The Illusion of Attacks, Part 5F

This entry is part 18 of 47 in the series Blog1

June 1, 2012

The Two Approaches

It is interesting to examine the differences of approach to evidence between the atheist evolutionary scientists and the archaeologist.

The atheist looks at the design of the human body, the cell, the complexity of the DNA and will immediately reject the idea of intelligent design.

On the other hand, the archaeologist will examine the uncovering of ancient sites that have no skeletal remains and look for evidence of the existence of ancient humans.

Does the archaeologist need to find an ancient television set or computer to convince him that intelligent life once lived at the site?


Does he even need to find an ancient chariot?


Does he need to find an ancient pot?


Does he need to find an ancient writing?

No.  Any of these finds would prove conclusive beyond all probability that ancient humanity was once there.

It is interesting instead that the criteria for the existence of intelligent designers in antiquity are not such conspicuous creations, but ancient elementary tools.

Some of the tools that supposedly prove the existent of the ancient intelligent designer are so crude that they would not be recognized as an intelligent creation by many people of today. Some of the ancient arrowheads and tools are so primitive that they look as if they could have been produced by natural causes. In fact, some ancient finds have such elementary tools that there is not consensus as to whether the supposed tools were created by intelligent design or merely the result of the forces of nature in motion.

Here is an example of various tools that are seen as proving the existence of an ancient intelligent designer. Rougher tools than these are seen as evidence but inconclusive proof of intelligent humans.

Now compare those ancient tools which are considered conclusive proof of intelligent design compared to the bar set for intelligent design as far as the creation of life goes.

Within the cell are tiny electric motors, trucking systems, communications systems, recycling systems, defense systems, trash removal, and the most sophisticated computers and software ever created. Are these seen as evidence of intelligent design?

No.  Not by a large number of scientists

Yet by another branch of science a simple flint arrowhead is proof of intelligent design…

What is wrong with this picture?

Plenty when you think of it.

For some strange reason it is a simple thing to find a very elementary creation and attribute it to intelligent design but when one discovers something complex beyond the imagination or current ability to duplicate an almost superhuman doubt and skepticism comes into play.

What’s the explanation for this odd approach? There are several possibilities.

(1) The investigator was taught about the God of hellfire and brimstone and totally rejects such a being

(2) Then there are other versions of God that the scientists may deem silly and reject them.

(3) He rejects the idea that a loving God could put up with all the pain and suffering in the world.

(4) Religious people get on his nerves and he doesn’t want to be associated with them.

The bottom line is that many non-believers have a grudge against believing in God or an Intelligent designer and have made up their mind to find another reason besides God that explains creation. People find evidence of what they are looking for no matter how illogical it is. If a researcher looks for evidence to support his prejudice that men are smarter than women he will find it; and if another seeks evidence that women are smarter then men that will be found also.

The only reliable seeker is he who is an objective observer and is willing to accept any truthful answer as being correct.


Copyright 2012 by J J Dewey

Register at The Majority Speaks Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to The Majority Speaks  Here


Series Navigation<< The Illusion of Attacks, Part 5EThe Illusion of Attacks, Part 5G >>

Speak Your Mind


Blue Captcha Image