Skip to content
To Mr. Miller--
You are making several assumptions in your argument. First, you assume that because there may be a lack of peer-reviewed articles arguing for intelligent design in scientific articles, it is an invalid theory.
One hundred years ago, it was assumed that the universe was less than one million light-years across, and any theory that suggested otherwise was scoffed at.
Second, you stated that if something is a religious belief, it is not able to be tested, and therefore cannot be real. You are assuming that if anything cannot be proven scientifically, it cannot be 'real'. That argument will only work if all events in history can be perfectly reconstructed, repeated, and studied numerable times. I cannot perfectly reconstruct Waterloo, but I still know Napoleon was defeated. I can know this because of the historical-legal method, where I study documents from the time period describing the battle.
Third, scientists are human beings. They succumb to peer pressure. It is very difficult to publish your articles if others are critical of your work. So not all articles in all scientific journals consider the most rational, logical alternative, because some scientists do not like to be pronounced wrong. They do not like to be called wrong due to pride. It is a common fault.
Fourth, you assume that a physical engineer is the best explanation. I have a question: who made that guy? Physical matter is not eternal, so this maker cannot be eternal. He must have a cause.
Fifth, you assume that the scientific community would support aliens if intelligent design were supported. See the above two doubts.
Sixth, you assume God asks us to take him on faith alone. It is a common assumption, perhaps rooted in the old fear of being a doubting Thomas. If I recall correctly, Jesus is recorded as allowing Thomas to touch his nail and spear wounds. He did not ask him to believe that he was risen from the dead without evidence. If Jesus was God, and if God is morally perfect, then this quality in Him would be uniform.
Seventh, you assume that intelligent design movement harms people's faith more than it helps it.
I personally contradict this. If I could not have evidential grounds for belief, I would pronounce myself an atheist. I could not believe without reason. Otherwise, how would I know if what I believe is anything but imaginary?
Thank you for your input. It is appreciated.
More information about formatting options
Copyright 2014 Creation Moments. All Rights Reserved.
August Ash, Inc. -
Minneapolis Web Design