Editor,
Regarding the debate about intelligent design, and specifically Mark Erasmus' letter printed in the Daily Lobo on Friday, the question is not whether intelligent design is real science. The question is what do we do with the intelligent design we observe in nature?
Michael Behe and William Dembski are not necessarily interjecting religion into the debate, but they are addressing the elephant that is sitting in the middle of the room. Erasmus did not deny the existence of design in nature, because intellectually, he cannot. It is there. And for evolutionists, it is a problem.
How can something that is so intricate and complex in its natural state - the human genome, for example - have come about by random processes? There have been proposed solutions such as punctuated equilibrium posited by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. One other possible solution is intelligent design as posited by Behe, Dembski and others. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but to dismiss these latter gentlemen as people with a hidden agenda is rather foolish, as most of them are scientists and researchers highly respected in their fields.
It would be just as foolish to dismiss Gould because he is an atheist. As to Erasmus' argument that intelligent design is by nature seeking the supernatural, I would argue that evolutionists are continually avoiding it and perhaps wishing the argument would go away. Many evolutionists, such as Gould, are atheists, and they approach and apply their theories from this bias. But if to acknowledge the existence of God is to enter the realm of religion, then to deny the existence of God is doing the same. If science is truly objective, then it should look at all the facts coldly and consider all possible solutions. It is my argument that there is evidence of a creator all around us. And I have it on good authority that he isn't going anywhere.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Shay Talley
Daily Lobo reader
