According to
intelligent-design theory, life is too complex to have
evolved by natural forces. Therefore life must have been
created by a supernatural force � an intelligent designer.
ID theorists argue that because such design can be inferred
through the methods of science, IDT should be given equal
time alongside evolutionary theory in public school science
classes. Nine states have recently proposed legislation that
would require just that.
The evolution-creation legal battle began in 1925 with the
Scopes "monkey" trial, over the banning of the teaching of
evolution in Tennessee. The controversy caused textbook
publishers and state boards of education to cease teaching
evolution � until the Soviets launched Sputnik in the late
1950s and the United States realized it was falling behind
in the sciences.
Creationists responded by passing equal-time laws that
required the teaching of both creationism and evolution, a
strategy defeated in a 1968 Arkansas trial that found that
such a law attempted to "establish religion" in a public
school and was therefore unconstitutional. This led to new
equal-time laws covering "creation science" and "evolution
science." In 1987, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 7 to 2,
said teaching creation science "impermissibly endorses
religion by advancing the religious belief that a
supernatural being created humankind."
This history explains why proponents of intelligent design
are careful to never specify the true, religious nature of
their theory and to insist that what they are doing is
science. For example, leading ID scholar William Dembski
wrote in his 2003 book, "The Design Revolution":
"Intelligent design is a strictly scientific theory devoid
of religious commitments. Whereas the creator underlying
scientific creationism conforms to a strict, literalist
interpretation of the Bible, the designer underlying
intelligent design need not even be a deity."
But let's be clear: Intelligent-design theory is not
science. The proof is in the pudding. Scientists, including
scientists who are Christians, do not use IDT when they do
science because it offers nothing in the way of testable
hypotheses. Lee Anne Chaney, professor of biology at
Whitworth College, a Christian institution, wrote in a 1995
article: "As a Christian, part of my belief system is that
God is ultimately responsible. But as a biologist, I need to
look at the evidence�. I don't think intelligent design is
very helpful because it does not provide things that are
refutable � there is no way in the world you can show it's
not true. Drawing inferences about the deity does not seem
to me to be the function of science because it's very
subjective."
Intelligent-design theory lacks, for instance, a hypothesis
of the mechanics of the design, something akin to natural
selection in evolution. Natural selection can and has been
observed and tested, and Charles Darwin's theory has been
refined.
Intelligent-design theorists admit the difference, at least
among themselves. Here is ID proponent Paul Nelson, writing
last year in Touchstone, a Christian magazine: "Right now,
we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of
notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified
complexity' � but, as yet, no general theory of biological
design."
If intelligent design is not science, then what is it? One
of its originators, Phillip Johnson, a law professor at UC
Berkeley, wrote in a 1999 article: "The objective is to
convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus
shifting the debate from creationism versus evolution to the
existence of God versus the nonexistence of God. From there
people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then
'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.' "
On March 9, I debated ID scholar Stephen Meyer at
Westminster College in Fulton, Mo. After two hours of debate
over the scientific merits (or lack thereof) of IDT, Meyer
admitted in the question-and-answer period that he thinks
that the intelligent designer is the Judeo-Christian God and
that suboptimal designs and deadly diseases are not examples
of an unintelligent or malevolent designer, but instead were
caused by "the fall" in the Garden of Eden. Dembski has also
told me privately that he believes the intelligent designer
is the God of Abraham.
The term "intelligent design" is nothing more than a
linguistic place-filler for something unexplained by
science. It is saying, in essence, that if there is no
natural explanation for X, then the explanation must be a
supernatural one. Proponents of intelligent design cannot
imagine, for example, how the bacterial flagellum (such as
the little tail that propels sperm cells) could have
evolved; ergo, they conclude, it was intelligently designed.
But saying "intelligent design did it" does not explain
anything. Scientists would want to know how and when ID did
it, and what forces ID used.
In fact, invoking intelligent design as God's place-filler
can only result in the naturalization of the deity. God
becomes just another part of the natural world, and thereby
loses the transcendent mystery and divinity that define the
boundary between religion and science.
