Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Intelligent Design = Creationism

Intelligent Design proponents like to say that ID has nothing to do with creationism, that it is just taking the scientific evidence at face value. They’ll even say that one could believe that the designer is an alien being from another planet, though I know of no prominent ID proponent who accepts this position. But the attempt to separate ID from creationism is a red herring meant to distract us from the truth. See for yourself.



H/T The Creation of an Evolutionist

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is a bit off the topic, but considering what is true why do you suppose evolution is presented as truth? Why would it be more viable than ID? Both are theories. Both need a giant step of faith to believe. Both could be taught. Evolution changes every four years any how. It is just as inconsistant as ID. Is ID disregarded because it is religious?
Evolution is just as religious. It has produced some good science, but other religions have produced good science also.Teaching science is good, but assuming the unknown and teaching them as truth to children is irresponsible! I personally don't think either should taught as science, but as religious studies.

Nate

D.W. Congdon said...

Nate,

Before I respond, I would recommend reading my post against ID.

First, ID is not a scientific theory. A theory by definition has to be testable, but ID is not a testable hypothesis. It is an explanation based on certain philosophical-theological presuppositions that uses certain scientific observations as its foundation. It's not science at all; it's just bad theology.

Second, evolution is a scientific theory, not theology. You have to keep evolution and evolutionism separate. The former is simply an explanation for the scientific evidence of changes and mutations in species over time (of which there is ample evidence). The latter is an ideology of materialistic social-scientific development. It is less an explanation of evidence and more of a philosophical worldview. Even the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution is still a distinction within science. Macro-evolution is not a faith or religious belief; it is a testable scientific hypothesis. There is plenty of evidence to back that up, and many evangelical Christians agree -- so it's not the atheists against the religious believers.

Third, evolution changes because we discover more evidence. That's a sign of its general correctness as a theory. Most theories have to be adjusted over time. There are certainly moments where a theory might have to be discarded altogether, but we haven't even come close to that point with evolution.

Finally, I'm not saying that evolution = truth. But I do think evangelical Christians need to get over this myth that evolution is a religion like any other, and so it can be ignored.

Mike Beidler said...

Mr. Congdon,

Firstly, thanks for the HT!

Secondly, allow me suggest to Nate that evolution is, indeed, a "fact." As you admit yourself, Mr. Congdon, there is "ample evidence" of macro-evolution (which is really just an massive collection of micro-evolutionary changes over the passage of considerable time).

The mechanisms of evolution, however, should be considered "theory," and are subject to change as our scientific knowledge in the areas of biology, paleontology, biochemistry, etc., continue to advance.

It is interesting to note that, in the comment section of my review (http://thecreationofanevolutionist.blogspot.com/2008/04/flunked-out-review-of-ben-steins.html) of Ben Stein's Expelled, Dr. Ray Bohlin, a fellow of the Discovery Institute, admitted that his organization had produced absolutely nothing of scientific import. I have to admire his honesty, but it shows the weakness of ID as a scientific methodology. ID is, like YEC, entirely untestable. And comments to the effect that something is "irreducibly complex" have ended up being falsified time and time again since the publishing of Behe's Darwin's Black Box.

As much as I admire the ID movement for what it's attempting to accomplish (for I, too, believe in an Intelligent Designer), I cannot condone their attempts at passing off their philosophical objections to evolution as science.