Intelligent Design Questions
A reader quotes me saying: “There are scientific arguments for and against Intelligent Design, but only one side is allowed in schools, which is the atheist view.”
Then he makes the case that the concept of Intelligent Design cannot be tested and proven. He says it is missing the “How does it work?” component. At most, Intelligent Design belongs in a philosophy class, but not in science classes.
JJ: It sounds like you are talking about the Big Bang which is considered valid scientific theory. It cannot be tested or proven true or false and not all scientists accept the theory. What caused the Big Bang is more vague than the Intelligent Design teaching and it is missing “How does it work?” According to your thinking this should be resigned to a philosophy class.
But it is not. Even though no scientist can demonstrate a Big Bang can happen with no intelligent direction it is still taught in our schools.
That pretty much destroys your reason Intelligent Design should be ignored as a cause.
Isaac Newton, acknowledged by most as the greatest scientist of all time, believed that Intelligent Design is proven by observation which means he saw it as falsifiable. He believed that observation alone of the eye or the ear provided overwhelming evidence that an intelligent designer was at play.
Whenever I consider our bodies and how wonderful is their design I marvel at the fact that there can be even one human in existence, possessed with any intelligence at all, that cannot see that some intelligence was behind its creation.
As I said, if you stumble across an iPhone in a forest would you assume the elements just came together on their own and created it? Would that be a scientific conclusion? I don’t think so.
There are good scientific arguments for Intelligent Design. A good book to read is “Signature in the Cell” by Stephen C. Meyer. He presents a lot more scientific evidence for intelligent Design than I have ever seen against it.
One point to make is that Intelligent Design is different from what is called Creation Science. The latter usually assumes that the earth was created in six days and is less than 10,000 years old. This is not scientifically supportable. Intelligent Design merely states that there is strong evidence that life was created by a higher intelligence. This is in harmony with esoteric thought.
The reader gives another quote from me as follows: “The Powers-That-Be are big believers in orthodox climate change theory and again only seek to have one side presented.”
He then tells us that according to the scientific community there is only one side to this argument.
That is an amazing statement concerning a subject with two definite sides. I’d say that 30,000 scientists signing a petition that disagrees with orthodox global warming theory definitely demonstrates there are two sides to the argument. Check this out: https://canadafreepress.com/article/30000-anti-global-warming-scientists-cant-be-wrong
Let’s review our dialog. Note that what the scientists you referenced agreed upon was not even part of the argument posed by skeptics.
You wrote: The Web of Science is a database with articles from a little over 10,000 academic journals. Of that entire database, 13,950 articles can be found on the subject of climate change. Only 23 articles reject global warming or reject global warming as a man-made phenomenon.
JJ: I’m surprised they found 23 fitting their criteria. Those 23 had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming.”
Every knowledgeable skeptic including myself would have to side with the majority here. Of course, over the past century there has been warming and man made emissions has been a partial cause. The disagreement isn’t over this technicality, but on how much of a cause CO2 is and whether the apocalyptic doctrines they promote are probable. Maybe we should worry more about being hit by an asteroid or a solar flare and concentrate more on preparing for them than global warming. After all, global warming, which has happened cyclically, has never destroyed most of the life on earth.
If the religious-like orthodox global warming political theory is taught in schools then the scientific skeptical side should also be presented. Otherwise, it is like teaching only addition in math class and never teaching the kids how to subtract.
As far as ideology affecting teaching, yes it happens on both sides but the Left has by far the majority of control here.
The Freedom of Belief
Concerning my post where the student was ordered to stomp on the word Jesus a reader says he would have no problem doing it but could understand others having a problem.
Let me put it this way. Actions are communication symbols just as words are. To stomp on a picture or name is to issue a statement that this person is despised and hated.
Now let us say that the paper contained a picture of your mother and you were ordered at one time to stomp on it and at another time to state before the class that you despise and hate your mother.
What is the difference?
Nothing.
If you love your mother this means you are being asked to lie or make an untrue statement a thing which goes against the code of any disciple.
If it were the name of Jesus, Mohammed or even Obama I would not do it because I do not hate any of them.
If there was some greater purpose involved, I could see the image as just a piece of paper or the words as just vibrations but that would be a rare circumstance.
On the other hand, many in the Middle East burn the American flag in disrespect and are being honest because those involved really do hate us.
The reader then replied: Well, then I must hate/despise not only my mother but most of the rest of my family to include myself :-]
There are a bunch of framed photographs on my living room wall of me, my mother, brothers and several other family members.
I regularly shoot these pictures between the eyes with my handgun/laser for trigger control practice, maintaining a proper sight picture, practicing stance, draw and etc.
I’m sure a psychiatrist would have a field day!
JJ: I’m sure you do not see shooting a harmless laser at family photos in the same light as an ex-wife burning or stomping on her husband’s photos as far as communication goes. On the other hand, it would be different if a beastly authority ordered you to shoot with real bullets at a picture of your wife between the eyes as an acknowledgement of what you think of her. I think the guy in the class felt that stomping on Jesus was an acknowledgement that Jesus was a worthless dude.
It is true that an advanced disciple can always attain the position of the observer and could stomp on a picture of Jesus with the realization that it is just a sheet of paper. However, words, pictures and actions are a means of communication in this reality and the disciple must always ask if he is communicating effectively with harmlessness.
Never assume the obvious is true. – William Safire
March 23, 2026
Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE
JJ’s Amazon page HERE