Unintelligent

It is incorrect to say that intelligent design is the same as Biblical creationism. Before I begin, there are three terms that need to be defined:

Intelligent Design (ID) - the idea that a higher power created the universe regardless of religious leanings with scientific research supporting the claim.

Creation Science (CS) - scientific research based on the Genesis account of creation.

Biblical Creationism (BC) - acknowledging Genesis as the true account of the universe's origins with God as the Creator.

So to use these terms in a sentence: Acknowledging ID, CS has made great strides in offering support for BC.

Or it can be understood in a secular sense: Acknowledging ID, the Sci-fi club had more proof of the superior ancient alien race that created the universe.

The latter is crap, but it should be more understandable now.

It's round two for Darwinism vs. Creationism in the court of law, this time in Dover, PA. Americans are presently more brainwashed by Darwinism than in the last battle. The more militant Darwinists think that creationists are sneaking in through the back door with this new phrase "Intelligent Design." The media, and a number of creationists, define Intelligent Design as the universe being so complex that there must have been an intelligent agent behind it. While that's true for the most part, I would define ID even further to avoid misunderstanding. It's not so much the complexity issue, even though the universe is more complex than if it had spontaneously generated by chance. Rather I would say that the universe can be understood through the use of reason and we can learn more about it using the tool of science. The complexity idea then is not so much that we can't understand the universe, but that we can understand it! There is something reasonable behind the material world, everything from an atom to a galaxy. Once a person grasps even a few principles behind the workings of the atom or the vastness of a galactic spiral, it would be utterly ridiculous for that person to think that these came to existence by random chance processes.

I read one article by a well-known op-ed writer who tried to dismiss the creationists in this renewed debate. He insisted that there is a huge divide between science and faith. He defined faith as a hopefulness for something that may or may not be true. The example he used was a person rooting for his favorite sports team. He said that no matter how hard that person puts his "faith" in the team, by putting on their jersey or waving their flag at the right moment, there is no way that person has any effect on the team's chances to win. He started off with a bad example to illustrate "faith" and he was only in the first paragraph! By using that illustration, he erroneously thought that faith was akin to luck and hope. It's apparent the man is ignorant of the various definitions of faith and the amount of scientific evidence supporting creationism. Not only that, but he wasn't aware of the differences in the three terms mentioned earlier that he should have known if he were to be part of the debate. Instead he jumped in and displayed to the world his ignorance of "the other side."

Another piece I read was some local man's opinion on the debate. He was a Darwinist scientist who said that creationists rely on "gaps" in the evolutionary record to prove macroevolution wrong. Well, it seems this man has gaps in his understanding of what creationists use to prove our case. This "scientist" obviously didn't have too many discussions with creationists. Yes, Lyell's geological column has a lot of gaps and the carbon 14 dating methods have gaps also, but "gaps" aren't the big guns in the creationist argument. Those are merely a couple of pieces in the puzzle. There are several hundred more ways to disprove Darwinism and I'm only talking about one branch of science - geology. The picture becomes more clear for evolutionists (hopefully) when you include other branches of science like biochemistry, astronomy, genetics, etc.

It's too bad that popular scientific opinions are more readily accepted by the masses than good science.