The ID Report

The goal of the Intelligent Design Movement is to achieve an open philosophy of science that permits consideration of any explanations toward which the evidence may be pointing. This is different from the current restrictive philosophy that rules out of consideration the possibility that a creator may be responsible for our existence, even if the evidence is pointing in that general direction.
-- Phillip E. Johnson, Think, (The Royal Institute of Philosophy), February 19, 2007.

In case you missed it, February was a delightful month for Darwinists. Not only did a few hundred enlightened churches celebrate Evolution Sunday to honor Darwin, but Kansas (of all places) became the first state to officially impose on public school students an atheistic definition of science, also in honor of Darwin. In what should be an embarrassment to true scientists, the tail of Darwin continues to wag the dog of science, while the tale of Darwin seeks to wag the God of religion. By keeping their friends (state government) close and their self-made enemies (churches) closer, Darwinists believe they can conquer the world, effectively severing the science versus religion Gordian knot. Darwin the Great can be successful, Darwinists know, if his disciples can neuter any opposition from religious folk and manipulate support from state folk. This month saw both, to the amazement and wonder of free thinking people everywhere. God help us.

Proving the point that defending Darwinism has become more about religion than science, the design deniers of Darwinism believe they have found a way to make deniers of us all: proselytize among the differently religious. By recruiting those who apparently affirm a designer to affirm that design is only apparent, Darwinists succeed with maculate deception: Evolution Sunday cleverly enlists name-brand churches having only a facade of faith in a creator God to honor a belief that neither needs a creator nor wants a God. A quick read of the names of the participating churches and their leaders proves the point--brothers and more than a few sister reverends of a common faith in man, matter and motion, the first being the product solely of the other two.

Evolution Sunday is the brainchild of an apostle of the Darwinist faith who believes that evolutionary theory is "fully harmonious with religious faith" and that "religion and science are not adversaries." This, of course, is what intelligent design theorists have maintained all along, at least with respect to theistic beliefs in a creator God. What the Darwinists make clear is that one must be careful which religious faith one chooses. Darwinism is perfectly compatible with Religious Humanism, for example. Naturalistic evolution is, in fact, one of Religious Humanism's central tenets as expressed in the Humanist Manifestos. Ditto for Evolution Sunday churches that deny the plain teaching of their traditional holy book in favor of those of the Humanist Manifestos--finding harmony between "science" and "religious faith" is not difficult when both agree that matter is all that really matters.

If Darwinists are serious that there need be no conflict between science and religious faith, then to be consistent they need promote not only Evolution Sunday but Creation Monday. Why not circulate a letter for biology teachers to sign stating that there is no conflict between science and religion, and let a class period be set aside to explore creationism and understand intelligent design, pointing out the "harmonious" relationship between the two belief systems? And why stop there? Why not initiate chapel services at the National Academy of Sciences? How about a time of worship and a moment of prayer at the next camp meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers? And why don't Darwin's apostles train high school and college bishops to proffer an explanation of how evolutionary theory is fully harmonious with religious faith in a creator God, starting with "In the beginning" and going from there?

Not content with subduing Sunday only, the Darwinists continue to cement absolute control of educating young minds on the five days they already control. Realizing that defending the scientifically indefensible to an informed populace is an increasingly impossible task, Darwinists in Kansas have finally made it official: "informing" is not in their best interest and for this reason the manipulated majority on the Kansas State Board of Education removed "informing" as part of the science teacher's job! Informing has no place for those who have opted instead for unabashed indoctrination. Seeking their own best interests over those of the people they serve, Darwinists have decided the best defense is offense, and what an offense it is. Offending truth, reason and the sensibilities of free thinking people everywhere, Darwinists have lost all pretense of objectivity in their active suppression of the truth and their vocal insistence for their previously unstated goal: state-sponsored atheistic naturalism.

Kansas, bless its evolved heart, is the first state in the nation to officially adopt a definition of science that is non-objective, naturalistic, and atheistic. In a fit of anti-ID fervor, however, the Kansas avengers may have thrown out the crybaby with the holy water. By defining "scientific knowledge" as describing and explaining "the physical world in terms of matter, energy, and forces," the wizards of ooze not only defined out of science intelligent design, but every other scientific discipline that relies on inferences of intelligent design. Archeology? No longer science in Kansas if we wish to assume unknown intelligent causation for a piece of clay shaped like a pot. To remain scientific the pot (or "apparent pot") must be explained as being caused by only matter, energy, and forces. Anthropologists? Good luck explaining signs of an ancient camp fire only in terms of matter, energy and forces. Forensic scientists? Sorry, you must now be called Forensic Believers if you wish to infer unknown intelligent causation for that murder, arson, or other crime for which you were previously permitted such logical inferences. And psychology? Don't even think about it; they've gone and lost our minds. Objective scientists of all stripes? Better move out of Dodge.

Now that the month's hoopla is past, we can consider the absurdity illustrated by Darwinists who insist that their version of evolution is scientific, and believe the problem is with religious rubes who just don't get it. If the problem were truly one of Christians rejecting science, then we would need more than Evolution Sunday. In fact, we would need more than a month of Sundays, and may need to impose on Monday and Tuesday as well. But, of course, Christians, Jews, Muslims and other believers in a creator God do accept scientific findings; which is why no one feels compelled to organize "Gravity Sunday," "Round Earth Sunday" or "Insects Have Six Legs Sunday". But "evolution" in its strong form of unguided, purposeless creation of man fails the litmus test of being observable, testable, or even compelled by the evidence. No amount of liberal religious "harmony" can remedy a lack of hard, physical evidence.

A cynic might conclude that the goal of Darwinists, in keeping with their chosen theory, is to destroy objective science itself to further their selfish genes. After all, destruction is what Darwinism is all about. Natural selection is a sanitized term for the concept of the preservation of one living being by the killing of another, and "evolution" has become a meaningless euphemism for a system "red in tooth and claw". One wonders how successful the religious Darwinists would be were they to promote "Killing of the Weak Sunday" or "Preservation of the Favored Races Sunday," as Darwin himself might propose. Unless free thinkers and people of good faith everywhere oppose the determination of dogmatic Darwinists, the death of objective science cannot be far away. And like doves lured into a snake pit, those of purported faith in a designer risk certain death unless they quickly adapt to escape the cunning instincts of those naturally wise as serpents.

Roddy Bullock is the Executive Director of the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio (www.idnetohio.com) and is the author of The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science, published by Access Research Network. Send comments to: roddybullock@idnetohio.com.

Copyright 2007 Roddy M. Bullock, all rights reserved. Quotes and links permitted with attribution.

References:

Phillip E. Johnson, Intelligent Design in Biology: The Current Situation and Future Prospects, Think, The Royal Institute of Philosophy, February 19, 2007. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3914&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20Article&callingPage=discoMainPage

Evolution Sunday and the Clergy Letter Project, http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm

Kansas Science Standards, http://www.kansasscience2005.com/

Definitions of State Science Standards, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=333