Divine Distortion

“Intelligent design” is this epoch’s religious effort to fill in scientific gaps and simplify complexities; theology has no function in a scientific setting despite the idea of incorporating all ideas, for if that were the case, the solid, proven foundation of science would be compromised by contradictory ideals. “…Intelligent design is science, not religion. It is a new theory which holds that present-day organisms are too complex to have evolved by that accumulation random mutations, and must have been shaped by some intelligent entity. Unlike old-style creationism, it does not explicitly mention God… and uses more sophisticated arguments to poke holes in Darwinism” (Safire). Intelligent design is an evolved entity itself; from the trite reasoning of creationism prompted modernization. Creationism promoted the idea of God, largely the Christian God, as the divine creator of all; intelligent design reforms creationism with political correctness – dropping “God” for an “intelligent creator” – and logic, albeit still religious – seemingly complex systems could only be fabricated by a complex, intelligent creator. “…Rational, skeptical thought renders the creationists’ stories as what they are – myths… with increased knowledge, the intellectual darkness that surrounds us is illuminated… evolution is a fact, disputed only by those who choose to ignore the evidence, put their common sense on hold and believe instead that unchanging knowledge and wisdom can be reached only by revelation” (Watson). Science – the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical world via observation and experiment – is not synonymous with theology, nor may science support or even hint to divine intervention, as such intervention is neither observable nor deduced from physical elements. Evolution is systematically deduced from physical inferences, most notably by the discoveries of Charles Darwin, traveling on the H.M.S. Beagle, that similar birds on different islands had developed, rather evolved, different physical adaptations to its environment based on survival. “In order to justify the farce that intelligent design is science, Kansas had to currupt the very definition of science… thus implying that the supernatural is an integral part of science… this is an insult to both religion and science” (Krauthammer). In order to insinuate intelligent design into curriculum, the very definition of science must be distorted to accommodate religion’s presence. This flagrant distortion of an integral school subject corrupts the institution of an unbiased, objective education and insults the integrity of true scientific ideas. The fundamental basis of science rejects theological influences, as such influences may neither be observed nor derived experimentally; therefore, intelligent design may not insinuate itself into science curriculum.