Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Religion & Law Blogs -> Thoughts in a Haystack

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Religion & Law

: Thoughts in a Haystack

When "Nudge, Nudge, Wink, Wink" Fails

By John Pieret

ADVERTISEMENTS

Dr. Georgia Purdom of Answers in Genesis comes this close, but can't quite see the creator for the trees. In an article, "Is the intelligent design movement Christian?," she manages to see the energetic handwaving from the IDers but fails to get the message. First of all, Purdom provides a helpful quote from William Dembski to once again demonstrate that ID has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, no sirree Bob!:

ID is three things: a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes; an intellectual movement that challenges Darwinism and its naturalistic legacy; and a way of understanding divine action.

But Purdom does see the trees, at least:

The ID movement also claims not to be religiously motivated. It focuses not on the whom but on the what. This may sound very appealing at first glance. Some biblical creationists believe that the ID movement's tolerance and acceptance of a wide range of beliefs about the supernatural could be useful in reaching a larger audience. Since the movement is very careful not to associate itself with Christianity or any formal religion, some think it will stand a better chance of gaining acceptance as an alternative to Darwinism in the schools, because it does not violate the so-called "separation of church and state."

Purdom is quite correct that it is only a claim -- and a not very persuasive one -- that ID is not religious in nature and that the motivation of ID is, in fact, to dishonestly evade the constitutional prohibition of government endorsement of religion. Of course, the vast majority of IDers are every bit as much "biblical creationists" (though not necessarily of the particularly dense YEC variety) as Purdom is, with only the tiniest fraction of non-religious "contrarians" sprinkled in.

Purdom, naturally, can't help but bring the crazy:

[T]he central problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other. All other problems within the movement stem from this one.
Those within the ID movement claim their science is neutral. However, science is not neutral because it works with hypotheses based on beliefs or presuppositions. It is ironic that they refuse to see this about their own science, considering that they claim the problem with Darwinism is the presupposition that nothing supernatural exists. All scientists approach their work with presuppositions. The question is whether those beliefs are rooted in man's fallible ideas about the past or rooted in the infallible Word of God, the Bible. ...
Without the framework of the Bible and the understanding that evil entered the world through man's actions (Genesis 3), God appears sloppy and incompetent, if not downright vicious. People ask why God is unable to prevent evil from thwarting His plans, resulting in such poor design, instead of understanding that because of the Fall there is now a "cursed" design.

Wait a minute! God "cursed" his own design? Why? Because his "perfect" design failed? Hmmm ... something doesn't add up here!

Anyway, Phillip Johnson's and William Dembski's and other's furious attempts at semaphore notwithstanding, Purdom can't quite get it.
.

Full post as published by Thoughts in a Haystack on May 31, 2010 (boomark / email).