Thoughts in a Haystack

"I know enough not to take what evolutionists say at face value," says [Shaun Johnston in an article published this month by Evolved Self Publishing]. "I know that to them denial of intelligent design is just a flag they muster behind. But I do think it makes them look silly. It's obviously not true. But it's also silly because they're saying that they, and you and I, are also not intelligently designed, though we, as human beings, obviously can design intelligently. In fact, that's almost the definition of 'sapiens' in 'Homo sapiens.' Tool making is definitely an example of intelligent design."

Does it mean anything to claim that an intelligent designer--a human being--was not itself, or himself or herself, intelligently designed, asks Johnston? "I don't think it does. One could as logically say 'yes, we must have been intelligently designed,' as 'no.' If neo-Darwinists accept that saying 'yes' is within reason, then they must vote for or against human exceptionalism. If they vote for it, saying human beings are the only evolved creatures intelligently designed, then they skate close to the creationist position that humans are fundamentally different from the rest of nature. If they vote against it, saying human beings may not be the only ones that have been intelligently designed, then they're agreeing that all living creature have been intelligently designed. That's what I'd like them to do, they won't look so silly. And a lot of people who went over to the creationist side will come on back."