- ...you may have noticed that proponents of so-called "Intelligent Design" have been very careful to avoid any mention of the word "God" while promoting their ideas. There's a good reason for this - Intelligent Design, which is intended to undermine the scientifically-sound theory of Evolution, is essentially Creationism wrapped up in a more politically correct package. The Intelligent Design Network describes ID thusly:
- We believe objectivity in the institutions of science, government and the media will lead not only to good origins science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality.
- "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there."
Sounds good, right? And not a word about Genesis, or the Garden of Eden, or God.
Unfortunately Pat Robertson just blew all their hard work out of the water by issuing one of his famous "Patwas" on the voters of Dover, PA, who last week swept local school board officials out of office for supporting Intelligent Design. Here's Pat's reaction to the voters' decision:
But... but... but... I thought Intelligent Design had nothing to do with Pat Robertson's god? I thought that it was "simply the science of design detection." I thought that it "should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings." By the looks of Pat's reaction, I guess not.
Funnily enough, a staunch proponent of ID changed his mind on the subject last week - on November 5 the Indianapolis Star reported that Rick Santorum "has put the Senate on record in favor of teaching both sides." But on November 12, Santorum said that he "doesn't believe that intelligent design belongs in the science classroom."
Why would a senator of such strong convictions suddenly flip-flop on the teaching of Intelligent Design? Surely the fact that his likely 2006 opponent Bob Casey is currently holding a 20 point lead in the polls has got nothing to do with it.