€"without the preachyness entrenched in it. Darwinists, the more they overtly oppose Intelligent Design, are only going to have their stonewalling tactics backfire and force them to re-examine Charles Darwin’s theory. Either way, both sides can accept the other’s point of view without looking to hold all the marbles. Maybe God did have Darwin float a theory, and maybe Darwin knew his theory was just that: a theory, and God really did do the scientifically unexplainable.

Whatever you decide to hold as creed, dear Reader, as has done Dr. Anthony Flew, I invite you to allow yourself to go where the evidence leads.

Sources: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1286965/posts
The Case for a Creator, excerpts, Lee Strobel,
© 2004 Zondervan Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan
http://slate.msn.com/id/2062009/
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-links.htm

Send This To A Friend