Propagandists for Darwin’s theory often claim their opponents are unscientific. They claim their opponents never offer science an alternative theory. They criticize their critics for their continual criticism. This is true of Eugenie Scott, PZ Meyer, Richard Dawkins, and the like.
I have noticed one so-called creationist work often mentioned and criticized by Darwinian propagandists. That work is The Mystery of Life Origins: Reassessing Current Theories by Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olson. Therefore, I bought that book and have been reading it.
While reading the first chapter, I began to realize why this book is a problem to Darwin’s propagandists. First, a better sub-title for the book would be Reassessing the Current Theories of Chemical Evolution. That is the actual subject of the book and for good reason: its authors are all professional chemists, evangelists or philosophers. Second, these authors identify the scientific community’s problems with chemical evolution, the statistical improbability of the evolution of cellular life by random chance, the lack of evidence for evolutionary predestination based on finding life on other planets, and the most troubling problem is with the nature of information available to and present by origin science theories.
Quoting preeminent scientists like George Gaylord Simpson, philosophers of science like Karl Pooper, and the prestigious scientific journal like Nature, the authors demonstrates the evolutionary theory of origins is mere speculation, which is exactly the claim made by Darwin’s propagandists against Intelligent Design. If you have watched the documentary Expelled, then you know they also admit they do not know how life actually began.
Consequently, the theories of Creation Science and Intelligent Design are as scientific as is the theory of Evolution to the extent the scientific community (meaning academia, big business, and government) produces and allows observational research by which to verify various theories. To test the plausibility of any theory and its inferences, real scientific research and publication of findings is required; but if it is prevented by the status quo in academia and society, academic and intellectual freedom is denied.
That is the underlying issue of the Evolution v Creation debate. It’s about philosophical views and the suppression of intellectual freedom. It’s bad politics as the many court cases hindering academic and freedom. According to Darwinian propagandists like Eugenie Scott, these cases presumably prove that the Creation Science and Intelligent Design theories are just religious theologies pretending to be science. Decisions of judges are not scientific judgments either.
The belief in a Creator of the material world and that the Creator intervenes in nature to direct or repair it is not illogical. To the members the Continental Congress of this nation, it was self-evidently rational. For a magnificently complex universe and life in it to come about by random accidents was self-evidently irrational. The proposition of Darwinian evolution that life developed by random chance mutations is still illogical as well as unproven. Complex machines do not just assemble themselves by accident. They are purposefully made according to a predetermined design according to ability and knowledge (information).
I have also noticed that all Origin theories, even the Genesis account, always assume preexisting material, organism, or universe from which our world and life in it came into existence. Both name elements and components, describe processes, identify sources, and employ reason and observation. Prior to Darwin and the rise of atheistic secularism, scientific discoveries were expected to give scientists and society a greater understanding of the Creator and his purpose(s) for creation. That is why religion is not a hindrance to science. On the contrary, it is only a hindrance to unethical scientific agendas.
If as David Bohm theorizes, the entire blueprint of the universe and all forms of life exist in every part of nature. Then, its source must have been very intelligent and skillful. Evolutionists like Richard Dawkins speculate that an intelligent being or being could have been the source. Others called that being God. For still others, their personal experience of God verifies their belief. Seeing that millions of people around the world for two millenniums have repeatedly have experienced the same verification, should not God then be regarded as an empirical fact?
Sources: Eugenie C. Scott, “American Antievolutionism: Retrospect and Prospect” in Evolution: The First Four Billion Years, Michael Ruse and Joseph Travis, eds., Cambridge, MA: Belnap Press, 2009): pp. 370-399; Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed, DVD, directed by Nathan Frankowski (Universal City, CA: Vivendi Entertainment, 2008); The Mystery of Life’s Origin (Dallas, TX: Lewis & Stanley,: 1984): pp. 1-7.
Note: I found “Evolution” at the Xenia Library but I could not find “Mystery,” but I did find it at the downtown Montgomery County Library. Other Greene County Libraries have “Expelled,” but the Xenia Library seems to prefer to spend tax dollars on Evolution.