INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Ok, now I am not going to go into incredible detail on the following issue, I just feel compelled to write about it, and maybe share some of my views with you, the reader.

There are currently two main schools of thought regarding the most fiercely debated arguement amongst 'heads' and philosophers...'How did life on earth originate?'

Most people put themselves into either category; The Evolutionist, or The Creationist.

Evolutionists, obviously believe in the doctrines of Charles Darwin and basically believe that everything regarding life on this planet has occurred through pure scientific evolution of DNA.
There currently appears to be no place in this theory for God, or any religious beliefs. Darwin was an Atheist. His 'followers' believe that mankind exists due to a process of biological changes that came about over many thousands of years.

Creationist's believe in the doctrines of either the Bible or the Qu'ran. Christian creationists believe that, for example, The Grand Canyon was formed by the flood that spawned Noah's ark, and that the world was created in 6 days. They believe in Adam and Eve, Kane and Abel, and take the book of Genesis very literally. So according to them we all stem from Adam's rib bone.

Now obviously the two opposing theories are vastly different, and I believe both theories are too extreme and radical to be correct. They are too polar.

This immediately creates a divide between science and religion. Why? why does science have to be completely segregated from religion, and vice versa for that matter?

Why can't creationist's accept that evolution plays a part in how we came to be? Why can't they accept that we are evolving in every generation? Every heavy drinker who has children is predisposing their children to be biologically prone to having addiction problems - FACT. Every environmental change around us from pollution to the foods we eat are affecting changes in our DNA. These changes are sometimes reversable, and sometimes permanent, but evolution is happening all around us - FACT.

Why, on the other hand, can't Evolutionist's accept that perhaps evolution isn't the only answer? Why can't they accept that science currently, if ever, has the answer for all occurrences in our world. When we look around us and witness the beauty of a sunset, or the smell of freshly cut grass on a summers day, or watch as a sheep gives birth to a lamb in a field as a bird flies by with a fat, juicy worm in its mouth. Every time you sit and watch a David Attenborough documentary showing the intricacies of nature all around us, and the complexity of food chains, and reproduction, how can you not believe that nature can be designed? Do they really see technology and advancement as being purely electronic? No, because how does that explain biological engineering and genetic modification? Why can't they accept that perhaps the world around us has been very carefully worked out to work. Like a perfect business, a boss should not need to be there to let it run effectively. The secret is to create a perfect ecosystem that is self-sustaining and self-managing.

The reason for this discussion is to highlight a theory that has been around for about a decade. This theory is known as, "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" or ID for short.

Intelligent Design is a theory that, for the first time, combines both science and religion. Impossible! I hear you cry, well no it isn't.

I, personally, have long held beliefs about the world around us that incorporates both science and religion. I am by no means a devout christian, nor am I an athiest. I also take an avid interest in the scientific community, yet get frustrated by their sheer lack of acceptance for religion and spirituality. Science needs to remember its place. Scientists seem to get so carried away with their great knowledge that they often cannot see what is right in front of their faces. They are so busy dealing with humans on a cellular level that they forget to observe them holistically.

Many scientists justify their athiesm by stating that religious beliefs come from an area in the brain - part FACT. Yes, there is a part of the brain that when damaged or changed can enable people to have unrealistic religious beliefs where everything they do has a divine explanation. I believe that yes, there is a certain amount of truth in this, but you can get down from your moral high ground and stop believing that you are elitist because you know this knowledge. This does not give you the right to believe that anyone who does believe in god has overstimulation in one area of the brain. Life is not that black and white. This denial of religion in science has had a strong influence on the reasons why nowadays there are less people attending religious venues than ever before. Less people are encouraged to believe in non-scientific beliefs. Wake up and smell the caffeine beverage.

Intelligent Design books can be found in most science labs in Universities and schools, but unfortunately the curriculum does not allow it to be formally taught. Why?
It is not formally taught because scientists believe it incorporates religious ideologies therefore cannot be scientific because science is about proof.
Well, can I remind you scientists that it wasn't that long ago in the whole scheme of things when you decided that they world was flat. You decided that the human body existed of only four humours; blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. You couldn't have been more wrong. Yet, as scientists you believed with all your heart that, at the time, it was fact, and nobody had the right to challenge it. So, can you possibly compare the two today?
In the same situation, Creationists were wrong when they placed Galileo on house arrest for working out that the world was in fact, round. It took Christianity hundreds of years to accept this fact. Both sides need to remember not to be so concrete in their beliefs.

In the early 20th Century, it was deemed blasphemous to teach Darwinian theories in schools, and some science teacher's actually got arrested for doing so. Isn't that the same as not allowing Intelligent Design to be taught in schools? Surely people have a right to make up their own minds, and not follow blindly like sheep. Surely that goes against everything modern science stands for?

