Creationism in disguise?
So, Dover decides to introduce intelligent design into its science curriculum. After all, it’s science, isn’t it? And anyway, as President Bush says, "part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought".
I never thought America, of all places, would be a country to consider cr — I mean, intelligent design. Its proponents say it is perfectly scientific. No-one ever suggested who this "intelligent designer" might be — there just has to be one, I wonder who it might be.
The way the theory works is really quite interesting. It has three concepts: irreducible complexity, specified complexity and the fine-tuned universe. All of them, as far as I can tell, basically say the same thing: we are far to complex to have evolved from "lower creatures". Irreducible complexity at least has a gram or two of logic. Specified complexity and this fine-tuned universe sound to me like wild assumptions that because we’re so brilliant, we must have been cr — sorry, intelligently designed.
But I’m not convinced. Partially because its arguments aren’t enough to sway the presumably fickle mind of an adolescent. But mostly because of its background.
The people behind it are really very clever. They take creationism, write some concepts in secular terms, and call them "science". And then they present them to the public. Slowly, but surely, the world is in no doubt that we were created.
The creation-evolution debate’s been going on for as long as evolution’s existed. And here it comes back again, in big news because a group of secular-minded parents sue the ID-allied board for introducing religion into its syllabus. And right they were to do so, they fight only for one of America’s most prized principles: the separation of church and state.
But wait! It’s not a religious principle — it’s science! Yeah, right. We’re so complex we must be intelligently designed, hint, hint. We must have been created in some way, hint, hint. This creator must’ve been some intelligent natural force, hint, hint. Its disguise is not near as convincing as they’d like it to be. It’s just a façade of glass.
As Phillip Johnson, a leading intelligent design proponent, said in 1999:
|"The objective [of the promotion of intelligent design] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to the truth of the Bible and then the question of sin and finally introduced to Jesus."|
The purpose of intelligent design is clear. It wasn’t meant to be a scientific theory. We just like to say it’s one because only then can it defy evolution, the concept which clashes directly against the Bible. What a pity the glass which the movement used in their façade is transparent. They might have been so close.
The links below are written from a neutral point of view, which you might like to read rather than just the biased viewpoint here.
Except for this site, which is pro-intelligent design:
For the record, I hold no religious or non-religious belief of any sort. This blog represents my view only. The dismissive tone was not intended to be offensive.