:: ID is Science, not Religion

Joseph D. Renick

Executive Director

IDnet-NM

February 2, 2005

Editor

Albuquerque Tribune

Reference Albuquerque Tribune editorial, Jan 27, 2005, “KNME did right thing to pull ‘science’ show”. 

The central point made in this editorial in defense of KNME’s censorship of the science documentary “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” is that intelligent design (ID) is religion , not science .  That point is made as an assertion unsupported by an explanation as to just what it is about ID that makes it religion .  The assertion may sound reasonable but in reality, it is a deception.  ID is science , not religion .  Here’s why.     

First, the label “ID” has a particular meaning to its proponents.  ID is concerned with evidence of design in nature detected through the methods of empirical science.  ID does not claim that a transcendent designer was responsible for life.  To do so, would be to compromise the integrity of science by making claims that go far beyond the evidence.  ID may be consistent with the religious notion of a creator, but it does not depend on that notion.   

Moreover, ID proponents do not promote the teaching of ID as a theory of biological origins in public schools.  Rather, we promote objective impartial evaluation of the evidence on the basis of merit, not philosophical or religious preference.  Follow the evidence wherever it may lead and if it happens to come across design-like features in biology then allow students to examine those features and raise the kinds of questions that might emerge from such an examination.  For example a student might ask the rather obvious question…“How can natural selection account for the origin of the genetic code and the information content of DNA?” 

Evidence based on observations and experiments provides the connection between the abstract mental constructs of science called hypotheses, theories, principles, and laws, and the actual behavior of the natural world.  Observation is what grounds scientific findings in reality.  This is the essence of what is called empirical science .

How does ID measure up as empirical science?  The genetic code and its extreme optimization are observed facts of cellular biology yet exhibit design-like features.  The staggering information content of DNA and the operation of amazing molecular machines that carry on life processes of the cell are observed facts of cellular biology and exhibit mind-boggling design-like features.  All were discovered through the methods of empirical science and constitute what surely must be considered to be one of the most stunning intellectual achievements of mankind.   These design-like features have eluded explanation on the basis of physics and chemistry alone and point to the operation of an intelligence…the only empirically demonstrated source of design. 

And yes, the inference to a transcendent designer, no matter how abhorrent that idea may be to the few, or how comforting it may be to the many, is inescapable.  But that is of no consequence to the methods and principles of empirical science.  Scientists may care about such things but science , practiced with integrity, does not.   Likewise, science teachers may care about such things but science education , practiced with integrity, does not. 

Because of the evidentiary weakness of the neo-Darwinian theory and the evidentiary strength of the design hypothesis, Darwinists resort to the ID-is-religion deception.  Having declared ID to be religion, the evidence is automatically rendered irrelevant without regard to its merits.  The neo-Darwinian dogma and the materialistic ideology it supports are thus protected from the challenge of devastating empirical evidence.   

The simple facts are that empirical science has discovered design-like features in biology that have thus far eluded a naturalistic explanation.  ID has religious implications but those implications are irrelevant to the methods and principles of empirical science.  And finally, the claim that ID is religion , not science , is a deception motivated by the need to protect the neo-Darwinian dogma from damning evidence. 

In Galileo’s day the geocentric view could not be challenged because it was a dogma of the Medieval Church and the Aristotelian metaphysics that the Church had embraced.  In our present day the neo-Darwinian view cannot be challenged because it is a dogma of materialism, the secular religion of modern science.  It is worth noting that those organizations in New Mexico who have aligned themselves with KNME’s censorship of “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” have unwittingly also aligned themselves with the dogmatic Medieval Church that persecuted Galileo, the first champion of empirical science. 

The Tribune editorial ends with a triumphant blast on the herald trumpets of evolution.  The Tribune says that evolution “…is fundamental to all science in explaining how nature works, from the smallest, complicated living cell to the realities of planetary geology to the physical and chemical births of stars within evolving galaxies and the stars’ evolution into solar systems”.  This is pure materialistic metaphysics…a modern reincarnation of the brand of Aristotelian metaphysics that produced the geocentric dogma against which Galileo fought. 

While I do not agree with the Tribune and KNME and the rest of the neo-Darwinian coalition in New Mexico regarding their pre-Galilean view of science, I strongly support their right to express those views and will personally and publicly oppose any attempt to censor those views.  I am not optimistic that they will return the favor.