When President Bush was asked if the concept of Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, he remarked, Youre asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes. This remark by the President sparked wide controversy from many scientists and portions of the press. Government schools in a secular country were not supposed to teach religion. Many scientists held the view that life was a mere accident and not the result of purposeful design. Any suggestion that there was purposeful design would make it religious instruction. Only if the children were taught that life was an accident would it be scientific.

The Christian Church held that the scientific concept of evolution as an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection was not true. On the other side, many scientists held that the advancement of life to modern man was exactly such a process. Scientists considered themselves superior, because they did not hold the mere superstition of a purpose behind creation. Both groups were immersed in an utterly unverifiable argument. The greatest scientist of all time, Albert Einstein, had said, In the end, we will never know. Yet, these scientists disdained a concept, which they themselves could not ever prove to be false.

Even if life was an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection, would that preclude the existence of a God? The very words natural selection implied that nature was purposeful. In life, the weak were destroyed. What went up came down. Planets, stars and galaxies formed and were destroyed according to immutable laws. In the end, the very fundamental laws, which science discovered, resulted in the creation of the incredible beauty of the life on earth. The very principles uncovered by science were not random, but had magical harmony and rigour.

Imagine a universe, which was random, where there was no order. Where there were no laws. Where the weak survived and the strong were destroyed. Where there was no time. Where light did not follow its improbably exact path. Where two plus two often made five. Was this not the random totality, lustily supported by these scientists? Science had measured the uncanny method in the systems of the cosmos. Did they rule out the possibility that such celestial beauty and precision may be founded on an Intelligent Design? Why did they consider the prospect to be so objectionable? Did these scientists fear an intelligence greater than their own? Or was it because those scientific minds were closed to the prodigious possibilities of our limitless universe?