Just because Intelligent Design is not science does not necessarily mean it is wrong. But because it is not science, it should not be given time in the scientific classroom.
Let me explain why I don't believe Intelligent Design is science.
In pre-Darwinian time, biologists could not explain the adaption of things in their enviroment, so they assumed God must be continually providentially directing such changes. Paleontologists could not explain the origin of organic species so they assumed that God must have supernaturally created them. Today many look at the complexities in organisms or structures and simply cannot imagine how such perfection could be acheived, so they assume a Designer designed it. These claims are religious. They don't consider science as being able to answer them, so they appeal to the religious. Again they are not necessarily wrong, but they don't make any room for the possibility that as we continue to grow in our understanding of the world, we might come to natural explanations.
Speaking of creationists, Michael Ruse said at McLean v. Arkansas that "reliance on the acts of a Creator is inherently religious. Is is not necessarily wrong. It is just a different perspective. It has its place just as science has its place, but it is not science."
Perhaps we can extend that to Intelligent Design, and Dr. Ruse in his latest book 'The Evolution-Creation Struggle' extends that to the worldview of evolutionism, which takes evolutionary science, and applies it to economics, ethics etc. To Ruse, this also doesn't belong in the science classroom.
EVC's resident Priest
This message has been edited by Priest, 09-17-2005 10:18 PM
™ Version 4.2