<

Creative Creationism: The Dishonesty of 'Intelligent Design' Theory
Monday, March 25, 2002
News-Journal

Creation myths don't pretend to be science. They are, as Edward O. Wilson, the great scientists (and ant expert) suggested of scriptures, an "attempt to explain the universe and make ourselves significant within it."

Editorial
Creationists have had a terrible time making their case since winning their fatal victory in the Scopes trial in 1925. Evolution is understood to be scientifically defensible, if not yet beyond doubt. Creationists can't keep it from being taught in schools. But they can make an argument for keeping evolution from being the only theory being taught. Doesn't the scientific method require that all evidence be considered, especially contrary evidence? Isn't it the mark of an open mind to hear other views?

That other view is "intelligent design theory." It claims that life is too complex, creation too rich, to be reduced to mere Darwinism. An intelligent force must have started it all with designs no human could understand. Intelligent design theorists don't claim that the white-bearded God of Judeo-Christian teachings and velvet canvasses is responsible. They even set aside any notion of creation beginning in 4004 B.C. But they maintain that at the origin of life is purpose, not chance a creator's intervention, not a big bang coincidence.

The neo-creationists have nothing against teaching evolution, so long as it's presented as just another assumption taught alongside intelligent design. President Bush believes both should be taught. And now a minority faction in the Ohio State Board of Education is attempting to make intelligent design part of the curriculum for all students, alongside evolution theory. If teaching one unproven theory is OK, why not teach another?
(More: The Daytona Beach News-Journal Online News Source)
2002 © News-Journal Corporation, news-journalonline.com (SM).

"President Bush believes both should be taught."

In reality, this can be done, but it would need to be done in such a way that the neo-creationists are bound to find offensive. With absolutely no science backing it whatsoever, so-called "intelligent design" theory would have to be taught as a pseudo-scinece.

Dan