[excerpt] Intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific theory. At the core of its character, it is not a science.
“Science,” as we use the word in everyday language, is a field that consists of hundreds of years of tested ideas that describe how the world works. Science, in a more formal context, is a method, an approach.
The goals of science are to build on what’s known, through new discoveries and correction or clarification of old information. While it’s true that ID theory uses facts of science to support its claims, it has nothing new to report. It only seeks to prove itself. Science doesn’t seek to prove itself, but rather to describe the behavior and character of the universe.
ID is a single belief or idea: “an intelligent force had a hand in building and organizing life.” To equate the two by pitting them against one another is ridiculous. It’s like stating a very broad idea, such as, “Fruits and vegetables are nutritious,” and comparing it to the comment, “I like steak.” The latter is a single preference. The former is an evaluative statement with a broader scope.
I see no problem with a scientist holding the belief that an overarching intelligent force influenced life. But that belief is personal. It’s for the scientist’s own mind.
When the scientist is testing wastewater for chemical compounds, or studying how bees interact with pollinators or even looking at the genetic code of fruit flies, that belief doesn’t factor in.
How would we use ID concepts to prove anything new? Take the example of a scientist who studies protein folding. It’s not appropriate, relevant or useful – to say, “God folded the protein.” Instead, the scientist must describe how that occurs biochemically; how the molecules interact and converge, and how the various bonds give the protein its shape. Maybe at the end of the day, she uses her personal religious beliefs as a lens through which to reflect on the beauty and complexity of nature. But that’s irrelevant to her work.
Read the full story.
