With the publication of our book, Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, the ID debate has settled into my consciousness once again. Having attended a private Christian high school were Creationism was taught as the one, absolute truth, I was shocked when I went to college (another religious school, mind you) and was taught that Evolution, on the other hand, was the correct theory for how our current world menagerie came into being. Since then, I've sort of combined the two sides in my head, and I find myself on neither end of the spectrum of ideas.

I've come to look at the book of Genesis as a work of allegory that expresses fundamental truths about the nature of God, the nature of human beings, the nature of God's relationship with humans and the rest of creation, and the nature of mankind's relationship with the world around them. God did not necessarily create everything in seven days, finishing it all off by stirring some dust into the form of a man and then creating women by way of a little organ harvesting. Nor am I a Darwinist. My religious convictions aside, Evolutionary theory as it is currently taught, has many holes in it-but proponents of Evolution hold onto the theory with the tenacity of the religious fundamentalists that fought back against Darwin in the first place-and with the same level of close-mindedness. Which irks me since the underlying purpose of science is to seek out truth by eliminating all possible falsehoods.

For instance, the fossil record has yet to offer up absolute proof of Evolutionary theory. If Evolution worked, we would see innumerable examples of intermediate stages of development piled one on top of each other-but we don't see examples of these in-between stage critters. On top of that, the whole game that genes play is one of repetition and duplication. When a mutation occurs the mutated embryo (if it even makes it that far) dies before it is born or shortly thereafter either on its own (when a mutation occurs, the rearrangement of the genetic code is usually severe enough that a non-viable creature will result) or with help from the creature's mother (take a look at one of my cat's-he was born with a misshapen skull, and his mother tried to kill him shortly after his birth-for those who care, we rescued him and he's doing just fine several years later, even if he is a little slow). Even if the mutated being survives its formative years, and somehow finds a mate that accepts him or her, chances are (due to the fact that mutations usually occur on recessive traits) the mutation will be diluted over generation so much so that it will disappear.

There is something to be said for phenotypic selection, though, as it does not require mutations. It just means that critters with certain characteristics are more likely to survive in certain situation than others, and they are the ones who get to spread their genetic material around. That's why polar bears are white, and why the color of arctic rabbits' fur changes during the year to match the season: the ones that came pre-equipped with the necessary biological gadgets survived and had offspring . . . the ones that were brown all year round couldn't hide well, and weren't able to catch food, or became food themselves.

So where did nature/polar bears/ humans come from? As in the actual step-by-step process? You've got me. I believe in Truth (notice the capital “T”) and in God, the Creator, but how did this supreme being bring all of it about? No clue. Evolutionary theory has some good points . . . but as it is taught now, it just doesn't make sense scientifically. And it is still just a THEORY. One that I tend to think has been sufficiently proven to be incorrect.

For more reading on Evolution v. I.D., check out the following links:

Dover, PA school district adopts teaching ID along with Evolution

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God: One of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence

ACLU planning lawsuit over 'intelligent design'

Very interesting topic indeed. The other day I watched Bill Moyers interviewing zoologist Richard Dawkins, who considers the psalms, and the Bible in general, to be simply "beautiful art" and adamantly believes in the theory of evolution even though (as he admitted), it relies on circumnstantial evidence. As you pointed out, we still do not have empirical data that supports the progression from one life form to another. All we see is the reproduction of species, a parent producing an offspring of the same species.
Like you, I am a Christian, but I am not quite sure what to make of all this. Three possibilities come to mind:
1.) God created all the species during the moment of Creation: no need for evolution.
2.) God created one species, or several, or one being from which, through an evolutionary process, all present living species emanated.
3.) No trascendence, no God, mere evolutionary process.
This might be simplistic, but it is all I can think of right now.
I have a few links to Eric Voegelin's ideas on evolution based on Linnaeus, and Kant's Critique of Judgment, which you may find interesting:

http://www.fritzwagner.com/ev/evolution_and_kant.html
http://www.fritzwagner.com/ev/origin_of_species1_linneaus.html

The point Kant makes is amazing; evolution merely shifts the question of the origin of species backwards. Now, the option for evolutionists is to adopt the idea of an infinite universe, allowing no space for a trascendent Being. However, the Big Bang theory seems to contradict this notion.

