Learning to Discover Design Part 3

Learning to Discover Design Part 3

Sept. 26 2017


We have been looking at multiple pieces of evidence that display the marvelous and intricate workings of the creator of the cosmos. Design characteristics are present in every area of human discovery.

However, many skeptics will admonish us that Intelligent Design is not Scientific in nature, therefore the entire discipline is invalid. But is this narrative true? Is this the ultimate answer that overrides all of the evidence that we see with our eyes and interpret with our minds?

My response to this argument is that the study of Intelligent design is scientific in its discovery process the same way as forensic science is used in a court of law. Forensics looks at circumstantial and technical evidence as cumulative in nature (the more material evidence, the better). Then based on this precision, makes a conclusion based on the most likely valid explanation for the evidence present.


Therefore, if the skeptic claims that all the evidence for design is invalid because it lacks scientific inquiry, they would have to invalidate our entire legal system and criminal justice as well in order to be consistent. Apparently this double standard does not seem to create a problem in their minds.

I am of the opinion that the reason they claim that design has a foul lack of science is that they have no other strong argument against the overwhelming evidence of design being the very best explanation of the origin of the cosmos.  God left his fingerprints all over the scene of the Big Bang. These theological implications are huge…and they are not going away any time soon.


Is Intelligent Design Science? Dr. Stephen Meyers