All people recognize that any event which occurs has to have a cause. One of these causes can be classified as "necessary or the effect of natural laws. Ice is formed by the removal of heat from water. It works every time unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as some solution added to the water to retard freezing. That is a natural effect of natural laws. It can also be in connection with a designed purpose. We think that probably no one will disagree with this reasoning for a cause.
Aside from this natural law cause, there are two others. One is referred to as "Chance" or "naturalistic" occurring by accident. The other cause is that of Intelligent Design, things occur due to planning by some intelligent being. Man has caused many events simply by designing them.
The question, however, arises when it comes to creation, and particularly when there is nothing to create from. This comes into play when it comes to the universe itself, each and every molecule of physical material had to have a beginning. Space itself is an expanse which would never have appeared naturally. This perhaps is the most important consideration of all. When one mentions existence, it does not have to be physical. If absolutely nothing existed there would be no space, no atmosphere. No existence, period. Nothing.
There is a website which has much material on this particular subject. We will draw heavily from it, however, it is far too lengthy to condense into one article. We will offer significant quotes and the reader may pursue the particular information on that site. This site is The Intelligent Design network, inc. and the quotes are taken from a posting by John H. Calvert, Esq., attorney and Managing Director of the ID network, inc.
Calvert emphasizes that simply determining something to be caused by intelligent design, does not limit those things to the God of the Bible and that it might be rather from some highly intelligent sources from outer space as is being considered at present by the SETI program. I personally am in disagreement with him in that respect simply because the only adequate cause for such creation has already been revealed to us through Gods revelation. Unfortunately, those who seek for other causes for our existence, do so simply to avoid acknowledging God.
Following are brief quotes from the attorney John H. Calvert, concerning the differences in scientific causes mentioned above.
"Nature of Origins Science. Origins science and the teaching of origins science demands scrupulous objectivity. This is because it is a historical rather than an empirical science and because it has unavoidable religious implications. The Design Hypothesis supports theistic beliefs while the Naturalistic Hypothesis supports atheistic beliefs. Accordingly, when government seeks to teach origins science it enters a religious arena where it is constitutionally obligated to remain neutral. In my opinion, the best way to achieve constitutional neutrality is to teach the subject with scrupulous objectivity and without religious or philosophic bias." (Intelligent Design network, inc. Summary)
"The Design Hypothesis is supported by abundant evidence. The evidence is easily observed and can be empirically detected using the scientific method and logical analysis. The evidence which supports the Design Hypothesis directly contradicts and otherwise challenges the validity of the Naturalistic Hypothesis, including one of its principal theories that the diversity of life results from Darwinian mechanisms such as natural selection." (Ibid)
"General. The Design and Naturalistic hypotheses derive from an explanatory concept that an event may have only one of three causes. The three causes are chance, necessity and design. Patterns of events are arranged by one or a combination of two or more of the three causes. The Naturalistic hypothesis assumes that only chance and necessity have operated to arrange the patterns of events that generate life and the diversity of life. The Design Hypothesis postulates that all three causes may be involved." (General-Background and discussion of key factual issues)
"The Naturalistic Hypothesis has considerable difficulty in explaining the origin of the universe and the origin of laws and constants. It also has had no success in explaining the origin of life. However, once a replicating first cell is established, there is some evidence that the diversity of life could naturally arise by Darwinian evolution. The Darwinian mechanism consists of random mutations in replicating populations that are affected by environmental pressures in order to yield hypothesized increased cellular complexity and sophistication. When coupled with an assumed concept called "the principle of biological continuity”, this hypothesis claims that all living things derive from a very large number of gradually accumulated "adaptations" to the descendants of a single common ancestral cell that somehow sprang into existence in a "primordial soup" of chemicals billions of years ago." (Ibid)
It is perhaps obvious this writer does not fully agree with the previous quotation. It is suggested and my hope that those interested in such a study will not only read the web page where these quotes were taken but there are numerous others with similar facts that are worthy of study.
The prime factor for those of us who support Intelligent Design is due to the many proofs of the Holy Bible's accuracy and inerrancy, while providing a completely rational description of a supernatural power that resolves all of the unknowns present in the evolutionary hypothesis. It all boils down to the fact that there is not a viable solution without involvement of supernatural activity.