Creationists also need to open their minds to the fact that it is possible to believe in God without following a strict, man-made religion like Christianity or Islam. Why does God have to be the beginning? What if God was just like you and I? What if he started out learning about the world like you and I, and after billions of years became a supreme being who has their own god? I believe in the cyclical nature of God. I believe each God is a creator, and each God has their own God. No beginnning, and No end. Eventually we will develop something as amazing as the sperm, ovum, skin, and cell division, but until that day we are human, and not Gods. You only become Gods when you are absent, and appear omnipotent to your own creations. Each God develops another creation to think like them so we can relate to it. That is why we prefer Dogs as pets to a woodlice, for example. One you can relate to and the other you cant.

Intelligent Design is scientific in the sense that it accepts scientific explanations of evolution. Who can deny that there are cave-dwelling species who have perfectly functional eyes, yet due to living in caves, have 'evolved' to develop skin flaps over them. There is also a rattlesnake in one area of America which is fortunate enough to be at the top of the food chain and has no natural predators. It therefore has a rattle still but it makes no noise because it doesn't need to scare anyone or thing away. Human beings have lost much of their body hair for similar reasons. Evolution is going on all around us. Intelligent Design accepts that.

Intelligent Design also states that there are certain unanswered, and perhaps unanswerable questions regarding, for example, the human bodily processes. Certain biological structures are so unlikely to have emerged by chance (evolution), that they may have been created. One such structure is that of blood clotting in the body. It cannot be broken down into smaller parts and therefore cannot be created via natural selection. The science of the human brain is also struggling to find a scientific explanation for human conscience. They know where all the memories, and sensory perceptions are stored but have no idea how they combine together to create conscience. The reason is, I believe, is that our conscience does not exist in our brains, but this cannot be 'science' because I cannot, as yet, prove this idea.

What if God was a scientist? What if they (God) already scientifically discovered for themselves DNA, Penicillin, Nuclear Fission etc many billions of years ago? Imagine that 5 Billion years ago (the alleged age of 'OUR Universe) they were experimenting with self-reproducing life forms that eventually were able to sustain themselves in small lab experiments until they finally set their baby in motion with the 'big bang' that helped spawn us all. Can you imagine what God might be scientifically working on now? Hopefully that analogy can give you a glimpse into my interpretation of our 'designer'.

'They must have been 'designed', is the Intelligent Design's unofficial slogan, and natural conclusion. I.D does not state who the 'designer' is, that is for Theologists to work out, it only states the 'designer'. The designer may not even be 'our creator', in my theory, it may be our creator's creator, or even its creator. No different from grandparents and grandchildren. They are all intrinsically linked yet different sentient beings.

One way I use to explain the multiple God theory is that our scrotum holds our testicles outside of our body because for life to reproduce, sperm must be kept at a temperature lower than that of the body. Now, is the same group of entities responsible for creating the time/space continuum and optimal temperatures for reproduction, the same entity that designed our scrotum? I don't think so. Our creator had to fit into carefully outlined rules and regulations. If our 'designer' was completely omnipotent he would have placed our bollocks well inside our bodies to avoid being kicked, and damaged. Of course you could argue that the one same God (singular or plural) created the rules first then fitted life into it. I don't dismiss this theory, but feel that the multiple God theory works because of the cyclical nature of nature. Try scientifically measuring gut feelings!

It may well turn out that these processes that Intelligent Design refers to cannot be answered by evolution, may well be answered by other means other than that of the 'designer'. I am not foolish enough to believe that my beliefs are right. I have developed my belief through a combination of too much thinking, many years of altered perceptions and gained insights, and the currently accepted body of knowledge that exists for human beings, AT THIS TIME.

Don't get me wrong I have no intentions of turning into David Koresh or anything, I just believe what I believe. My beliefs are not written in stone. However....... Join Me! (haha) I will break the seven seals of The Book of Revelations.

The future will change all science books, and all history books, that is guaranteed. So with that knowledge everyone, including all scientists and theologists should be more opened minded.

The point of this post is that by not allowing people to learn about one school of thought and belief you are censoring society. That is oppression, and totalitarianism at root level! People have the right to freedom of thought, and whether you believe it or not doesn't matter. Some will reject it and some will believe. Why does that worry you so much? Is it because you both think you are closer to God-like status than you really are?

Science and Religion is no different from Rangers and Celtic. Once you get over the fact that one is blue and one is green, and one has one belief that differs from the others belief, you might stop and realise you are all kicking the same fucking football. The game is the same, yet nobody knows what the final score will be.

I believe that 'Intelligent Design' should not be a radical theory to be feared, but should be embraced as an alternative to the puritanical beliefs of the two warring factions, Science and Religion.

If it turns out, that the 'Intelligent Design' community rejects evolutionary theories but supports the fundamentalist creationists ones, then its back to square one. At some point there has to be a realistic merger. Lets have some compromise people!

Peace and Love in a War Torn World!!