kyleforu:
Call me dumb or whatever, but why isn’t intelligent design taught in schools along with evolution, so the kids can decide what is more believable? How do public school educators have such a stronghold on denying discussion of intelligent design to even be discussed? Is it the parents of the children who are against this or what? I just don’t understand this. Would someone more informed please explain this to me. Thanks.
Regardless of one’s personal beliefs, the concept of design is unscientific. Please consider this op-ed that I wrote on the matter:
Prepare yourself for the religious right’s latest attack on the science classroom. Following the defeat of “scientific” creationism, anti-science has resurfaced in the form of Intelligent Design. This Trojan horse, calculated for maximum political appeal, is more Orwellian than George Orwell himself.
In his novel 1984, Orwell warned of a future in which language is reversed to suppress reality. As the despotic Big Brother proclaims, “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength”. With the Intelligent Design movement, religion becomes science as ignorance becomes evidence.
Science and religion are best understood as two separate domains. The method of science is to find natural causes to what we observe in the natural world. The purpose of religion is to connect with something higher than ourselves. One seeks to understand the Creation while the other provides a relationship with the Creator.
Science has succeeded so far in explaining the diversity of life. Universal common descent, the observation that any two species share a distant evolutionary ancestor, is one of the most well-attested facts of natural history.
Biological evolution doesn’t intend to discredit religion any more than plate tectonics bolsters atheism. Nonetheless, religious fundamentalists introduced the “alternative theory” of Intelligent Design to Christianize the science curriculum.
In the public square, design theorists insist that their movement is inherently religion-neutral. The source of design, they contend, could have been space aliens. When the cameras are off, their true colors shine through.
“Not only does Intelligent Design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I’ve found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ,” claimed William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of Intelligent Design.
The “suffocating ideology” that Dembski speaks of is methodological naturalism, the rule of thumb that science must avoid appealing to the supernatural. Divine intervention, therefore, lies beyond the realm of scientific investigation. Dembski, as a philosophizing mathematician, is an unqualified authority on the nature of scientific methodology.
Phillip E. Johnson, retired law professor of UC Berkley and founder of the Intelligent Design movement, is another unqualified authority on biological evolution.
If Johnson understood the nature of science, perhaps he wouldn‘t have said to the L.A. Times that “We are taking an intuition most people have, the belief in God, and making it a scientific and academic enterprise.”
For many people, the existence of God is a profound reality but never should one abuse biology to prove theology. Such overstepping of bounds would be a mockery not only of science but the mystery of faith.
“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.” (Hebrews 11:1) Faith is not, however, the litmus test for scientific inquiry.
We do not know by science that God created us, it is revealed only by faith:
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Hebrews 11:3
Peace.
I accept lower-case “intelligent design” not upper case.
no. I don’t have the science background to understand noodlyism or Hendersonism. Over my head. But I do appreciate the parody. I made my own 
