Vancouver, Canada  2017
imdb
Scientists like to say they are ideologically neutral. But are they neutral if their ideology states there is no higher power, no super intellect, therefore all the data that points to an intelligence must mean something else. Is that good science? Is that following the evidence or constraining the data to a preconceived ideology?
Science has no answer for the cause of the Big Bang. The BB is not a cause it is a effect of a cause. The best answer so far is from Stephen Hawking, eminent science professor and Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology, University of Cambridge who said the universe created itself.
Here is where two world views collide and frankly so does the controversy. Intelligent Design scientists are mocked, not for their science but for suggesting a higher intelligence may have been involved in the origin of the universe, and of life. Despite rhetoric about mud, ponds and heat vents, origins science has no idea how life actually began, let alone how the universe sprung into existence.
Not long ago, scientists thought the universe was eternal. Then it was discovered that the universe had a finite beginning. There was at one point in the distant past, no time, no matter, no space and no energy. The universe had a beginning but, scientists rejected this theory because the bible stated that the universe had a beginning. For decades science discounted the bible as fable in part because of its assertion that the universe had a beginning. Another case of ideology getting in the way of science.
You have reached a Rob Wilton.com mobile page. For a richer fuller experience, make sure you visit again on your HD tablet or desktop device. On your larger screen you will enjoy the full multi-media experience with High-Def pictures and videos.

Thank you for visiting Rob Wilton.com
Science has a long history of ridiculing any correlation between science and intelligent agency in favor of universes that create themselves or an infinite number of universes to explain one that could support life. Both of which are pure imagination without any scientific bases.
PHILOSOPHY / IDEOLOGY
Anyone who may research intelligent design is labeled a "flat earther", or anti-science. Yet the fathers of modern science believed in a comprehensible God, and so reasoned that the universe would also be comprehensible. Scientists like Isaac Newton, Capernicus and Galileo were religious scientists who moved science forward into the modern age. Gregor Mendel is another example, He was the father of modern genetics. The theory of an intelligent designer doesn't stop science, it encourages investigation.
Albert Einstein once said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." And although he was not religious, he was careful not to dismiss ideas in favor of scientism, or scientific dogma.
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
Letter to Guy H. Raner Jr. (28 September 1949), from article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1997)

Albert Einstein
It is not certainty that states intelligence had nothing to do with life and the universe, so why do some scientists refuse to even look at the data that supports intelligent agency?

Because being wrong about gravity or black holes doesn't offend a belief system. If the intelligent design theorists are correct and life has the earmarks of design, not undirected randomness, the effects would reach beyond just the physical sciences.
 
 
Katana / Stunts
Aerial / Design
Be sure to visit the resources page by clicking the ID Science button on the menu above.
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
Letter to Guy H. Raner Jr. (28 September 1949), from article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1997)

Albert Einstein