The fundamental issue that is not being addressed in the battle between intelligent design and evolution is design itself. A design is a set of laws which establish the arrangement and functionality of an organism or entity. To scientifically prove the theories of intelligent design or evolution is to first prove whether living things function according to a design comprised of laws or function lawlessly and without design, or at random. If life forms are found to exist indiscriminately, no second step is necessary because the theory of evolution will be proven correct. If life forms are found to exist according to design, then intelligent design will be proven correct which in turn engenders two subsequent intelligent design theories pertaining to the origin of the design, whether it originates from the intelligence of the life form itself or is established by some other intelligence. (Design cannot exist independent of intelligence because designs are plans which determine the structure and function of an organism in the language of physical laws. The compilation of laws into fixed designs is by definition, intelligence.)

Here are the three possible theories of the origin of life listed out specifically, along with a general assessment of its scientific validity:

A) Evolution – Life spontaneously originated from non-living matter as a single-celled organism and accumulated matter/mutated at random without design, law, or purpose, which process gave rise to all life forms over time. Spontaneous generation has not yet been witnessed, replicated, or proven in any scientific manner, nor has anything ever been found to exist without design, structure or law.

B) Intelligent Design: Internal – All living things function according to a design established by its own intelligence. The life form itself is responsible for its own genesis, for accumulating and organizing matter according to its own design, for adapting itself to any changes in its environment, and for the design of its offspring. No living thing which can pre-determine or establish the laws of its own functionality has yet been scientifically proven to exist, but it is a scientific fact that all things in the universe exist by design and according to law and order.

C) Intelligent Design: External– All living things function according to a design established by intelligence other than its own. External intelligence is responsible for its genesis. Life forms grow, adapt, procreate and function according to pre-established laws originated by independent intelligence. An intelligent designer of any kind has not yet been scientifically proven to exist, but it is a scientific fact that all things in the universe exist by design and according to law and order.

Theories A, B and C are currently the only possible scientific explanations for the existence of life, but the scientific validity of each theory automatically rules out evolution, or theory A, as a possibility. If nothing in the universe exists at random – without structure, design, or law – then evolution is false. Intelligent design is responsible for the existence of life, and so we must now direct our attention toward theories B and C.

Before we move on to intelligent design, we must first address four popular fallacies: “natural selection,” “macroevolution,” “microevolution” and “unintelligent design.” Those who have been misled by these ideas would argue that they should be included as additional possible explanations for the existence of life, which they are not because natural selection, macroevolution and microevolution already fall under intelligent design, and unintelligent design does not exist.

Natural Selection

As per natural selection, if change over time originates from reproductive selections, then the intelligence of the organism itself would be responsible for the design and intelligence of its offspring according to theory B, and the intelligence of some other entity would be responsible for the subsequent design and intelligence of offspring according to theory C. Natural selection cannot fall under evolutionary theory A because evolution is in direct conflict with it. An intelligently designed life form possessing the intelligence to make “favorable” reproductive choices (because it must have intelligence enough to know what is “favorable” for its design in the first place, not to mention the fact that it is intelligently designed for reproduction) is contrary to evolutionary life forms which accumulate matter at random without law and without design (which are not known to exist).

Macroevolution

Macroevolution, though it has never been proven, is the ability of one species to evolve into another species over time. If this were true it could only fall under intelligent design because if a species has the ability to evolve into another then it would be due to the fact that it has been intelligently designed to do so, and would evolve according to the laws of its design. It is a life form’s intelligent design that provides for reproductive processes and inheritance in the first place. All macro evolving life forms could only be described as one intelligently designed species somehow transforming into another intelligently designed species according to the dictates of an internal or external intelligence.

Microevolution

Microevolution – small changes within species over time – has been proven but must also fall under intelligent design because whatever changes a species makes is according to the laws of its intelligent design. The species is specifically designed to change certain things over time such as the shape of facial features or height, but it is not designed to change other things, such as the necessity of a brain, heart, or the structure of a cell, etc. It is therefore permitted or prohibited to make certain changes according to an external or internal intelligence. Micro-evolving life forms can only be described as changes within a species over time according to the laws of intelligent design.

