Tuesday, December 21, 2010


Of God and Gallup

Repeat after me ... "Intelligent Design is all about science and has nothing to do with religion!"

We know that, of course, because the Discoveryless Institute tells us that ... ad nauseam.

Except when they don't.

Jay Richards, no stranger to liberating felines from bags, is over at the Ministry of Misinformation discussing the traditional Gallup poll questions about evolution:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your of the development of human beings?

1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.
After noting that option 3 is mostly, though not necessarily exclusively, for young-Earth creationists and 2 is mostly, though not necessarily exclusively, for atheists, Richards goes on to say:

Option 1 is essentially a view of God-guided or teleological evolution. Human beings evolved from other organisms over a long period of time, but God guided the process. Although Gallup describes this view as "theistic evolution," it is an intelligent design view (though, of course, an evolutionary one). It subtly contradicts the views articulated by theistic evolutionists/evolutionary creationists such as Karl Giberson, Denis Lamoureux, and perhaps Francis Collins. ...

Because the three questions fail to cover all the positions that people actually hold, I've always been hesitant to make very much of these polls. Even with its problems, however, it's still clear that the vast majority of Americans hold a theistic and intelligent design view when it comes to the origin of human beings.
The "subtle" contradiction between the views of Biologos and option 1 is, as far as I can tell, that many, if not most, of the people who opt for it probably aren't familiar enough with science to know that God is not a scientific explanation ... which is what the DI is hoping for. But it is clear that Richards is fully aware that Intelligent Design is a theistic view masquerading as science.

Maybe if he and the rest of the DI 'droids were more honest about it, they wouldn't garner such contempt.

Labels: ,

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

. . . . .


How to Support Science Education