Natural history museums not a bastion of Science
Buffalo News article, "American museums standing up for Darwin", expressed an obvious connection in the debate over the plausibility of organic evolution: museums of natural history do not constitute a bastion of
natural science. Their foundation is general zoology – gross anatomy and morphology – which can lead and has led Darwin, who knew nothing of physiology and genetics, to premature and erroneous conclusions about the
origin of life and of possible relationships among living organisms. The essential question which is avoided at all costs by evolutionists is whether Darwinian evolution (a precise term with a specific definition) is
scientific: in other words, the debate is science versus Darwinian evolution. The academic disciple called bio-informatics, a spin-off from the current rapid advances in computer science, sheds much light on this debate
through its investigation of a phenomenon called intelligent design (ID). Scientists on the frontal crest are ecstatic over the predictive value of the ID field of research. Among other things, it establishes the
probability that the origin of a factor or process is a random phenomenon. It also establishes the corollary that the origin of a functional factor or system such as language (computer or otherwise) or an integrated
circuit (IC) cannot lie in random phenomena but in a directed phenomenon called intelligent design (ID). This is a highly sophisticated and scientific way of expressing what the average layperson knows from observation
(the reality-based first principles of science): i.e., that the results of random phenomena are chaotic and/or non-functional in a constructive sense, and that constructively functional factors or systems require
designers with intelligence that is directly proportional to the complexity of the factor or system. ID establishes mathematically that the simplest functional protein in living things could not have originated by
chance combinations of its constituent atoms, and that it is less that improbable that the approximately 140 functional proteins of the simplest primordial cell could have originated by chance even over billions of
years and at improbably high rates of favorable mutations and their survivability. Scientists who were once evolutionists/atheists are now embracing, in droves, the notion of intelligent design of the universe and of
life, but many remain silent for political reasons.
In addition to its implications in the world of scientific truth (reality), ID also has philosophic implications. Theologians now have a scientific
basis for the intelligent design of the universe and of life, while evolutionists/atheists must now relegate evolution to the waste baskets of humanistic philosophy and secular humanism.
It should now be
clear that the debate over intelligent design of life does not belong in the domains of philosophy and non-scientific journalism but rather in the realms of natural science and mathematics. Hence, natural history
museums do a disservice to us by not prefacing their evolution displays with a caution that they are presenting the greatest hoax in the history of philosophy.