Intelligent design vs. "divine design," etc.
Because so few Americans believe in Darwinism or anything like it, this had to happen, of course: Some people are using the term "intelligent design" to mean, for example, "divine design" in Utah - or whatever they want it to mean.
(Note: Looking for major recent stories? See the Blog service note below.)
Discovery Institute, which defends ID theory, is far from pleased. In particular, Discovery has urged Pennsylvania not to pass a bill that requires teachers to teach intelligent design theory to tots.
Discovery Institute continues to believe that efforts to insert ID into school curriculum by government imposition are misguided and counterproductive. They politicize what should be a scientific debate, will tie up ID scholars in needless political and legal wrangling, and in many cases are proposed by people who do not really understand what intelligent design proposes.
So says Discovery's John West. He adds,
Instead of authorizing school districts to mandate the teaching of design, we encourage you to make clear to teachers and school districts that they have the right to inform students about scientific criticisms of Darwinian theory as well as the evidence supporting Darwinian theory.But, of course, if schools did that, Darwinism would lose its iconic status as the creation story of atheism (from goo to zoo to you, in a zillion easy steps). Would it survive without institutional support from publicly funded schools and universities? Whether or no, I insist on a front row seat ...
Labels: divine design