Intelligent Fail

http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/Columnists/Columns/THE_CASE_FOR_TEACHING_INTELLIGENT_DESIGN_IN_PUBLIC_SCHOOLS_Part_One/28827

“The purpose of this article is to present scientific evidence that the case for Intelligent Design is at least as plausible as the case for Evolution. Consequently, we will suggest that Intelligent Design and Evolution should be given equal consideration by educators and students in their search for the origin of life in the universe.”

Alright, well this should be fun. I wonder if any new exciting arguments for Intelligent Design will be presented or whether it will just be a rehash of points refuted a thousand times? Unfortunately, no, we will not receive any new arguments. (Note: I typed with before coming to the first argument which nearly caused me to bang my head off my desk).

“The most comfortable position for one who does not believe in God is the idea that the universe is eternal, with no beginning or ending, thus avoiding the need for any “First Cause” such as God. Current scientific facts, however, do not support the idea of an eternal universe because such a concept violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that as energy is employed to perform work, it is transferred from usable to unusable form. In other words, the universe is “running down” because energy is becoming less available for use.”

First off, I do not know of any atheist who makes the claim that the universe is eternal. Everything I have read suggests that the universe will eventually come to an end. Burleigh is creating an argument that doesn’t exist. In fact, the only claims to the argument about the universe being eternal appear to come from pro-Intelligent Design websites. The words of Stephen Hawking should do nicely here:
“He described -- through his electronic speech synthesizer -- how the general theory of relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe provoked conceptual changes, which meant that the idea of an ever-existing, ever-lasting universe was no longer tenable.” (http://english.cri.cn/2946/2006/06/19/421@104361.htm)

Damn those astrophysicists, they clearly know nothing of the claims Intelligent-Design proponents are making of those who do not believe in God!

To be fair, Burleigh does say, “There is now no serious scientist making the case that the universe is eternal. It most definitely had a beginning.” Again, I know of no atheist who would disagree with that statement. This argument proves nothing.
The next argument discusses the problem with the First Law of Thermodynamics. I don’t know enough regarding the origins of the universe to discuss this issue. I’m willing to admit that, I don’t know. Something Burleigh is probably incapable of doing. Anyway, he concludes with, “Scientists and philosophers alike agree that the universe must have had a cause.” It becomes apparent that at this point that Burleigh is building up to the cosmological or “first cause argument”.

“Since it is apparent that the universe is not eternal, and since it is also apparent that the universe could not have created itself, the only alternative is that the universe was created by something, or someone, that (a) existed before it; (b) is superior to it; and (c) is of a different nature. In other words, some eternal, infinite, uncaused First Cause that is superior to the universe must be responsible for its creation. In connection with this, another important fact should be considered. If there ever had been a time when nothing existed, then nothing would exist now. It is a self-evident truth that nothing produces nothing but nothingness. Thus, since something exists now, it must follow logically that something has existed forever. R.C. Sproul observes, “Indeed, reason demands that something must be self-existent…there must be a self existent being of some sort, somewhere, or nothing would or could exist.”

No reason demands that we do not attribute super-natural causes to natural events. Scientists may say the universe has a cause but, they may also say we aren’t certain that it has to be god.

“Paul Abersold, specialist in nuclear physics, an authority on neutron radiation and isotopes, wrote: “Although science can develop very plausible theories of a cataclysmic birth of the universe resulting in galaxies, stars, worlds, and atoms, it cannot explain where all this matter and energy came from and why the universe is so constituted and ordered. Straight thinking and clear reasoning demand the concept of God.”

Reasoning would demand that we admit that we do not possess full certainty on the origins of the universe and should be willing to continue to seek answers. We may never come to those answers and that’s fine, it doesn’t invalidate the science and it doesn’t prove or disprove god.

He then quotes scientists who discuss how the life originating randomly couldn’t have arisen by chance. They do not like the odds of it happening. Ignoring the differences between improbable and impossible.