The Case for Design
|by Regis Nicoll|
In "Collins’s Case for Evolution," a reader commented that “God ‘speaks’ both through His Word and through creation,” and that sometimes the two do not seem to be reconcilable. He then asks, “could someone please tell me how we CAN fit the Creation-Fall-Redemption understanding with the known facts about the age of the earth, transitional forms, and so forth?”
While I’m not sure what he means by the “known facts” about transitional forms, I agree that the witnesses of Scripture and creation can, at times, appear divergent. But, while every theorist has access to the same material evidence—e.g., the fossil record, common morphology, genetic variation, etc—they each filter the evidence through a grid of presuppositions that cannot be ultimately proven. For example, in the beginning was the Quantum, or in the beginning was God.
Thus the question becomes not which theory can be demonstrated as valid, but which one best explains the evidence. In the case of common descent versus common design, The Discovery Institute has some excellent resources addressing the evidentiary arguments, as does BreakPoint.
Two articles from the latter are: "Against the Ropes with Darwin: The Imminent End of Evolutionary Theory" and "The Science of Design," Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. These are by an author with whom I have some acquaintance—a fine fellow I’m told. Although neither addresses the young-earth old-earth controversy, they both work to dispel the myths that Darwinian evolution is a fact of science based on critical reason, and Intelligent Design a theory of ignorance based on religious faith. In particluar, Part 3 of the last piece examines the evidence from creation against the character of the Christian God as recorded in Scripture.