To the editor:

Recently, Paul Decelles said, “Real scientific literature … has rejected intelligent design as a scientific idea.” Donald Moss said, “These people feel no shame in trying to bring THEIR religion into our public schools,” and intelligent design is not science since its “ideas are not testable or verifiable by … accepted scientific methodologies.” But Mr. Moss has no shame in bringing HIS religion (that which is given highest respect for explaining ultimate reality) into the public schools.

Second, what testable methodology is used to prove the materialistic world view that science rests on? What tests prove there is nothing but material objects in the universe? Since materialism cannot be verified by scientific methodology, evolution must also be rejected.

Can intelligent design be rejected? How? If we have no intelligent designer, then rationality is lost. Thought processes would be the result of a naturalistic process and not rationality. The naturalistic view, therefore, destroys rationality and true science, and it takes morality along with it. Why? Because no belief can be justified if it can be explained by nonrational causes. How can we justify a belief if it has no rational explanation? Can the laws of logic be justified by a naturalistic process? Can morality be justified by naturalistic principles? Should we care about morality if naturalism is true?

The basis for naturalistic evolution is nonrational and nonmoral, which is what many really want as they suppress the knowledge of a rational and moral God. “Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22).

Richard Smith,

Lawrence