Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Feb 16, 2013 in Uncategorized | 8 comments

Intelligent Design is Creationism

This article, written on July 12, 2009 is the last in a series of articles dealing with intelligent design. See also Parts One and Two

It should be clear by now that intelligent design is, in fact, religious in nature. This can be seen throughout the writings of some in the movement. In my article Intelligent Design: Giving Science a Wedgie I demonstrated how Phillip E. Johnson used religious language in one of his books; he used the word “Creator”; in the Wedge document the Discovery Institute made references to God, and in the first sentence it says very clearly,

“The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.”

The pseudo-science textbook Of Pandas and People has been proven to originally be a creationism textbook. The co author, Percival Davis, who as I mentioned in my article What is Creationism and Intelligent design? admitted the religious nature of intelligent design is more proof of the religious nature of I.D.. This is proof of the I.D. movement’s goal to get religion in schools in order to fight the tide of “materialism” and “godlessness” that’s supposedly being forced on all our children. However, this isn’t just about religion but some of the founding principals of our government, namely the separation of church and state, since there are many Christians who could rightfully be called historical revisionists. They rewrite history claiming that the U.S. was founded as a “Christian Nation” so they can more easily get religion in schools. Their thinking is to convince people that it was never the intention of the Founding Fathers to have a separation of church and state so it’s perfectly OK to have religion in our schools. [1]

The fact that intelligent design is creationism (and hence religion) was brutally exposed during research for the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial when original drafts of Of Pandas and People were subpoenaed and The National Center for Science Education found the “missing link” proving that intelligent design was creationism. Here is a short video about the find:

That video amply demonstrates the deceit of those in this movement, and as I’m fond of saying, how can people trust these individuals when they’ve been exposed for the hucksters they are?

Now that the term for their religious beliefs, intelligent design, has once again been exposed, it’s been noted by some experts on I.D. that the movement has begun to back away from using the term intelligent design, and instead use terms like “academic freedom” or “critical analysis of evolution” when writing policy proposals for science standards in various schools across the country. [2] Some might be familiar with the term “academic freedom” if you’ve watched the poorly made 2008 documentary called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed [3] about intelligent design (though they don’t say this explicitly), the main theme being that teachers’ “academic freedoms” are being threatened when they are disciplined and disallowed to teach “evidence against” evolution, which is actually I.D. trying to pass under the radar.

Due to the evolving nature of the intelligent design movement we must be more diligent than ever because I fear these ideologically driven individuals will not stop and all of us who stand for science and the founding principals of this country must come together to continue to expose and discredit this deceptive and unethical movement.

1. arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-lies-from-christian-revisionists.html

2. Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse – Video with Barbara Forrest, presented Saturday June 16th 2007 at the Center for Inquiry in Amherst N.Y.

3. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Super Trailer) ; accessed 2-8-13

  • frisbee_kid

    It should be clear by now that intelligent design is, in fact, religious in nature

    Except to those who know it best.

    Strange that only anti-IDists with an agenda say that ID is religious in nature. And evolutionists say that the ToE is atheistic- not its opponents. And that means it should be under the separation of church and State. Not that you would understand that.

    Darwin used the word Creator in “On the Origin of Species…”, so by your “logic” the theory of evolution is religious in nature. Strange that you always ignore that fact.

    The pseudo-science textbook Of Pandas and People has been proven to originally be a creationism textbook.

    Not according to the authors and publisher.
    I choose ID because it is a non-religious attempt to explain our existence and no one will ever change that fact.
    BTW the only way to stop ID is to actually step up and produce positive evidence for materialism. Good luck with that…

    • http://www.facebook.com/brian.curtis.3994 Brian Curtis

      Actually, the only way for ID to be taken seriously would be for it to produce some empirical evidence, which it has always consistently failed to do. Instead, its supporters reguarly claim that their ‘theory’ be accepted as true unless someone can DISprove it… thus demonstrating their ignorance of both science and logic.

      “”And evolutionists say that the ToE is atheistic.” Not quite; evolution is NON-theistic, as all science must be.

      • Joe G

        ID has produced empirical evidence. And evos have said the the ToE is atheistic. i can quote them if you would like.

        • Reasonably Faithless

          The ToE is non-theistic, just like gravity is non-theistic. ie, none of them use the existence of a god as a crucial descriptive element. It wouldn’t matter how many physicists said that gravity is “atheistic” – that would not make it true.

  • Joe G

    Why is it that the only people who conflate ID and Creation the same people who know the least about either?

    • northierthanthou.com

      …unless they aren’t.

      • Joe G

        But they are…

  • northierthanthou.com

    The passage they read wouldn’t even be an ID argument as it presupposes lack of evolution. If a meaningful decision could be made between the two, this author clearly wasn’t making it.