Will "Intelligent Design" Supplant Darwinism?

An interesting point-counterpoint on the current battle to legitimize "intelligent design" between Douglas Kern's Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win and Max Border's response Creationism Is Evolving ... It Has No Choice can be found at Tech Central Station.

Kern's thesis holds that, regardless of the validity of the intelligent design holdings - that an intelligent force must have designed the tremendous complexities found in nature . . . basically a compromise, pro-"God" position with science - the religious, social, and political power of the idea as a trump to evolutionist dogma will eventually take hold. Border's response raises several very valid points that actually confirm the core of Kern's thesis - that I.D. is bound to win because it cannot be disproven. That is, science cannot disprove an intelligent design hand. Also, as science learns more, it finds an ever-evolving complexity that plays into the hands of ID advocates - that is, that "it had to be designed."

The I.D. campaign is a very welcome approach to the debate about science and "creation." There really hasn't been a debate in some time - just a lot of yelling. Evolutionists have become absolutely intractable in their defense of their THEORY to the point of the most vicious, insulting and elitist language to be found. It really begs the question: What are these supposedly intelligent people so upset and mean about? To Kern's point:

"Ewww…intelligent design people! They're just buck-toothed Bible-pushing nincompoops with community-college degrees who're trying to sell a gussied-up creationism to a cretinous public! No need to address their concerns or respond to their arguments. They are Not Science. They are poopy-heads."

There. I just saved you the trouble of reading 90% of the responses to the ID position. Vitriol, condescension, and endless accusations of bad faith all characterize far too much of the standard pro-Darwinian response to criticism. A reasonable observer might note that many ID advocates appear exceptionally well-educated, reasonable, and articulate; they might also note that ID advocates have pointed out many problems with the Darwinist catechism that even pro-Darwin scientists have been known to concede, when they think the Jesus-kissing crowd isn't listening. And yet, even in the face of a sober, thoughtful ID position, the pro-Darwin crowd insists on the same phooey-to-the-boobgeois shtick that was tiresome in Mencken's day. This is how losers act just before they lose: arrogant, self-satisfied, too important to be bothered with substantive refutation, and disdainful of their own faults. Pride goeth before a fall.

A funny observation, but not entirely wrong. Still, ID advocates/creationists have to resist the urge to couch their victories as proof of the Bible's truth, thereby turning away from the very reasonable questions/assertions in the I.D. campaign that bring them credibility. The I.D. debate has a lot of potential if it is able to resist the urge to be more than a front for religious doctrine, prettied up with scientific language and generous applications of quasi-reason.

The evolutionists and their scientist armies – on most any issue or question in science, the most vocal opponents of radical ideas - have a lot to answer for in their religious-like faith in Darwin's theory. They've stretched it to cover every hole in our understanding, dismissing any questions about their assertions as the ramblings of Bible thumping religious zealots. An idea, a supposition, a guess, made within the context of an evolutionary argument does not make it fact. It shouldn't even give it automatic respectability, which is exactly how scientists treat them to protect their position in an outright war against creationists. They aren't doing any service to science by stamping down free thought, valid questioning, and the proper application of the principles of scientific observation and deduction.

Evolution is a theory - a set of concepts, rooted in scientific observations. It is not proof. Hypotheses must be tested, changed, evolved, and otherwise subject to the rigors of scientific principles. Otherwise, it's pure faith . . . a religion in science, cloaked behind the closed doors of scientific arrogance and elitism.

This is not to argue that there is a God, that creationism is valid, or otherwise to defend religious institutions. Quite to the contrary. My point is that both sides of this debate are at times so closed-minded and employing the same tactics that they look like flip sides of the same dogmatic approach. The ID campaign is a threat to evolutionists because it is "intelligent" and, to the extent it can stay focused, set separate from particular religious beliefs beyond the notion that there is or was some intelligent designer.