Main Menu
Welcome
Talk show host and recent senior Discovery Institute fellow Michael Medved (apparently, November last year is so recent he's not even listed on the DI website, yet) has publicly announced what everybody already knew: Intelligent Design is neither a theory, nor an explanation.Q. Speaking of your desire for this kind of particularity, you are a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute that studies and believes in Intelligent Design. How do you, as an Orthodox Jew, reconcile with this kind of generality - with the view of their being a hierarchy with a chief "designer" - while believing in and praying to a very specific God?
A. The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear. Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It's a challenge to evolution. It does not replace evolution with something else.
Q. The question is not whether it replaces evolution, but whether it replaces God.
A. No, you see, Intelligent Design doesn't tell you what is true; it tells you what is not true. It tells you that it cannot be that this whole process was random.
Basically, Michael Medved spells out what has been clear for every thinking person: the DI'`s only raison d'être is to get religious teaching into classrooms. They don't want to explain anything, they don't want to replace evolutionary theory, they only want to highlight what we don't yet know so that they can put their god in these gaps. Another senior fellow, George Gilder, concurs: A. The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear. Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It's a challenge to evolution. It does not replace evolution with something else.
Q. The question is not whether it replaces evolution, but whether it replaces God.
A. No, you see, Intelligent Design doesn't tell you what is true; it tells you what is not true. It tells you that it cannot be that this whole process was random.
''I'm not pushing to have [ID] taught as an 'alternative' to Darwin, and neither are they," he says in response to one question about Discovery's agenda. ''What's being pushed is to have Darwinism critiqued, to teach there's a controversy. Intelligent design itself does not have any content."
No theory, no content, no explanation, not an alternative. Thanks for clearing that one up, guys!Via: LGF; see also: Panda's Thumb.
Posted on Monday 11 August 2008 - 10:15:08 comment: 0
{TAGS}
{TAGS}
You must be logged in to make comments on this site - please log in, or if you are not registered click here to signup
Render time: 0.0618 sec, 0.0047 of that for queries.