Unintelligent Design

Unintelligent design is a deceptive term used to attribute the appearance of design in all things to nothing more than purposeless and unguided conglomerations generated by random elements reacting in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry (or the natural forces of the universe). But if elements were random and lawless, they would not be subject to any law whatsoever, including all chemical and physical laws in the universe. Because elements are intelligently designed, part of their design is to react physically and chemically in specific, lawful ways under certain conditions. If they were not intelligently designed to react, there would be no reaction. This is why “unintelligent design” is self-contradictory, and therefore cannot exist. Because design exists in all things, all things exist in one of two states: in accordance with design laws (true) or in violation of design laws (false). Intelligence is the ability to distinguish between, express, or manifest true and false. Because all living and non-living things are intelligently designed, all things have the ability to exhibit whether they are in accordance with or in violation of their design laws. If a thing is in accordance, then it will be true, on, functional, ordered, enduring, constructive or living, (depending on whether the subject in question is living or non-living). If it is in violation of intelligent design laws, it will be false, off, dysfunctional, disordered, degenerate, destructive or dying/dead. Because all things have the ability to indentify and/or express true and false, all design is intelligent. If design could be unintelligent, there would exist no differentiation between or expression of true and false. Thus if unintelligent design were a reality, instead of a binary universe there would be some sort of unimaginable and indescribable realm of neither something nor nothing, of neither living nor dead, on nor off, truth nor falsehood. But this is not so, nor could it ever be, which makes the concept of “unintelligent design” a self-contradiction in the exact same sense as “the laws of evolution.”

Now that these nonsensical notions are done away with, we can now focus on which intelligent design theory is true.

Let us now consider theories B and C, whether life forms are designed according to their own intelligence or by an external intelligence. If we as human beings, the most intelligent life form known to exist, cannot dictate a single law governing our own functionality and design, then no other less intelligent life form can either. Therefore, Theory B is just as fatuous and fraudulent a theory as evolution is. Simply stated, there is no such thing as a life form that can conceptualize itself and then go on to construct itself, or conceptualize and construct itself simultaneously, no matter how expansive the time frame. Life forms cannot in any way create, destroy or ignore the laws by which they function. That leaves us with Theory C – All living things function according to a design established by intelligence other than its own.

This is not a complicated subject at all. All things in the universe are governed not only by the natural laws of the universe, but are also governed by a specific and unique set of laws that make up its functional design. The laws that govern the intelligent design of any living or non-living organism are as immutable as the laws that govern the universe, and are as indestructible. The truth of this issue is so logical and easily concluded that I am beginning to wonder if both sides have been prolonging this tired debate so the grant money will continue to flow in to fund their “research.” What scientists should all be searching for is the source of this external intelligence by which all things have been designed, which might happen if they were objective enough to recognize that not only does the entire structure of the universe and the realm of science completely reject the myth of evolution, but so does the behavior of evolutionary scientists themselves.

