OPINION


06-04-2008 

Mike Renzulli
A New Strategy for Neo-Creationists  
 
     Since proponents of un-intelligent design can't get their version of science adopted into schools, now they are trying a new strategy to implement their agenda.
 
     Rather than try to force schools to teach their pseudo-scientific findings along side evolution, I.D. proponents (like the Discovery Institute) are trying to get school boards and state legislatures to implement strengths and weaknesses policies that are geared to point out the so-called flaws in evolution.
 
     If this wasn't so unbelievable it would be laughable.
 
     As The New York Times points out, as a principle evolution is not disputed in the scientific mainstream and the term theory in the scientific sense is one based on observation and facts.
 
     Gaps in knowledge are not deemed by scientists as points of doubt but rather subjects for future reference and understanding.
 
     The truth is that none of the science of ID itself could withstand peer review of their findings and ID scientists have dared not submit research articles (if any) to scientific journals because they know their findings would easily be invalidated.
 
     Instead, ID proponents rely on stealth campaigns like this since they know that they have no documented proof or evidence to back up their claims. ID is speculation based on creationism dressed up to be science.
 
     What makes the science and the movement behind intelligent deception ... er ... design (ID) so evil is not only that proponents make it out to be legitimate science but the scientists that support it claim to be victims of the scientific establishment while insisting that their findings are not religiously based when, in fact, they are.
 
     For this reason alone, intelligent design in any of its forms should not be taught in schools.
 
     The ID movement itself is trying to appeal to the public in hopes that their sense of fairness would persuade legislators and school officials to teach their version of how life began along side evolution when, in fact, un-intelligent design itself is an inherently religious viewpoint that points to a supernatural designer which would be a breach of church/state seperation. A federal court already settled this issue in 2005. .
 
     Despite some states (like Texas) possibly implementing this latest attack on science itself, hopefully others will resist the temptation to do so or the courts will intervene.
 
     Intelligent design is a religious viewpoint in itself due to its appeal to a supernatural designer. To appeal to such an entity brings it in conflict with reality since the idea of the supernatural (i.e. something beyond nature and natural law) is a contradiction.
 
     In order to oppose the efforts of intelligent design religionists, one must reject their efforts to enjoin the supernatural with science.
 
     Despite ID supporters claims to the contrary, Darwin's theory is perfect since it relies on rational, objective standards backed up with provable scientific facts.
 
     Things intelligent design proponents are surely lacking.