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
> 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.
The Big Bang can be tested by current observations—the cosmic microwave background and the expansion of space extrapolate to what is known as the Big Bang. Intelligent design cannot be tested by anything, and can only be substantiate by personal sensibilities. The great thing about science is that it does not regard personal sensibilities as the basis for discovering the truth. No matter how much an idea makes personal sense to you, that does not establish it as a scientific idea.
> 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.
What a person believes does not count as scientific, regardless of their accomplishments or the authority they carry. You observe the nature of the ears and eyes, and by personal unscientific sensibilities, judge them to be intelligently designed because you can’t or won’t comprehend any natural possibility, and you don’t seek to find a natural possibility. Even if you observe these sense organs more closely, you’ll find evidence of lack of intelligence. Much of the visual cortex of the brain is devoted to decluttering the noise produce by the eye, precisely because the eye is not very good at what it does. If a camera had the same quality of imagery as what the eye produces raw, you’d say it was broken.
> 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.
Your marveling and your personal feelings does not make for a scientific idea. Your personal sensibilities on what is true does not make for a scientific idea.
> 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.
We do not see iPhones in the wild. We see them come out of factories, and we see their designs produced by people in offices. We do not see any of that with life, so your point about the iPhone is more of a discredit of intelligent design than anything.
> 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.
They’re the same thing. This is what Christians do. Christians are constantly reworking their narratives in an effort to make themselves make sense and to pretend to assimilate into the culture they’re in. When creation science failed, they had to invent another term for their Trojan horse into schools, which is what intelligent design is. Stephen Meyer was a proponent of creation science before he was a proponent of intelligent design.
> 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.
When it comes to climate change, there are definitely two sides. There is the side that wants to address the problem by advancing technology to solve it through terraforming and cleaner energy production, which is what I align with, and there are those who want to address the problem by regressing civilization to a more simple existence that minimally interferes with the climate. There is no side that denies humans are causing climate change. That’s the peanut gallery of ignorant masses who talk beyond their credibility.
> 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
You are referring to the Oregon Petition, one of the most easily and widely discredited items in the matter of climate change. The Oregon Petition was notorious for its lack of standards, where anyone with a bachelors in a technical field and no climate science to their name could have their signature on. Pranksters even managed to get completely unrelated names, like members of the Spice Girls, Michael J. Fox, and Charles Darwin on this petition. The fact that you would even regard this as some sort of smoking gun reveals your completely inept understanding and disrespect of science. In any case, science is done by people who actually do the work of science—hypothesizing, researching, testing, observing. Scientific findings are not declared by signatures on a petition who haven’t done the relevant work.
> 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.
You have repeatedly betrayed your lack of respect and understanding of science by trying to inject your personal sensibilities, citation of hoaxes like the Oregon Petition, and links to right-wing blogs. What you consistently refuse to do is actually look into scientific research on the matter like actual research papers and the chemistry of CO2. It’s pure scientific illiteracy, and you are projecting your own religious-like mindset onto the actual science because you have no credibility. Every accusation you make is a confession. You are not a skeptic. You do not want to teach science in schools. You want to groom children with right-wing religious indoctrination.
Wow.. I think you have too much time on your hands. Unfortunately I do not have the time to counter you in detail – something I could easily do. I will just mention this on the Big Bang.
You say: “The Big Bang can be tested by current observations.”
This is completely false. The cosmic microwave background and the expansion of space you mention are merely after effects of the Big Bang, or creation, and tell us nothing of the cause. That which caused the Big Bang cannot be tested for scientists do not know what to even test or how.
Your creationist idea tells nothing of the cause. All you do is put God where the cause is, and arbitrarily establish that God is an exception to cause-and-effect. It’s just a placeholder for your ignorance that you put there to gratify your own sensibilities, and it offers no basis for discovery.
It really doesn’t take much time to respond to you. I type fast and the things you argue are wrong in such basic ways that it doesn’t take much thought. This is easy. If you could easily counter me, then you would. You don’t though, because you’re full of crap. Your wife also probably does all the typing and she’s getting tired of helping you embarrass yourself.