I was listening to a talk by Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box and other good reads. He is a Lehigh University biochemist who believes in intelligent design. In his talk, he referenced a quotation by Franklin Harold, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Colorado State University. Harold is not a Christian, so I find his quotation especially interesting. Here it is:

“We should reject as a matter of principle the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity. But we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

Notice what he said. He says there’s a principle (which he doesn’t explain) that requires good scientists to reject outright intelligent design in the discussion of the origins of life on earth and then its evolution. I’ve got to believe this is an example of scientism, as opposed to science. The old idea was for scientists to find truth, no matter where it might be. But today many scientists like Harold subscribe to the idea that all answers must be found in the natural world–no divine possibilities are allowed. They have required that all science be governed by naturalism, that there is nothing outside this universe. That’s a philosophical idea pretending to be scientific.

The other part of the quotation is interesting too. He admits that things don’t look good for those trying to discover natural causes for the origin of life and its later evolution. He says it’s all “wishful speculations” for now. This is one of the biggest problems for evolutionists today–they have no idea how life got started or how it changed into different, more complicated species. As one person said, “Evolutionists can talk about the survival of the species but not the arrival of the species.”

So the next time we hear a person say with great authority that evolution is a fact, we might want to think about what Harold said.