[quote=Della]Not so cool. I wrote and sent this email to Charles Krauthammer:
Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
In your article you characterized intelligent design as:
“‘Intelligent design’ may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological ‘theory’ whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge – in this case, evolution – they are to be filled by God. It is a ``theory’’ that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species, but that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, ‘I think I’ll make me a lemur today.’”
That is not at all the true theory of Intelligent Design, and if the Kansas Board of Education is basing their decision to question Darwinian evolution in its curriculum on it, then they are as wrong about it as you are.
Intelligent Design is exactly what it says–it is the theory (and remember evolution too is just a theory) that God put into creation, into our very DNA, the coding for each species, so that as they interacted with their environment the various codes of their DNA went dormant or were activated. It has nothing whatsoever to do with God stepping into history to create by fiat lemurs, humans, rose bushes or anything else.
Please, if you are going to criticize a theory, at least criticize it for what it is, not for what it is popularly believed to be.
P. S. I refer you to this online article: William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information
I’m sorry, but even this argument for ID says “we can’t understand it yet with science…so God did it.”
Calling ID a theory is fine…it just isn’t a SCIENTIFIC Theory. That is what the article is saying. By saying it is you have to change the definition of science, and thereby corrupt the whole idea that God created us with intelligence.