Well, I think this will challenge our minds for some time to come.

I have been thinking about this posting for a couple of days. I do not agree with creational evolution. The "Big Bang" states that life is essntially created from nothingness. This denies one of the fundamental & proven theories of Science itself. The LAW of cause and effect namely. Basic 9th grade Science teaches us that for every action there is an equal or opposite reaction. " Big Bang " just doesn't fit this framework. I have never seen the point of arguing it further than that. If creational evolution can ever fit these proven LAWS of Science, then maybe I can look at it again.

I find that species evolution is rational and produces the results that we would find in today's world. It also fits within Science. Species evolution is merely that, that 2 breeds of dog for instance mix and create a 3rd type of dog. The theory fits for me and I do not have to be a person of faith to see that it makes better sense.

What also amazes me is the fact that we are unwilling to take on faith the idea of God Creation, we relegate the Old Testament story of Cretion and Noah and the like to "allegory" but we are willing to accept as breathrough scientific fact the mere observations of a man on vacation in the Galapogos Islands writing in his journal. That is what Origin of Species is.

As I believe in a God and in his Creation, I choose as an act of faith to trust that I will never know even the smallest fraction of the universe in its entirety. I choose also not to believe that any other mere mortal has figured out these secrets either.

A helpful link for creationism:

http://www.creationevidence.org

I do not understand how Big Bang theory can contradict the so-called "laws" of the universe, and the Christian God of Creation. The big bang theory claims that the universe had a beginning, and that it was creatio ex nihilo, supporting Christian doctrine. The problem comes when a person says that creation out of nothing is uncaused.

Intelligent Design is quite a fascinating topic and it allows Christians who are completely anti-Evolution (macro-evolution) to take place in meaningful dialogue. I've met plenty of atheists who refuse to listen to me when they discover I'm a Christian. It doesn't matter if my thoughts have merit or not, because I believe in something as absurd as a deity, therefore all my ideas must be circumspect. You can get into the age-old "The Bible says evolution isn't true, and I know the Bible is true because God says it is, and I know God said it because the Bible tells me" circular argument that brings about scorn and ridicule. Part of the problem comes from the Christians who state that Darwin was an idiot and that he was completely wrong. That very idea is absurd. Darwin was quite a brilliant naturalist and nearly everything he wrote was also observed by him and can still be observed today. Micro-evolution happens and will likely continue to happen. It is when a person says an animal can change from one phylum to another that I object. That has never been observed nor, I believe, will it ever be observed. So, when I mention "evolution" in the rest of this, I refer to this 2nd form only. I don't want any misunderstandings.

I had the opportunity, thanks to a professor that made it required reading, to read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and thought it was an excellent defense of Intelligent Design. Behe crafts an argument that is full of instricate scientific nuances that most readers (myself included) can get lost within, yet the basic argument is almost a restatement of some of Thomas Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God. There must be a cause for the irreducably complex aspects of life, because it is impossible for it to have simply "appeared" sans cause. Evolution implies a slow (to some degree or another) change from one thing to another. While it's true that some, the late Dr. Gould included, believe in mini-explosions of change (short bursts of rapid change followed by long periods of evolutionary inactivity) it still does not account for the sudden appearance of twenty things at the same time that work together flawlessly in order to produce something else entirely.

Intelligent Design allows for that while not specifically mentioning the Judeo-Christian God. It doesn't mention the Muslim God, or any other deity (or group of deities). Insofar as my personal beliefs, I believe that Genesis is a literal account of creation. Why? I just do. I can't scientifically quantify it. However, Intelligent Design will allow me to argue for my beliefs without directly referencing the Bible, because only the Christian would find that type of argument convincing.