Ignoring the Pink Elephant

One of the chief arguments by evolutionists against intelligent design is that it’s not scientific. By why is that? Why do they consider it “unscientific”? After all, evolutionists and IDers are dealing with essentially the same body of information, the same set of known facts. And they are both conducting valid field research (observation) and labwork. So how can the one be “scientific” but not the other?

The obvious, and correct, answer – according to evolutionists – is that ID is unscientific because it involves the supernatural (some sort of creator/designer). This fact, according to evolutionists, goes against established “scientific standards” and offends the dignity of science. But I disagree on two counts.

First, it needs to be understood that evolution, depending on just how you look at it, is either atheistic or agnostic (agnostic, says an evolutionist acquaintance of mine). But according to the arguments I laid out in The Big Lie, both atheism and agnosticism are religions just as much as creationism/Christianity, and therefore, because they address the concept of God in some way, shape or form, they bring some sort of supernatural factor into the picture. Now, since both basic groups (evolutionists and creationists) are working from the same body of available scientific data, and since you can’t physically see evolution any more than you can physically see God, it logically follows that evolutionists are taking as much a leap of faith as creationists, only in a different direction. It takes as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in creation.

If evolutionists would only take the time to consider, in detail, the arguments set forth by creationists (such as those of Ralph Muncaster in Dismantling Evolution), they would have the chance to see that IDers are indeed utilizing scientific methods, working with scientific data, and using visible results to support an invisible conclusion – all of this in much the same way that evolutionists are.

The second count on which I disagree has to do with the Creator Himself. I agree that it’s possible, though unlikely, to explain everything in naturalistic terms only, even creation. Some creationists may think this sounds treasonous or even blasphemous, but consider this: When God created matter, He created natural things (like cells) and natural processes (like photosynthesis), so those natural things can be explained in naturalistic terms – but only to a point: The matter and the natural processes were still created, so the Creator cannot be left out of the equation.

And that is precisely my point. If God created everything, then not only must the supernatural be given due consideration in naturalistic discussions (since the natural depends on the supernatural for its existence), but it must be recognized that God Himself stands atop the mountain as the ultimate scientist. And if God is the ultimate scientist, how can involving Him in the discussion be considered unscientific? You can explain to me the process of photosynthesis in naturalistic terms if you want, but if God created the plant matter in which photosynthesis occurs, you can’t ignore His involvement in the situation.