Evolution is just as religious as Intelligent Design

Whenever there arises a discussion on the origins issue (as in intelligent design versus evolution), Darwinian materialists invariably go to great lengths to frame the discussion as science versus religion, despite the scientific validity of opposing arguments and scientific credentials of those who propone them.

Any doubts raised about Darwinian evolution are automatically attributed to religious motivations that cannot possibly be rooted in fact. What is worse is that these doubts are dismissed without consideration and the scientist/teacher who raised them is blacklisted. You won’t see this on the nightly news, and the ACLU surely will turn a blind eye, but high school science teachers have been fired for assigning students material from mainline scientific journals that questioned aspects – mere aspects, not even the overarching theory – of evolution.

Why this academic intolerance? Why this – I can’t help myself, it’s the hot buzzword – hate of an opposing theory? If evolutionary theory was so patently established in true science and intelligent design theory was so patently established in pure religion, then why is it that treatment of this issue in the popular press betrays the deeply religious commitment that most evolutionists have to Darwin’s theory?

In my experience, IDists, knowing that they are the underdog, are careful to be objective and factual. On the other hand, I have noticed that evolutionists tend to spend most of their time questioning their opponents’ credibility, belittling their opponents’ intelligence, demolishing straw men and then doing victory laps.

For instance, after writing an opinion piece about intelligent design pointing out common misconceptions I was rebuked in a subsequent response that I “had a poor understanding of what science is.” Now, I certainly do not claim to be an expert by any means, but as far as science is concerned, my GPA can’t get any higher. Does that count for anything?  Apparently not, considering my origin’s views. Unfortunately this is the typical treatment for all dissenters from Darwinism. I am viewed as a poor scientist because I do not adhere to evolution and I do not adhere to evolution because I am a poor scientist. Interesting, isn’t it?

Evolutionists have won a great battle in the culture wars by defining science as it suits their purpose. Many people know that a literal interpretation of science is knowledge, yet the vast majority of evolutionists hold to a definition of science that presupposes purely naturalistic mechanisms, deliberately excluding non-naturalistic explanations.

In other words, the war is won by default before it has even begun.

Yet what if some supreme intelligence is the cause behind everything we see? What if God is the creator? If this were the case, the truth is a supernatural event, not a natural mechanism.

Thus, not only would the supposed conclusions of “science” be false, but they would be false by default because the assumptions that they are based on would be false also. I certainly don’t advocate the position of “I’m right no matter what science says!” but “science says” is not as black and white as it is made out to be.

We all live on the same earth; we all have the same raw data. The conclusions drawn from this data can be varied depending on the assumptions with which the data is viewed. We have all seen the detailed paintings of early man in National Geographic based on only the most rigorous science … a few bone fragments, actually. Hopefully no one seriously believes that arriving at fully-formed “missing links” from some small fossils is actually predicated on sound science. To be sure, the end result is influenced by ideology despite being published in a prestigious periodical.

In conclusion, all I’d like to see is a level playing field. It is slanderously misleading for materialistic evolutionists to claim that intelligent design is motivated purely by religion, but they themselves are unsullied by contemptuous philosophical leanings. Everyone is biased; everyone’s conclusions are influenced by his bias.

Aaron Vandenbos is a student at Boise State.

AARON VANDENBOS
Guest Opinion

Related Posts:

1. Intelligent Design gets ‘Expelled’
2. Breaking down the definition: Intelligent Design
3. Intelligent design vs.evolutionary theory
4. The problem is history, not science
5. Letters to the Editor