I’m sick of it: I can’t go a day reading the local paper without seeing an article about
the Intelligent Design vs. evolution debate that will soon be playing in a court near you.
Yesterday parents were interviewed who are suing their children’s high school over the ID
disclaimer that preceeds lessons about evolution. Today a proponant of the theory gave his
side of the story: that he cannot ignore the gaps in Darwin’s theories and believes
that ID is capable of filling those gaps.

Bear in mind that not so long ago, God was the explaination for everything from the
existance of the sun to mental retardation. As science becomes more capable of explaining
natural phenomenon, the gaps we need God to explain get smaller and smaller.

If you haven’t heard the news about Intelligent Design already, let me fill you in.
Intelligent Design states that certain features of the universe and of living creatures
have characteristics attributed to an intelligent cause or creator, and that many of
these characteristics are
irreducibly complex. That is, these characteristics depend on each other to exist
and therefore none could have evolved without the others. In layman’s terms,
one needs a creator (God) to explain the existance of these complex systems whose
existance science has yet to understand.

I’ve got no beef with Intelligent Design. If you choose to believe that there is
a god that architected all of existance, fantastic. You can even go as far as to say
that it was the Christian God,
Kali, or the

Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don’t care. Your religion is your business.

The problem I’ve got with Intelligent Design is that the theory’s supporters haven’t
been honest with anyone, including themselves. Supporters claim that ID is a scientific
theory, however the majority of the scientific community rejects it: ID’s proponants are
almost exclusively
evangelical protestants. Not that this has any bearing on the idea’s validity; it
certainly doesn’t. I point this out to show that the Intelligent Design movement doesn’t
have a foothold in the scientific community at large: it is almost exclusively being adopted by individuals
whose religious beliefs leave them predisposed to believe in it.

Not to mention the ID’s supporters have a knack for changing their message depending
on whose listening. At a school board meeting or in court? Intelligent Design supports the idea
of a creator. Among supporters at a rally or at church? Intelligent Design
supports the idea that God is the creator. So which is it? ID’s founding
father,
Phillip E. Johnson refers to ID as a
Wedge Strategy for getting Christianity back into our public schools. Consider
the following quotes.

“Stick with the most important thing—the mechanism and the building up of information.
Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called
Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular
academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on,
“Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?” and refusing to get
sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do.”

“Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of
Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into
the schools.”

So let me get this straight: we’re supposed to focus on the issue of Intelligent Design
and forget about the Bible for the time being. But Intelligent Design really means
the reality of God. I’m trying not to think too far into this, out of concern for
my face exploding out of sheer confusion.

Face the facts: supporters of intelligent design want religion back in schools,
wether they know it or not. In order to further their agenda they are willing to
not only obfuscate their message to those that aren’t already in the know, but
actually commit full-blown lies. On top of it all the proposed ID disclaimer read to
students before lessons on evolution exploits Science’s
Achilles Heel:
the Scientific Method Prohibits a theory from claiming to be absolute fact, whereas unproven claims of
correctness are a staple of any religious dogmatists balanced breakfast.

Science and religion both have their places: science in the classroom, religion in the church.
Our lives will work out for the better if we can continue to make this distinction. Our
children will get a solid scientific education, and they’ll still be exposed to the theology,
morals, and ethics that they (or their parents) choose for them. Besides, if Intelligent Design
actually becomes a part of mainstream scientific education, I’m going to court to get a big
disclaimer stamped on all your Bibles:

“The following storybook has little to no basis in fact. It reflects the views
and opinions of the clergy that chose its contents and has little to nothing to do with
what God actually planned for your life. For sound moral advice, see Buddhism.”