Intelligent Design Proponents Distance Themselves from Creationists
Wayne Adkins
January 12, 2006
The Discovery Institute, an organization which bills itself as ?the leading organization supporting scientific research into intelligent design? is seeking to distance itself from creationists. Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Discovery Institute wrote a letter to John W. Wight, Superintendent of the El Tejon school district in California seeking to change the title or content of a class. The district is facing a lawsuit filed by parents over a course titled ?Philosophy of Design? taught by Sharon Lemburg, the wife of a local minister.
According to Luskin?s letter ?the course inaccurately mixes intelligent design with young earth creationism or Biblical creationism. Moreover, it appears that more than half of the course content deals with young earth creationist materials.? Luskin urged the school?s superintendent to ?either reformulate the course by removing the young earth creationist materials or retitle the course as a course not focused on intelligent design.?
The concern of Luskin and his fellows at the Discovery Institute is that intelligent design will be equated with creationism. He tries to explain the difference to Mr. Wight this way; ?Intelligent design is different from creationism because intelligent design is based upon empirical data, rather than religious scripture, and also because intelligent design is not a theory about the age of the earth. Moreover, unlike creationism, intelligent design does not try to inject itself into religious discussions about the identity of the intelligence responsible for life. Creationism, in contrast, always postulates a supernatural or divine creator. Thus the U.S. Supreme Court found that creationism was religion in 1987 in the case Edwards v. Aguillard.?
The reason the ID crowd wants to avoid this association is that teaching creationism is illegal as Luskin notes. After a scathing rebuke by Judge Jones in Dover last year for trying to sneak intelligent design into science classes there, intelligent design advocates want to take every opportunity to paint their idea as science and not as creationism. But it should be noted that among the senior fellows and fellows for whom there are biographies on their site, they boast more theology degrees than chemistry, biophysics, molecular biology, biochemistry or physics. The only degree more widely represented than theology among them is philosophy. But they don?t want the courts to think they are advancing any religious ideas.
Of course, most observers make that connection anyway. When Pat Robertson told Dover residents not to call on God because they had voted God out of their town he was making a direct connection between intelligent design and creationism. When one of Dover?s school board members advocating intelligent design said ?2000 years ago someone died on a cross. Can?t someone take a stand for him?? he was making a direct connection between intelligent design and creationism. Although the Discovery Institutes official line for intelligent design is ?science can?t identify this intelligent designer? senior fellow Michael Behe admits he thinks it is God.
The fact is, intelligent design is a thinly veiled attempt to legitimize creationism and import it into public schools as science. What I find hilarious about the Discovery Institute?s letter to Mr. Wight is that Casey Luskin makes the assertion that ?Under the current formulation, the course title ?Philosophy of design? misrepresents intelligent design by promoting young earth creationism under the guise of intelligent design.? That is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Intelligent design proponents are trying to misrepresent science by promoting intelligent design under the guise of science.
Intelligent design is creationism. Refusing to name the creator doesn?t change that. It only demonstrates how disingenuous its advocates are.
According to Luskin?s letter ?the course inaccurately mixes intelligent design with young earth creationism or Biblical creationism. Moreover, it appears that more than half of the course content deals with young earth creationist materials.? Luskin urged the school?s superintendent to ?either reformulate the course by removing the young earth creationist materials or retitle the course as a course not focused on intelligent design.?
The concern of Luskin and his fellows at the Discovery Institute is that intelligent design will be equated with creationism. He tries to explain the difference to Mr. Wight this way; ?Intelligent design is different from creationism because intelligent design is based upon empirical data, rather than religious scripture, and also because intelligent design is not a theory about the age of the earth. Moreover, unlike creationism, intelligent design does not try to inject itself into religious discussions about the identity of the intelligence responsible for life. Creationism, in contrast, always postulates a supernatural or divine creator. Thus the U.S. Supreme Court found that creationism was religion in 1987 in the case Edwards v. Aguillard.?
The reason the ID crowd wants to avoid this association is that teaching creationism is illegal as Luskin notes. After a scathing rebuke by Judge Jones in Dover last year for trying to sneak intelligent design into science classes there, intelligent design advocates want to take every opportunity to paint their idea as science and not as creationism. But it should be noted that among the senior fellows and fellows for whom there are biographies on their site, they boast more theology degrees than chemistry, biophysics, molecular biology, biochemistry or physics. The only degree more widely represented than theology among them is philosophy. But they don?t want the courts to think they are advancing any religious ideas.
Of course, most observers make that connection anyway. When Pat Robertson told Dover residents not to call on God because they had voted God out of their town he was making a direct connection between intelligent design and creationism. When one of Dover?s school board members advocating intelligent design said ?2000 years ago someone died on a cross. Can?t someone take a stand for him?? he was making a direct connection between intelligent design and creationism. Although the Discovery Institutes official line for intelligent design is ?science can?t identify this intelligent designer? senior fellow Michael Behe admits he thinks it is God.
The fact is, intelligent design is a thinly veiled attempt to legitimize creationism and import it into public schools as science. What I find hilarious about the Discovery Institute?s letter to Mr. Wight is that Casey Luskin makes the assertion that ?Under the current formulation, the course title ?Philosophy of design? misrepresents intelligent design by promoting young earth creationism under the guise of intelligent design.? That is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Intelligent design proponents are trying to misrepresent science by promoting intelligent design under the guise of science.
Intelligent design is creationism. Refusing to name the creator doesn?t change that. It only demonstrates how disingenuous its advocates are.
Print
Email
