"Let's make no mistake. The people pushing intelligent design believe in the biblical version of creation. Intelligent design is a way, I think, to sneak it into the curriculum and make it less offensive to the liberals because it ostensibly does not involve religious overtones, that there is just some intelligent being far greater than anything any of us can even imagine that's responsible for all this, and of course I don't have any doubt of that. But I think that they're sort of pussyfooting around when they call it intelligent design."
I don't want to say Rush is all wrong here, but when there are Intelligent Design theorists who don't believe in the Bible, it is hard to accept Rush's statement at face value. It is however understandable with Jonathan Witt's response to Rush's statement.
The article goes on to say:
Jonathan Witt, Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the nation's leading intelligent design think tank, says Limbaugh's suggestion that design theorists appear disingenious when drawing a sharp distinction between creationism and intelligent design is mistaken.
"Since newspapers routinely mangle our position on this matter, it's little wonder," he said today.
"Traditional creationism begins with the Bible and moves from there to science," says Witt. "Intelligent design begins and ends with science."
So here is the problem. If the ID position is to use the definition of science that fits the evolutionary worldview, then Rush's viewpoint is wrong. The ID position becomes a merely negative assertion in showing Evolution to be unable to explain "irreducible complexities" within its own system.
As we all can plainly see however, ID doesn't stop with the Evolutionary definition of Science. It actually attempts to redefine science to be more open-minded by allowing alternative explanations and theories of the evidence. Therefore, by allowing alternative theories, this gives rise to alternative starting points and worldviews.
ID can be an obvious gateway in allowing Biblical Creationism to be taught in public schools. The greatest fear of any Evolutionist is that people might view the world through what God tells us to be true. Modern Man simply cannot give up his sovereignty to some mythical God of the Bible who requires blood sacrifices (or any other repugnant idea that offends Modern Man).
Over the years I have liked the ID movement. Instead of being a merely negative critique of evolution, it may have something more to offer. The information theory in my opinion was a great breakthrough. For it gave the movement something positive for evolutionists to turn to. The problem being however, that it is still a worldview that men concoct in their minds in order to remain palatable to Modern Man instead of allowing God to define our world.
Many have been predicting a revolution in science as science advances beyond what the theory of Evolution can handle. So in the end Rush may be (in practical purposes) right. If we allow for an Intelligent Designer, then people might just turn to the only coherent system out there, and who wants that?
No comments:
Post a Comment