It seems to me that the atheistic contributors to the debate on intelligent design ignore one essential point which none of them seems to want to confront. In an examination of the question of our genesis, one fact is ignored: all speculation, analysis and conjecture as to the nature and genesis of our universe is carried out by means of the mind and of the intelligence which mankind possesses. Any conclusion reached is an expression of belief.
If not shaped by an intelligent creative force around us, where did this intelligence come from? By means of evolution? Evolution from what? Have we evolved from mindless inert matter that somehow has shaped itself into homo sapiens, or through the agency of an intelligent creative force which men call God?
Man's mind only reflects the design and order that is all around him, and the marvels that our civilisation has created throughout the centuries are all based on the fact that there is order and predictability in our universe which can be discovered and harnessed to our own scientific ends.
We are surrounded by evidence of intelligent design. Take but one example: the suckling mechanism of the whale. The whale is a mammal which suckles its young underwater. It does so by means of a watertight cap around the mother's nipple which fits tightly around the baby's snout so as not to allow the entrance of sea water. Such a mechanism does not allow of a transitional form which adapts slowly to its environment. It does not allow for a gradual evolutionary process. It must exist perfectly formed for the purpose or the baby whale dies. How else could such a mechanism exist if not brought about by an intelligent and purposeful creative force?
In the final analysis, any answer to these metaphysical questions must be an expression of belief. The atheist is as much a believer as is the theist.
The former believes there is no God; the latter believes there is. Which of the two beliefs is more in harmony with the evidence ? The answer should be self-evident.
Joe Pieri, 11 Bishopsgate, Kenmure Drive, Bishopbriggs, Glasgow.
It is certainly one of the myths surrounding intelligent design (ID), repeated by two of your recent correspondents, that publications supporting ID do not appear in peer-reviewed scientific publications. I am aware of up to 20 such papers and articles, and a useful list can be found at www.discovery.org/a/2640/ Certainly Cambridge University Press thought ID was a sufficiently credible position to include several articles on the subject in its recent book, Debating Design.
Peer review, of course, necessarily reflects the scientific consensus in a way that can make it challenging for fresh and controversial perspectives to be heard. And there is a potential Catch-22. It goes like this. We don't think ID is science and so will not publish papers on it; and, by the way, because you have few publications, you can't be credible science.
Dr Alastair Noble, 4 Lynn Drive, Eaglesham.
Alan Lawson (Letters, October 16) describes well the self-serving nature of organised religion. It was the late American comedian, W C Fields, who in 1943 called religion "a refuge for the sap, the ignorant and the bigot". Looking around in today's troubled world it is very easy to put people into these remarkably accurate categories.
Malcolm Parkin, 15 Gamekeepers Road, Kinnesswood, Kinross.
In the Gospel according to Alan Lawson, it is written that "religionists generally invariably assume a position of moral superiority". Whoever wrote this clearly cannot distinguish between propositions that are "generally" true and those that are "invariably" so.
Brian D Finch, 56 Fingal Street, Maryhill, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article