[Michael_Michaelangelo]

The public--and our students--deserve better than that.

Indeed.

Bill Would Allow Intelligent Design Teaching Requirement

[Liberal Classic]

Calling their work religious is just a cheap way to dodge the issues.

I disagree. Proponents of "intelligent design" always, always beg the question of religion.

For example:

In contrast to what is called creation science, which parallels Biblical theology, ID rests on two basic assumptions: namely, that intelligent agents exist and that their effects are empirically detectable.

The question begged is "what intelligence?" The obvious and immediate answer is the Creator. (Unless, of course, you're a Raelian.) "Intelligent design theorists" are creationists, and the sole purpose of "intelligent design" is to advance the idea that the Creator created life. Not that there is anything wrong with the idea. There's nothing bad about being a creationist. But it isn't scientific. "Intelligent design" is nothing but creationism dressed up in pseudo-scientific jargon.

Now, I sincerely believe there is nothing wrong with the idea of creation in a religious context. All too often, objections to "intelligent design" are characterized as hostility to religion. With a few exceptions, nothing could be further from the truth. The problem that I, and many others, have with "intelligent design" is that it is advanced as a scientific theory; particularly an equivalent and alternative theory to evolution. It is not a scientific theory. The sole purpose of "intelligent design" is to torpedo the scientific concept of evolution because some people believe that evolution contradicts their religious faith.

The purpose of science is not to answer philosophical and metaphysical questions, such as "is there a Creator" and "why do we exist." By its very definition the divine defies description and transcends measurement. The purpose of science, however, is to describe the physical world in concrete terms. Science is simply a tool. One does not demand ethics from a hammer or inclined plane. By dressing up religion as science, "intelligent design theorists" do a disservice to both science and religion.

[GOPJ]

In fact, if you want to run the numbers, as Dembski does in his book No Free Lunch, it boils down to the following: If every elementary particle in the observed universe (about 1080) were cranking out mutation events at the cosmic speed limit (about 1045 times per second) for a billion times the estimated age of the universe, they still could not produce the genes for a working flagellum.

Most liberals can't do math -- probably why they don't "get it".

[Orca]

Great article. Thanks for posting it.

[olde north church]

I'm considering another Greco-Golden Age idea, the worship of Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, et al. Intelligent Design is simply another way for those who lack faith to seek shelter.

[RightWhale]

It's not working. The biggie is the mind-body problem.