As the PBS documentary Intelligent Design on Trial shows, intelligent design is nothing but creationism in a cheap tuxedo.
The scientific community shows overwhelming acceptance of evolution, with 99% of scientists in all fields accepting it as essentially scientific truth. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is the opposite of such:
For more on this issue, see Intelligent Design.
Creationists tried to prove a point with their ill-fated project called “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism“, but failed as the NCSE‘s own Project Steve has garnered more support despite the terms being more rigorous, such as having a name that is a variation of Steve, in many forms.
As of March, 2008, Project Steve has about 900 signatures compared to the around 700 of A Scientific Dissent.
As if this crushing defeat isn’t enough for the creationist groups such as the Discovery Institute, who I’ll be tackling in a second, they’ve lost a plethora of court battles and it seems as if all of their hair-brained attempts fail faster than the previous.
So what, exactly is the Disco ‘tute anyway? (Cheers to Astronomer Phil Plait for the term)
The Discovery Institute claims to be an intelligent design advocacy group. Though they claim Intelligent Design is indeed a scientific theory and not creationism, their deceitful actions prove otherwise.
This brings us to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
I ask you to first read the basics of Expelled, but leave the majority of the explaining to me, you won’t regret it, promise.
They claim that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory — not creationism. If such were true, why do we have evidence such as the following that says exactly the opposite:
In January 2008, one of the producers of Expelled, Mark Mathis, was interviewed on a Victory Broadcast Service Radio program, whose mission is to “spread the Good News of Jesus Christ”.
Expelled producer Mark Mathis is going to be one of the central characters of this wonderful story in the coming days, so keep him in mind. I’m not speaking of my own interpretation; I’m speaking of how this story has played out so far and seems to be going.
One must ask: why would he be interviewed by an obviously creationist, not to mention christian, group about a film that isn’t about creationism? Clearly, something is wrong here.
I also find this a wee-bit ironic:
“Mathis stated that it was unfair that 90% of the American public believes that there is design in nature but in Academia, the opposite is true.”
If Academia knows more about reality — including this supposed “design” — why should what the general public thinks matter? Most of the public’s beliefs are bronze age myths that postulate things such as the Sun revolving around the Earth, and that the stars in heaven came down upon the Earth at one point. Yes, let’s put that in science class as well. We can call it Scientific Revisionism — which will actually be based on proving the actual history of the Earth wrong with “science“.
Regardless, Mark Mathis is clearly a piece of deluded shit.
The producers of Expelled know that they’re promoting creationism and so does the Discovery Institute. How can I be so sure of this, you ask?
Take a look at intelligent design’s basic premise: life is too complex to have arisen by “random mutations“. But Copache, why is that a problem?
If life is too complex to have arisen on its own, how did it get here? A “designer” (read: the correct answer is God) created life. That’s creationism. How’d the designer come about pray tell? It couldn’t be natural processes, so if we were, per example, created by aliens, that does not solve the basic problem of what created life. Aliens themselves would then be created.
Therefore, something would have to exist always and be able to design everything. That’s creationism. That’s not just creationism, that’s creationism in a cheap tuxedo.
They claim that intelligent design is not creationism because the purpose is not to identify the designer. So like, what is the purpose, dudes? Science seeks to identify everything and every reason for everything. If you can’t identify the designer, there’s no point in calling this science because it’s not. Alternatively, if you identify the designer, you’ll find that he’s a lot like this li’l character named God from many religious texts.
So if it’s so apparent that ID is de facto creationism, why do they deny it? Simple enough: they want this nonsense in schools as a response to evolution which has mountains of evidence but negates their personal belief in a fairy tale character.
Biologist Ken Miller, who created the biology book Biology: The Living Science, which caused the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in which ID was shamed, had a quote which rings true regardless of your personal religion.
Truth is one.
If God is real, science and religion should not be contradictory. Evolution is not just a theory, evolution is an observed fact. Whether religion and science do contradict each other is more of a personal issue, so you can decide that for yourself, but what is apparent is that no form of creationism is science because it tells us nothing about the world we live in. Which is why we have things such as evolution in the first place, ironically.
Part II of my Expelled series is coming soon and will cover the current problems between the producers of Expelled, the Disco ‘tute, Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers.