Evolution vs. Intelligent Design vs. Biblical Creationism

There are three views of the origin of the universe. Most people think there are only two because they lump Intelligent Design in with Biblical Creationism. Intelligent Design is not the same as Biblical Creationism. Intelligent Design tells us there is a designer, but it makes no claims as to who that designer is. Biblical Creationism tells us the Judeo-Christian God is the designer and creator.

I read a very good and interesting comparison of Intelligent Design and Evolution on the Intelligent Design The Future website. It says:

Intelligent design is an inference from the empirical data, Darwin’s theory of evolution is an inference from a belief about God.

In other words, Intelligent Design first starts with the evidence and concludes there must a designer/creator. Evolution starts with a belief there is no God and then tries to interpret the evidence to fit that belief. Evolution begins with a belief and that is why the theory of evolution is modified every time new evidence is found. Evolutionists do not allow the evidence to dictate the conclusion; they try to make the evidence fit the preconceived conclusion. Intelligent Design follows the evidence.

That leaves Biblical Creationism. Biblical Creationism starts with The Bible, God’s revealed word, and interprets the evidence based on what we know in The Bible. Since God’s word is true, the evidence will support what The Bible tells us. Not a single piece of evidence ever discovered has caused The Bible to be modified. The Bible was written thousands of years ago and all the evidence ever collected has fit perfectly – not a single piece of contradictory evidence has been found.

Evolution is clearly unscientific since it does not allow the conclusions to be made from the evidence. Intelligent Design is better since it does follow the evidence. Biblical Creationism is best because it is based on God’s word and thus is true.

Subscribe to be notified when a new post is published.

4 Responses to “Evolution vs. Intelligent Design vs. Biblical Creationism”


  1. Evolution does not start with the belief that no deity exists, sorry. Evolution, like all aspects of science, can’t have a deity inserted for explaining anything. ID is pretty much a joke and is a really bad attempt by a group of neo-creationists to try to get non-science into science classrooms. ID actually starts with the assumption that a deity does exist, ask any IDist about their belief structure previous to them becoming an IDist or being exposed to ID. Evolution does very much allow for conclusions to be arived at, and all scientific theories and models change as new evidence is discovered. For example because our knowledge of what gravity actually is has changed we are not going to say “oh well Newton wasn’t totally right about things so gravity as a whole mustn’t really work out to anything similar to what Newton thought.” What we have done instead is taken what was correct about Newtonian Gravity and used that as a tool and basis for building other theories of gravity. We don’t throw out an idea just because new evidence is found. We would throw out an idea if evidence were found which disproved the theory or if no evidence existed to support the. For instance the Ether was disproven even though most physicists of the time would have rather it had been found to have existed. Science doesn’t start with an opinion and yield a result based on that opinion, it starts with evidence and arrives at a conclusion. Without the proper evidence a deity, creator, or designer can’t be inserted. That doesn’t mean one can’t believe that any of those things exist, it just means that those beings can’t be inserted.

  2. Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence.

    Evolution is not science. All that has been observed is a fly becoming another fly or a mouse becoming another mouse. No one can observe goo evolving into something else. If it can’t be observed, it can’t be tested. Therefore, it is not science. Evolution is faith-based because it cannot be verified.

  3. How do these sentences contradict each other?

    Evolution does not start with the belief that no deity exists, sorry. Evolution, like all aspects of science, can’t have a deity inserted for explaining anything.

    Since deities are faith based they can’t be inserted into science, I suppose a deity based on evidence and non-circular logic could be inserted, but so far no deity in any religion that I know of exhibits those characteristics. If you mean goo becoming something else as in non-life coming from life then go ahead, say a deity was responsible for the first self replicators. Evolution on many levels can be verified quite easily, as it is the only plausible explaination for shared endogenous retroviruses. For something to be scientific it doesn’t have to be able to be observed, for example when a forensic scientist examines a crime scene they can rely on the evidence which exists is left to determine what happened without observation of the original event. Evolution actually can be tested, if species didn’t share a common ancestry they would share no mtDNA, no ERVs, and very few similarities in their morphology. There would also be no evidence suggesting that specific species didn’t exist earlier. If the theory of Evolution were correct all of these pieces of evidence would be found…and they all do exist. That is the test, just because something can’t be repeated doesn’t mean it can’t be tested, however the tests to determine if these pieces of evidence existed and were valid would need to be repeated and would need to be able to be repeated.

  4. 1. You say evolution does not start with the belief that no deity exists.
    2. You define evolution as something that cannot allow for a deity.
    Therefore, in 2 you are saying evolution starts with an exclusion of the possibility of a deity.

    You state evolution is the only plausible explanation for shared endogenous retroviruses. Are you excluding the possibility that more evidence will be discovered that will offer a better explanation?

    You state as fact that shared mtDNA, ERVs, and similarities in morphology show evolution to be true. Why? Can it not be a common designer? My Ford van has similarities to my neighbor’s Chevy van. They even have the same brand of tires, the same brand of motor oil, and the same brand of gasoline. Does that mean they both came from the same manufacturing plant?


Got something to say?