Yesterday’s ruling in Dover is pretty interesting. The whole separation of Church and State thing keeps bogging people down with a poor understanding of the US Constitution. Before you go assuming you think you know what I believe, let me say that I do not and will not want a state-run church. The goal of the Christian life is not to rule top-down in matters of faith, but to work in and through structures to make plain what is true.
Anyway, as found on Kantor.com the ruling contains this phrase: [W]e conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.
What is interesting about this whole mess is that opponents of Intelligent Design are asserting that it is a religious system that explains Creation. First of all, by saying Creation, it is implied that there is a Creator. So the opponents mustn’t argue with these words! So (modified complaint): ID is a religious explanation as to how matter and the world came to be.
A desire to separate Church and State is going to force people to re-define “religion”. Random House Webster’s College Dictionary defines religion this way: 1) a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe…2) a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a numbers of persons or sects…3) the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices…6) something someone believes in and follows devotedly.Call me naive, but where exactly does Darwinism not fit? Could it be that “religion” is merely whether someone wants to attribute something to a Creator? By the way Darwinists argue from lack of evidence, it seems like a religion to me. It has its preachers and prophets. It has its curriculum pushing everyone into a single-file line. It catechizes people into a certain way of speech and belief.
ID is not considered science. Webster’s again: 1) a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws…5) knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
My contention is not that we make everyone Christian. That’s ridiculous…God must do this. What I am aiming to show is that there is plenty of facts and truths that have been systematically arranged so as to show a coherent and meaningful interpretation of general laws we observe in nature. ID is not closing one’s eyes and saying, “Go away. I believe in God and you Darwinists can’t make me think otherwise.” Rather, with eyes wide open, we declare that it is folly to deny God’s existence. And we plead with people that they open theirs as well. We ask people to quit being closed-minded and begin vocalizing the questions they have, without sarcasm and spite.
Still my question stands: Where did the molecules come from? If you tell me that we just haven’t figured that one out, then how are you any different than the naive theist who closes their eyes and says they just believe?