Is Intelligent Design a Religious Movement?: Conclusion
This is the final post in a series of blogs looking at the question of whether intelligent design is merely religion masquerading as science as so many critics charge. I’ve answered several assertions so far, and today, I turn to one final objection - that intelligent design wishes to ban the teaching of Darwinian evolution from the public schools, replacing it with religious dogma. This may, at first glance, seem legitimate because the term “intelligent design” has been used by some groups in some local school systems to advocate the teaching of young earth creationism using the Bible as a text, but most advocates of the intelligent design movement don’t hold this view.
For example, the Discovery Institute, perhaps the leading intelligent design advocate, does not advocate that schools should cease to teach Darwinism. Instead, they contend that…
… evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned.
Presently, Darwinism is taught as if it has no weaknesses and is universally accepted. ID critic, BarbaraForrest states:
There is no controversy in the mainstream scientific community about either the fact of evolution or the major aspects of evolutionary theory.
This begs the question, since to make such a claim one must classify anyone who doubts Darwinism as a scientist out of the mainstream. It also commits the fallacy of consensus gentium. However, truth isn’t decided by a majority vote.
Although one would not think so based on the rhetoric of intelligent design opponents, the major intelligent design organizations actually recommend the teaching of Darwinian evolution, including both its strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, however, The Discovery Institute’s policy emphasizes that there is nothing unconstitutional about voluntary discussion of the scientific theory of design in a classroom, and that teachers should not be persecuted or harassed if they choose to discuss the scientific evidence for design.
The Dover decision of December 2005 which classified intelligent design as religion, not science, perpetuated the confusion that intelligent design is identical to creationism. Michael Behe, in his response to that decision, sums up the issue well, stating that the courts mistaken ruling was premised on…
… a cramped view of science; the conflation of intelligent design with creationism; an incapacity to distinguish the implications of a theory from the theory itself; a failure to differentiate evolution from Darwinism; and strawman arguments against ID.