If evolution is such a widespread and accepted theory, then why do evolution proponents conduct all their scientific study and research under the assumption that all living things are intelligently designed? When are evolutionary scientists ever undergoing studies about the current “natural selection” of life forms and their resulting change over time into new species? Why aren’t they researching burn victims to see if their offspring will eventually evolve fireproof skin? Why aren’t they offering money to case-study people who have survived gunshot wounds or 100 foot falls and encouraging them to generate offspring who will someday evolve wings and resistance to bullets? How about getting everyone to perpetually drive drunk to see if we can’t evolve past alcohol-related auto fatalities? If scientists proclaim that evolution is so slow it cannot possibly be studied or observed, why aren’t they researching ways in which evolution can be sped up? If evolution is irrefutable, why aren’t scientists clamoring to be the first to identify what controls the rate of evolution and discover ways in which it can be accelerated? Why are evolutionary scientists completely disinterested in studying children with birth defects, and excitedly researching these wondrous genetic mutations that are supposedly the beginning of evolution toward new species? Why are evolutionary scientists the ones who fret over the temperature of the earth and the polar bear count, when life forms are so adept at evolving that polar bears, lacking ice shelves, could simply evolve back into walruses or whales? When the news of earthquakes, floods, fires, “global warming,” famines and widespread viruses make headlines, why are evolution proponents not shrugging their collective shoulders with callous indifference, instructing us to shut up and deal with natural disasters by evolving resistance to them and improving our fitness for survival? If life is so rough for humans, why can’t we evolve back into simpler and less energy-consuming organisms like, say, cockroaches? If living things share common DNA, then it should be fairly easy to disregard our genes that code for Homo sapiens and express only the genes for Periplaneta americana.

The truth is, all scientists know evolution is a sham, that all living things exist according to the immutable laws of intelligent design, and if these laws are violated, life forms perish. This is the cause of their panic; in the face of tragedy and disaster, we humans with our unalterable, indestructible intelligent designs are subject to utter annihilation as there is zero chance of evolving survival abilities beyond our pre-established designs simply because evolution does not exist. Change exists, but only according to the dictates of intelligent design. Intelligent design is responsible for what kinds of changes an organism is allowed to make, or whether change is permitted at all. Scientists know not to waste time studying children with birth defects because all mutations are violations of intelligent design laws which is why the term “defect” is used, because when something required to function according to intelligent design fails to do so, it is defective, not effective. The scientific world revolves around and is dependent upon the invariable laws of intelligent design. Without intelligent design, scientists would have no possible way to study life forms, as all life forms would exist randomly, lawlessly and without definition. There would be no way to study ANY organism, living or non-living, were it not for the universal application of intelligent design. (The real kicker is that even if a life form could exist at random and without law, it must have been designated as such according to the laws of intelligent design.)

It is then not only the behavior of scientists that affirm the reality of intelligent design, but science itself. Science can only be described as an acknowledgement of intelligent design. Science is the study of the laws or designs that govern all living and non-living things. If evolution were true there would be no design to study as all things would exist at random, without law and without truth. Nothing would be testable or verifiable because there would be no constant law to test against, and nothing to test for. As was mentioned above under “unintelligent design,” if there were no pre-established design or pre-set laws by which living things function, there would be no such thing as illnesses, defects, or death. Illnesses, defects and death are nothing more than violations of pre-determined laws, which laws cannot be created nor destroyed. If a law requires an organism to function a certain way and it fails to do so, then according to intelligent design there would be an illness or defect associated with that failure, and according to evolution there would be no such thing as an illness or a defect simply because there is no pre-established law or design by which it could be dysfunctional. Life forms would have no reason to experience death as there would exist no law requiring it to die. Is there such a thing as illness, defects or death in all life forms? Yes. Therefore it is a scientific fact that all life forms exist according to pre-established designs or in violation of them. Organisms which abide by their pre-established designs are functional, and organisms which violate laws established by their designs are dysfunctional. Can we now go further than simple true and false and prove that these designs were established by intelligence higher than our own? Do any life forms, while intelligent to varying degrees, understand all of the laws governing their functionality? No, they do not. In fact, it is only human beings who have obtained enough intelligence to even begin to study our own pre-established designs such as cellular respiration, DNA, etc. If we cannot fully comprehend our own pre-established design and cannot do anything to change it even if we did, then that means whatever did establish our design does understand it. If we, being intelligent do not understand something and cannot establish our own laws, but something else does comprehend and has established our laws, then the latter must be intelligent – even more so than we are.

Because science itself is an acknowledgement of intelligent design, and the behavior of all scientists is also an acknowledgement intelligent design, the entire realm of science must be reestablished upon the basic principle that all things are intelligently designed. To not do so would be unscientific.

It is one thing to watch a fantastic movie where good and evil are locked in an epic battle, and just as it seems good is certain to suffer a tragic demise, it somehow triumphs over evil at the last crucial moment. It is an entirely different experience to watch a documentary of real-life events, where evil has taken up residence at nearly every prestigious academic and scientific institution in the country, has the eyes, ears and minds of most of our nation’s youth, promotes its opinions as fact, and good is completely powerless against it. (I am taking the liberty to compare Darwinists in this instance – or those who subscribe to the Theory of Evolution – to evil simply because the evidence in this documentary points to the fact that Darwinists are attempting to silence their opposition by force instead of by logic and reason.)

As I read through various internet articles and the posted comments on this subject, one thing is clear in the war between Evolution and Intelligent Design: both parties believe their greatest weapon is that their enemies cannot scientifically substantiate their own claims. Because Creationists believe Darwinists cannot prove that life spontaneously generated, and Darwinists believe Creationists cannot prove the existence of a Creator, it would seem that neither would have the monopoly in the realm of academia. But for some reason, as this documentary reveals and from my own personal educational experience, Darwinism rules the roost.

The reason Darwinists are prevailing over Creationists in promoting their ideology is simply because Darwinists are engaging in deception. Creationists admit freely that they do not have concrete scientific evidence to back up their theory of the existence of a Creator. Darwinists claim to have scientific evidence to back up their theory of evolution, but are deceptive in this claim because the most important evidence pertaining to this theory is curiously absent: 1) There is no scientific evidence supporting spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter (absolutely necessary to support evolution) and 2) There is no scientific evidence supporting any single instance of evolution between species (also absolutely necessary to support evolution). Darwinists could be counted as honest if they simply stated, as do Creationists, that they do not have scientific evidence to back up their theory of evolution, but since they do have evidence showing minor changes within species they have taken it upon themselves to deem their own science more grounded and worthy than Intelligent Design and move forward in a hasty effort to silence debate and opposition so their specious theory will not be exposed to further scrutiny.

This quote seems to sum up what is happening in this conflict:

“The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.”

– H.L. Mencken

Because they are losing, there are only two choices Creationists have in order to stay in the game. They can try to become more daring liars than Darwinists and see if that catches on, or they can simply get to work scientifically proving their theory of Intelligent Design. They cannot, however, continue to do what they are doing, which is to repeatedly claim their theory is unprovable in its entirety because God (or a Creator) cannot be proven scientifically, and whine that Darwinists cannot prove their theory in its entirety either. This has proven to be fruitless on two counts:

1) It is ridiculous to advance any theory whose proponents admit cannot be proven scientifically because the main subject of their theory is beyond the realm of science and

2) The scientific world has already shown that they prefer the unproven Darwinist theory to the unproven Creationist theory, and do not care in the least if Darwinists advance their theory by deception.

To change a game plan requires a change of thinking. There is no man more often debunked than the man who continues to claim that certain things are unknowable. Science is the study of truth, and all truth can be proven scientifically. There is not one set of truths that can be proven and relied upon and another separate set which are unprovable and unreliable. It is only a matter of identifying laws or truths that already exist. Gravity is a good example: it cannot be seen, but it can be (and has been) scientifically proven to exist. Therefore, Creationists (and Darwinists also) must change their thinking, which in turn would change the logistics of the battle. Creationists must realize that if God exists, then the existence of God can be scientifically proven. Darwinists must also realize that if evolution exists, then it also can be scientifically proven. Thus the battle would change from a chaotic, confused entanglement where only the most clever and obnoxious liars are rewarded with the ability to spread their ideology to greater masses through our institutions of learning, and instead turn to a battle for truth, wherein the theory that can be substantiated by science in its entirety is the one that wins acceptance and promotion based on the merit of its truth.

Bring on the challenge – let’s have a clean fight.