Shades of Galileo

Except that this time, so-called scientists are on the side of the suppression of any ideas that don’t adhere to their orthodoxy. The subject at hand is intelligent design, which should be taught alongside and as complementary to (not instead of) the theory of evolution.

This appears to also be President Bush’s point of view. Which is unsurprising, given that he is both Christian and a “conservative”, and hence, in today’s upside-down political world, a liberal insofar as he supports having a marketplace of ideas. As opposed to eliminating some ideas because they conflict with the orthodox views of the Sadducees of the Temple of Science.

Dubya loosed a small firestorm of criticism when he told some Texas reporters on Monday (Washington Post story here)

“Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about,” he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: “Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.”

The Sudducees, of course, are having none of it. It’s back to the Scopes trial, and who knows, Salem witch trials, even the Inquisition. All caused by a faithful man suggesting that there is another point of view besides Darwinism.

Being faithful to its role as a defender of the Holy Writ of Secularism, the Post’s “reporters” (scare quotes since they’re not reporting anything; they’re giving their secular spin on the news) write thusly:

Much of the scientific establishment says that intelligent design is not a tested scientific theory but a cleverly marketed effort to introduce religious — especially Christian — thinking to students. Opponents say that church groups and other interest groups are pursuing political channels instead of first building support through traditional scientific review.

These boyos should be ordained forthwith; they are worthy acolytes of the Holy Writ of Secularism. For a more reasoned, liberal point of view, consider this from a recent letter to the editor from the president of the Discovery Institute, Bruce Chapman:

Intelligent design is another matter, and it is almost always misrepresented in the media. Simply put, intelligent-design theorists contend that scientists have uncovered demonstrable indicators of design in nature. The theory holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. It goes no further. It is not creationism. It is not religion.

The only religious believers in all this are the Darwinists who refuse to air the strengths and weaknesses of Darwin’s theory and who seek to punish the scholars and teachers who do.

With all due respect, I must dispute part of this: intelligent design is, most certainly, if not religion as such, certainly an indicator of religion. Intelligent design posits a Designer, which I give a capital “D” out of my belief that the Designer is God Almighty.

That intelligent design might be an indicator of faith in God is hardly a reason to not teach it, alongside other theories of how we came to be human. What must really scare the secularists is that intelligent design might just be true.

| technorati tag | |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: