Intelligent Design: Pseudoscience?
by Dave Nutting

We recently attended a public lecture at a local college entitled, “The Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design.” Incidentally, this lecture “just happened” to fall right in the middle of three weeks of creation outreach that AOI was doing at the college. We expected to hear scientific objections; instead, we heard a lot of opinion and unsupported arguments as to why Intelligent Design is “pseudoscience” and therefore not appropriate for discussion in science curricula. Ironically, the speaker never defined “science,” — even when specifically asked. In fact, he said that after much debate, there is no clear agreement on what is science and what is not. This brings to mind a question: How can something be labeled “pseudoscience” without a clear definition of “science?”

At one point, the speaker stated (without substantiation) that the human body was “an example of unintelligent design,” because there is so much wrong with it. He said that an engineer could do much better. This is a common attack by opponents of Intelligent Design.

These arguments of “poor design” usually involve some common errors. In most cases, the problem is much more complex than it first appears, and much relevant data is simplified or glossed over. The arguments often ignore the restraints imposed by the complex interrelationships both within and outside the organism. They cannot possibly take into consideration all the factors needed to function in a complex and changing environment.

During the question and answer time following the lecture, it became obvious that a good percentage of the audience did not agree with the speaker’s position. Many well-reasoned arguments were given showing that Intelligent Design can be a logical inference based on observations of the world as we know it. It is good to see that so many people are now studying the evidence, recognizing the problems with evolutionary theory, and taking a well-reasoned stand against it. Twenty years ago, this would not have been the case, as most people had never heard any evidence against evolution.

Unfortunately, some people are unwilling or unable to accept the evidence. Others are simply angry at God. Evolution provides them with a “scientific” justification for rejecting the Bible and God altogether. Often this is the underlying motivation when someone speaks so strongly against creation. In these cases the real issue is not about science at all.
According to Scripture, many people are blinded (II Cor. 4:4). They have been deceived and believed a lie (Rom 1:25) and others are called “willingly ignorant” (II Peter 3:5).

We are grateful that God used the diligent research of creation scientists to open our eyes to the truth of His Word. We are glad that He has also called us into this ministry and, praise God, many students and professors have heard powerful evidence for creation during these past three weeks! Please pray that many will respond. Also pray for all of us at AOI that whenever we have these opportunities, we will always remember to be “kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” (II Tim 2:25,26 NAS).

At Least He’s Honest...
by Mark Sonmor

If you have ever been tempted to believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is “science” and therefore unbiased, read the following quote from a well-known macroevolutionist and author:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
— Richard Lewontin
The New York Review,
January, 1997, p.31