September 27, 2005

Intelligent design, creationism, and the media

Once again, members of the media don't get it. In fact, most people, including most Darwinian evolutionists, don't get it. This is the way it typically happens: intelligent design is equated with creationism, and then proponents of ID are pitted against the world of "science". Just below the surface, though, are confusions and misrepresentations of many points, including the following:
  1. Intelligent design is a theory of that puts forth a method of discerning the role of design where specified, complex biological information is found. It relies heavily on mathematical principles that are beyond what most can comprehend (including me at this point). However, it is clearly not creationism. It implies a designer, but theorizing about the nature of that designer is far beyond ID.

  2. Intelligent design theory is an alternative to Darwinian evolutionary theory that is based in an attempt to make sense of what Darwin's theory cannot--namely, the theory cannot point to a material mechanism that causes intelligence to emerge.

  3. Science is equated with naturalism, philosophically and methodologically, which are questionable (especially philosophical naturalism).

  4. Individuals such as former atheist Antony Flew have come on board with ID ideas.

  5. Many scientists, not just a couple fringe radicals, are not satisfied with Darwin's theory.

What is most disturbing about this article is the headline: Darwin vs. God case opens in US. Clearly, ID has been rejected on face. According to William Dembski, the real problem in this debate is scientific fundamentalists. Phillip Johnson would agree.


World Magazine Blog had a post today about the case in Dover that had a discussion following.

Also, I received a comment from a person called FreeThinker asking me to see his post. I responded to it on his blog. My comments are here and here.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Intelligent design, creationism, and the media