When it comes to evolution or creation, most people are confident that what they believe is correct, but they have no idea why they believe what they do. Even die-hard supporters show their ignorance on this topic when they challenge each other to debates. The very idea that a creation scientist can debate an evolutionist or that an advocate for intelligent design can debate an evolutionist is absurd. The reason is not as some might suppose that evolution is a proven fact. But rather that all three disciplines make different assumptions before evaluating the scientific evidence. The evidence is the same, but how one interprets it depends entirely on what one assumes is true. Thus, even science is based on faith.

Creation Science and Young Earth Creationism:

Many people believe that the earth was created by God 6,000 years ago, in 6 days. This group of people known as young earth creationists believe that the creation story in the Bible is scientifically accurate. This is an assumption and for the young earth creationist, this assumption is a self evident truth or axiom. No scientific evidence can disprove the young earth axiom, because young earth creationists believe that the scientific evidence should be interpreted using the young earth axiom. This process gives rise to creation science. Creation scientists often interpret the evidence differently than scientists. They assume that the earth was created 6000 years ago and then set about to show that the scientific evidence shows that their assumption is correct.

To summarize: young earth creationism is an axiom. That is it is a self evident truth held by many that the earth was created 6000 years ago. Creation science is a discipline that interprets scientific evidence using the young earth axiom for guidance.

Evolution and Atheism:

Atheists believe that God does not exist. While many scientists believe in God, science itself must assume that He does not exist. Science is based on two axioms: 1) The observable axiom - scientists can accurately observe the universe and everything in it. 2) The naturalistic axiom - everything that happens, has happened and will happen can be described by naturalistic processes. In other words, no help from any supernatural entity like God is required. Science cannot function properly without these two assumptions. For example, suppose a scientist conducts an experiment where he measures how much salt will dissolve in a glass of water. Does the amount of salt depend on God’s mood at the time of the experiment or does it depend on the chemical properties of water and salt? For science to work and be effective, it must assume that the latter explanation is always correct. Thus, science assumes that the atheists are correct. And this assumption is not by choice but rather by necessity. Without this assumption science just does not work.

Most of the time, this naturalistic assumption does not create controversy. That is if the chemistry of water and salt determine how much salt dissolves in water, everyone is happy. This finding does not go against anyone’s religion. So we don’t have any controversy and science works as it should.

But what about evolution and more specifically the origin of life. When science starts to investigate these events, it can and does create controversy. In this case, science is applying the philosophy of atheism to investigate events that most believe can be attributed to God’s handiwork or will. Now we have controversy. And interestingly enough, it is this controversy that forces science to fail. Because of the attention, scientists are no longer allowed to say “we don’t know.” Instead, they often promote a hypothesis with no experimental support to the status of theory (for example, self replicating RNA molecules). And they claim they know how things happened when in reality they don’t have a clue.

Furthermore, many things are just assumed true. For example, science assumes that evolution is true. This assumption arises directly from the naturalistic axiom. So when Darwin proposed his theory, science did not have to test it. Instead it just set about trying to prove it correct.

People often give science more credit than it deserves. The way scientists interpret evidence all relies on two assumptions. So the ability of science to accurately describe any event depends entirely on these two assumptions. One could say it is science’s faith in atheism that allowed it to readily accept evolution and promote Darwin’s theory to the status of proven fact. One could also say, that if God exists, science cannot find Him.

Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution:

Theistic evolution is the idea that God used evolution as a tool to guide creation. That is the creation story in the Bible is not scientifically accurate. The earth is very old and many different animals and plants have evolved over the earth’s history. This evolution is the result of God’s guidance. There is a continuum of beliefs in the Christian church between young earth creationism and theistic evolution.

Intelligent design can test theistic evolution. If one assumes that God uses evolution as a tool, then we ought to be able to analyze the scientific evidence and find out which things God did and which things just happened by evolution. The criteria is as follows: events that have a reasonable chance of happening in 5 billion years are assigned to evolution, and those that have no chance are assigned to the work of the designer -> hence intelligent design. This is why intelligent design relies so heavily on statistics, probability theory, computer simulations and molecular biology. To a casual observer it looks like science. It is important to remember that intelligent design is not science. It cannot be science because science assumes that the designer does not exist.

Intelligent design differs from both creation science and science in a very important way. Intelligent design does not assume that the axiom on which it rests (theistic evolution) is correct. By using probability theory to calculate the odds of something happening, intelligent design theory can either infer design and no design. Thus, unlike evolution and creation science, intelligent design can be disproven. In other words, if the scientific evidence does not suggest a designer was required to create life, then intelligent design will not infer one. Thus, in my opinion, intelligent design offers a better way to investigate origin of life theories.