Last week, a trial against the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania for presenting Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution finally ended. Intelligent design is a growing movement, among scientists and others, that offers an alternative to evolution as the reason for our existence. Writing about the trial's conclusion, Melissa Nann Burke of the Legal Intelligencer says, “Like the deluge that floated Noah's boat in the book of Genesis, the trial of intelligent design in Dover public schools ended after forty days.”
“It was not by design,” quipped U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III.
Burke reports that eleven parents of Dover students sued the Dover Area School Board last year, charging that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment when it voted to present “inherently religious” information to students.
But there's a dimension to this case that nobody seems to be talking about. If presenting an alternate case for the origin of all things is “inherently religious,” it follows logically that this would also have to be true for teaching the theory of evolution. What we accept as the origin or source of life affects how we think, live and worship. Evolution has ruled the roost with leading educators for a long time, but now some are having second thoughts about this. And with good reason.
In 1997, two scientists, John Ralston and Borge Nodlund, from the University of Kansas and the University of Rochester, respectively, reported they had found an axis of the universe. As a result of their discovery, Astrophysicist, Greg Benford, of the University of California at Irvine was quoted in the Detroit Free press as saying the existence of this axis could mean that creation was far more complex than was originally thought, that “there was almost a blueprint for it.”
Haven't we heard this before? In church, maybe?
A blueprint calls for an architect, in this case an eternal and omnipotent one, who
not only planned but preceded His creation.
While visiting a gift shop, I heard a college age customer talking to a clerk and expressing his opinions loud enough for all to hear. Listening with interest, I discovered the research of this student of beginnings had led him to theories that, in his opinion, didn't make sense: too many gaps; too many unanswered questions. He had concluded that believing them required embracing ideas that stay in a constant state of change. After considering his options, he had decided to accept the Biblical account of creation.
Leaving the origin of the earth to chance was too much for this truth seeker; too risky; too unreasonable. He was unwilling to build his life on guesses, even educated ones. Faith in God, on the other hand, based on the Scriptures, offered rock solid security, something that had eluded him in all other areas of his research.
Accepting the Master Architect as the designer of the universe who loves us and offers
Redemption to those who believe requires faith. But this unnamed shopper said he had concluded believing the theory of evolution required more faith; too much for him to muster. He had seen convincing evidence of the existence of the Creator in His creation and this allowed him to respond in faith to both natural and Biblical truth. How about you?