This Day In History

Rate This
Article
[click here]

Publish
YOUR
Article
[click here]

Intelligent Design
It's Just Evolution in Disguise

Scientists are sneaking evolution into the classroom
in the disguise of Intelligent Design.

Conclusion:

Evolutionists have been having  a hard time convincing students that these basic concepts of evolution are valid.  I believe they have now begun pushing Intelligent Design (ID) in order to sneak these concepts into their heads.  Once students accept ID, then they must also accept the concepts, such as an old Earth and macroevolution, that go along with it.  After all, Intelligent Design is just basically evolution in disguise.  The only major difference being at what point did the Intelligent Designer (wink, wink, nod, nod - God) stop intervening.  The Theory of Evolution pushes it back to before the beginning of life on Earth.  Intelligent Design pushes back to the cellular level by pointing out the boundary between what can be explained by the Theory of Evolution and what can only be explained by intelligent intervention.  But they know that scientists are constantly making discoveries that push that boundary farther back up the origins chain.  Each time they do, Intelligent Design advocates, simply move their boundary along with them by asking:

"Okay, you showed how that could have evolved, but what about the steps leading up to it?  Those are clearly intelligently designed."

If the Intelligent Design advocates can convince students now that Intelligent Design and its evolutionary concepts that are part of ID are true, then the students will have no choice but to follow along as the Intelligent Design /Evolution boundary goes further back in the origins of life chain.  And before the students and general population realizes it, they will have pushed it back far enough to include the origin of life itself!  And before you know it, the Intelligent Design people will be telling us, "Well, I guess we didn't need God after all."

References:

• Michael Behe
• Is Intelligent Design Testable?

See Also

• No Free Hunch - Contradictions in the teachings of ID

Viewer Feedback

Add your Comments
Submit a Rebuttal
Submit an Article on another topic

2006-01-02 Anonymous Atheistic Evolutionist wrote
Interesting

2006-02-10 Anonymous Young Earth Creationist wrote
Boring, Bogus, Biased to Evolution

2006-04-06 Anonymous, Theistic Evolutionist, wrote
So So, I'm not sure of the accuracy, Biased to Evolution
But what about before the origin of life?

What about before that?

If you take it back to the very beginning, and considering that Energy cannot be created or destroyed, there has to have been a first cause. Something powerful enough to create the universe. Something like God.

2006-04-24 Steve Lansing wrote (see his article)
 

2006-07-28 J.T., Young Earth Creationist, wrote
So So, Bogus, Biased to Evolution
This article is painfully misinformed. While many IDers do in fact believe in a form of evolution, one obviously need not be an evolutionist to believe in Intelligent Design.

Secondly, several statements made are way off:

"But they know that scientists are constantly making discoveries that push that boundary farther back up the origins chain."

Incorrect. As we break farther and farther into the biological structures of microorganisms, the more evolutionary impossibilities are discovered. Behe's observations on the bacterial flagellum, cilium, and other structures (which Darwinists have tried desperately -and rather pitifully, I might add- to refute) stand as strong evidence of irreducibly complex interworking systems that cannot be explained by gradual progression.

'Each time they do, Intelligent Design advocates, simply move their boundary along with them by asking:
"Okay, you showed how that could have evolved, but what about the steps leading up to it? Those are clearly intelligently designed."'

Who are you referencing? And what exactly are you talking about? The research has been pushed back to the molecular level, and there is no viable explanation for the interworking systems. As far as older arguments go, there has never been a good Darwinist explanation for how DNA (not to mention life) spontaneously generated from non-living matter (even as Richard Dawkins admits in The Blind Watchmaker, '‘[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.'). Rather than pushing the boundary back, Darwinists have been fleeing for refuge, beating a retreat back to the molecular level in hopes of finding an answer, only to find that area even more indefensible than the previous positions.

"And before the students and general population realizes it, they will have pushed it back far enough to include the origin of life itself!"

Quite a statement of faith from a 'true believer.' Regardless of boasts or rhetoric, Darwinists cannot escape the logical conclusion: Complex systems cannot and do not arise from chaotic ones by natural means. However the various species emerged, whether by progression or special creation, there has to be something higher. A substantial difference in Intelligent Design and Darwinism.

epicidiot reply: I do agree with you that there are many views as to exactly what ID is, some advocate common descent other don't.  But many mainstream ID advocates promote common descent, claiming that it was designed by God (or some other intelligent agent).  Most of your other criticisms are also raised in the ID video Unlocking the Mystery of Life, and are addressed in its review.

2006-09-24 Jason, Young Earth Creationist, wrote
Interesting, Biased to Evolution
The chart above is wrong in the fact that it states Macroevolution as being advocated by Intelligent design, intelligent design does not advocate macroevolution (for which there is no concrete evidence), only microevolution (which is verifiable). Also the majority of fossils in our fossil record came from the Cambrian explosion, which was a very sudden and short time frame.

epicidiot reply: This is exactly why I wrote this article. It amazes me how few ID advocates actually know what ID proposes. Now to be fair, there are different people promoting different sets of ideas and and calling it Intelligent Design. However, Michael Behe, who is one of the leading proponents of ID, clearly writes in Darwin's Black Box (one of the leading books on ID) that he is NOT a creationist and believes in common descent and that his ID theories fit within the framework of traditional evolutionary thinking. See Michael Behe.  Some leading ID advocates accept this view, others don't. Many ID advocates also promote and Old Earth view.  ID doesn't exclude either Old Earth or common descent. Recently I attended a viewing of Unlocking the Mystery of Life (a very popular ID video) at a Seventh Day Adventist Church (Who teach a literal interpretation of Genesis and a Young Earth). They were shocked of course when I pointed out that the video promotes common descent (just starting from the cellular level). They didn't realize that the film they were promoting disputed Biblical creationism. Intelligent Design, as promoted by many ID advocates, is NOT compatible with Biblical creationism. Just thought you might want to know.

2006-09-24 Jason, Young Earth Creationist, wrote
This is a response to your response (epicidiot; catchy name by the way).
It is true that there are some ID advocates that are not compatible w/ biblical creation, but still many are, which give a sufficient answer as to where the very first atom came from, because we all must know that something does not come from nothing, it never has and never will. I know that to an evolutionist bringing God into the picture is like retreating, but it is a look at the evidence and logic and the physical & scientific laws and coming to an educated decision.