Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Is it your thesis that the teaching of evolution somehow corrupts young people?

A healthy colony of bats can protect gardens and crops from major damage by pest species such as cucumber beetles, moths, cutworm, corn earworm, leafhoppers, and June beetles. As each female moth can lay thousands of eggs, the control of even a few adults has an exponential effect.

Wouldn't evolution have fixed it so the females didn't have to lay so many eggs if there were no bats.

Creationism: A step backwards
(Taylor Kessinger, Arizona Daily Wildcat, February 2, 2007)

The controversy between creation and evolution continues to grow in this country. But is this simply an argument, or does it have more severe consequences?

To believe God created the world, in whatever manner He chose, demands just one thing: faith. But to be a creationist - that is, to believe that scientific evidence suggests a recent creation of the world in six Earth days - demands another thing entirely.

What is the difference? The former is a religious belief that demands respect like any other. The other is a malicious attack on American technological and scientific progress.

The creationist effort is spearheaded by two groups: victimized, misguided citizens and politicians who have been fed faulty information, and phony "scientists" who present their equally phony arguments in opposition to the "theory of evolution," a catch-all category that includes accepted scientific principles like common descent, abiogenesis and the Big Bang theory.

The issue is closer to home than you think. Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas have both announced their intentions for the presidency, and like good old John McCain, they support the teaching of "alternate theories of origin" in science classes.

If school boards in Ohio, Kansas, and Pennsylvania are any indicator, the so-called "creation-evolution controversy" will be in your backyard soon - provided that it's not already.

Let's be up-front about one thing: There is not a single argument for creationism that does not rely on a severe misinterpretation of scientific evidence or, worse yet, of science itself. Ask any UA scientist and they'll tell you the same.

To circumvent this, creationists are fond of misrepresenting science and using cheap debate tactics. They know that their claims take much longer to refute than they do to set forth, which makes it appear as though they have a legitimate basis.

Here's an experiment you can perform yourself: Read aloud the common creationist claim that "there is no direct evidence for the Big Bang." Then, go and look up the words "cosmic background radiation" in the search engine of your choice.

Which one was easier and took less time? Which one is correct? Notice these two questions don't have the same answer.

The simple truth is that scientific theories adhere to principles such as testability, falsifiability, parsimony and naturalism. That last one is the most important: It's what prevents scientists from invoking magic, gremlins or God as explanations for physical phenomena. Creationism has none of these principles. There shouldn't even be a controversy; science clearly wins on its own grounds.

But creationism isn't just factually incorrect and mischievously dishonest. It's a direct detriment to our country's progress. That anyone can graduate from an American high school or university while still clinging to creationism suggests that students lack the critical thinking and research skills they need - not to mention the understanding of basic scientific concepts.

If the value in a good scientific education isn't self-evident, consider this. What does our scientific ignorance say about America's continued status as the most technologically advanced nation in the world? According to a 2006 Gallup poll, roughly 46 percent of Americans accept strict creationism. Compare this to other Western countries, where the figure is in the single digits.

It's nothing short of embarrassing.

Perhaps worse yet, creationism is an assault on faith itself. Theologians have long recognized, as Martin Luther did, the importance of faith, not evidence, as the guiding force behind belief - a sentiment that has been echoed in recent times by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Vatican, among others.

The time is nigh to take action. Courts all over the country need to keep up their strict, no-tolerance policies regarding creationism and its lightweight cousin, intelligent design, in classrooms. Intelligent Americans have the same duty to be informed about science as they do about politics or history, and UA students in particular should take advantage of the many available origins-oriented science courses as a means to that end.

And know that, should you choose to believe in God, your choice should be informed by faith and personal commitment - not by lies and faulty arguments.

Either way, don't be deceived by the crimes of creationism.

When did they get a taste for sparkling jewels?

To believe God created the world, in whatever manner He chose, demands just one thing: faith.

But to be a creationist - that is, to believe that scientific evidence suggests a recent creation of the world in six Earth days - demands another thing entirely. What is the difference? The former is a religious belief that demands respect like any other. The other is a malicious attack on American technological and scientific progress.

The simple truth is that scientific theories adhere to principles such as testability, falsifiability, parsimony and naturalism. That last one is the most important: It's what prevents scientists from invoking magic, gremlins or God as explanations for physical phenomena. Creationism has none of these principles. There shouldn't even be a controversy; science clearly wins on its own grounds.

But creationism isn't just factually incorrect and mischievously dishonest. It's a direct detriment to our country's progress. That anyone can graduate from an American high school or university while still clinging to creationism suggests that students lack the critical thinking and research skills they need - not to mention the understanding of basic scientific concepts.

irrational, illogical and unscientific beliefs often live side by side in the same person (and the same society) as rational, logical, and scientific beliefs.

... In his ruling, Judge Jones demolished assertions by members of Dover's former school board, or administrators, that the theory of intelligent design (ID) was based around scientific rather than religious belief.

He accused them of "breathtaking inanity", of lying under oath and of trying to introduce religion into schools through the back door.

The judge said he had determined that ID was not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".

In a 139-page written ruling regularly studded with criticism of the defendants' arguments, the judge said: "Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom." ...
BBC, 21 Dec 2005

... In his ruling, Judge Jones demolished assertions by members of Dover's former school board, or administrators, that the theory of intelligent design (ID) was based around scientific rather than religious belief.

Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom." ...