STR † THE FREEDOM BLOG

Once again, we are in debt to the world’s best I.D. web-site, OverwhelmingEvidence.com. Today’s article is re-published by kind permission of OE’s guest blogger Henrietta Lacks. You can find the original version of this article, back at OE.com

OverwhelmingEvidence.com is the best site for serious discussion of the exciting science of Intelligent Design. This is the ID site that anybody can contribute to, just register and you can post your own articles. Spread the good news about God’s creation today!

I agree with the OverwhelmingEvidence.com blogger Helena Blavatsky who suggested that the Darwinists’ weak-spot is their addiction to scientific-naturalism, otherwise known as the ?materialist assumption? - the nihilistic conjecture that the only things worth thinking about are the mundane. I concur that we have to show the flaws in materialism if we are to engage the scientific community and show the folly of evolutionary dogma, but what shall we replace it with?

Disgusting paganist rock-musician “madona” claims to be a “material girl”, but what does this mean? Apparantly causing as much insult as possible to God-fearing Christians, parading around in her under-garments and taking the Lord’s name in vain. If scientists understood what materialism was really about, would they be so proud of it?

If we merely knock-down the materialistic assumptions on which Darwin’s theories are constructed, might something even worse rise to fill it’s place? Not if we take responsibility and suggest an alternative to the flawed concepts of materialism. Fortunately such a concept exists, and it is one with an excellent philosophical pedigree. But first, let me turn my attention to the failings of materialism:

Just look at the Discovery Institutes’s definition of materialism:

?Cultural materialism means living as if there were no God or moral absolutes, and all that matters is matter. Philosophical materialism means to argue that there is no God to establish any moral absolutes, and matter is all there is. The former world-view finds its justification in the latter. Actually, in the modern world, philosophical materialists act as the secular priesthood of a lifestyle based on hedonism and moral relativism. ? ( Source: Under God or Under Darwin? DI )

These are sobering words from one of the worlds most respected research organizations. Why then should we allow materialism to dominate our culture?

Scientific researcher Micheal Behe is one of the worlds most cited biologists. He is foremost amongst scientific researchers who demand that we reject the out-dated dogma of materialism.

Behe establishes that materialists limit themselves; that is, since most of us are forced by society to be obligatory materialists, both theists and atheists are restricted in their beliefs. Behe states that this restricts the sciences, forcing them to accept the theory of evolution as universal fact, even if it does not apply everywhere. This results in the same problem that the geocentric model, Newtonian physics, or extreme Puritanism posed in their time: arrogance about their theory, proponents do not notice that evolutionary proofs require us first to accept materialism ? they are guilty of blatant circular reasoning.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could break out of the prison of materialism when common-sense requires it? For example, when tackling scientific problems (such as the origin of species) which do not lend themselves well to materialistic analysis, we can ask ourselves if a non-materialistic solution makes more sense? Fortunately such a philosophy exists, and it is every bit superior to materialism: It’s proponents call it ?Theistic Realism?

According to Philip E. Johnson ,the founder of the Theistic Realism school, true knowledge must start with the acknowledgment of an intelligent designer as creator; This is self-evident from the unifying, ordered characteristics of the universe. Theistic Realism directly challenges materialism’s presumption that the intelligent designer cannot exist.

According to Johnson:

?Naturalistic evolutionary theory, as part of the grand metaphysical story of science, says that creation was by impersonal and unintelligent forces. The opposition between the [common-sense] and naturalistic stories is fundamental, and neither side can compromise over it. To compromise is to surrender.?

?.[T]here is absolutely no mystery about why living organisms appear to be the products of intelligent creation, and why scientific naturalists have to work so hard to keep themselves from perceiving the obvious. The reason living things give that appearance is that they actually are what they appear to be, and this fact is evident to all who do not cloud their minds with naturalistic philosophy or some comparable drug.?

What can I say other than it is all undeniable common-sense. When an evolutionist claims that Intelligent Design is not science because it does not follow the normal rules of science (materialism), I suggest that you respond that it is the evolutionist’s concept of science which has failed to evolve past it’s two-hundred year old assumptions.

Point them to Philip Johnson’s matchless ?Darwin on Trial?, and if they have a shred of objectivity, I am sure they will be convinced.