“Where does life come from?” There are essentially only two answers: Life and its diversity were designed by an intelligence for a purpose or it simply “occurs” by natural law and chance and not by design.

The religious and non-religious implications of either response are obvious. A design inference supports and leads to theistic religions. The naturalistic conclusion is antagonistic to theistic religion and leads to non-theistic belief systems, laws, morals and ethics that sharply conflict with those derived from the major religions of the world.

I believe the scientific evidence of design is abundant and convincing. I believe that Evolution is just a theory and has never been proven fact or the scientist of todays time would not be split in their beliefs. Biochemists can’t avoid using design terminology when they encounter the purpose, function and apparent meaning that pervades living systems. Intention and purpose, which can only be generated by intelligence, is implicitly recognized in the language used by science: the genetic “code;” the “blue print” of life; “messenger” RNA; etc.

Why are public school systems afraid of the debate between evolution and creationism? Most students opinions are declared invalid if design is suggested with out any objective evaluation of the evidence. Prohibiting debate effectively provides the naturalistic hypothesis with a monopoly on the scientific explanation of origins. Instead of promoting an objective search for the truth, teaching only naturalism abandons it.

I believe public school indoctrination of students in naturalism offends the First Amendment of our Constitution. Censorship of the evidence of design violates the requirements of the establishment clause that government remain “neutral” when it enters a religious arena. Censorship also violates the
rights of teachers, students and parents to have public education conducted without discrimination against viewpoints relevant to the subject matter being taught. For those of you reading this that are not in the USA, I do not pretend to know how this effects your rights as I only know about the rights given to me by my government.

Objectivity would allow students to be shown the scientific evidence that supports both viewpoints. This would permit students to reach informed conclusions about the best scientific explanation of where they come from. It would improve the quality and credibility of origins science; and permit schools to teach rather than to indoctrinate, consistent with their constitutional obligation to remain neutral about a subject that has such significant conflicting religious implications. By refusing to teach both sides of the story, I feel that I am essentially being witnessed to in a way that infringes on my life too.

I do not think that I use my faith as a "crutch" in life. I am not a weak minded individual who needs religion to tell me how to live. My faith actually is an enhancement to my life. I have felt the moving of the spirit in my life and know for certain that in my life he is very much real. I can look at a beautiful sunset and believe that my creator designed it to be beautiful for me to look at because he loves me instead of just thinking it happened and was just an occurance that happened. I can look at the storms of life and see how they make my life richer in the long run. I believe the same with my relationships with people. I can believe that they do things for me to make my life sweeter and full of more meaning or I can think it is chance that someone went out of their way for me. I choose to believe they designed to go out of their way for me to show how much they care for me. Basically for me it is easier to believe in design rather than chance.

One final point.... I designed the words on this page to reflect my feelings and beliefs. I did not just pick out random letters and expect them to fall into the words I wanted. No matter how many times I take all these letters and scramble them up, they will never fall into this exact pattern unless I design them again. To test this theory scientifically do a simple test.... rip up a whole piece of paper and throw it up in the air. Does it ever fall into a perfect piece of paper again? If I tape the pieces back together again they are still not perfect but in more of the original design than when I just toss them in the air!

It is nice that this topic can be discussed without fighting among the troops!