I feel compelled to make a statement about the "Intelligent Design" movement as it exists today, as of this writing (1/1/2006).
To some extent, I feel responsible in part for what is occurring today, because I have always heavily relied on the "Design Argument" in the creation/evolution debate. My online paper "Creation vs. Evolution" had its origins in written debates that I participated in in online forums dating back to 1987, and I have since then heavily promoted the point that the creation/evolution debate should begin with the "Argument from Design."
Although my paper gives focus to the pragmatic aspect of the creation/evolution debate, my motivation for presenting the design argument is based on the scriptural principle expressed in Romans 1:19-23, in which the argument for the existence of the Creator based on creation is presented as an obvious principle for which men are "without excuse."
The "Design Argument" is sufficient to demonstrate the futility of a naturalistic explanation for origins, and sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an intelligent Creator, but it is only the beginning of a story with a purpose, which fundamentally has as its end objective a saving faith in our Lord, Jesus Christ, through his death, burial, and resurrection.
I wish to distance myself from the present ID movement, because of the secular facade that it presents. In distancing myself from the present ID movement, I wish to make clear the following points:
1. It is futile and philosophically dishonest to point to the existence of a Creator, yet leave the question open and intentionally conceal who that Creator is, if you know who He is. If you are a Christian, you have a responsibility to be up front about the whole story, and not just part of it. You must be a witness of the Lord Jesus Christ. If you are a Christian, your faith revolves around the resurrection, not the creation.In summary, although the theoretical principles embodied in the "Intelligent Design" movement are sound and worth promoting, the movement in practice as it exists today should be abandoned.
2. Intelligent Design is not a scientific proposition. Science is the study of natural phenomena, by definition. There is no scientific theory that compels ID to be true in a naturalistic sense. Neither can it be tested under laboratory conditions.
3. Evolution (that is, "molecules to man" "macro-evolution", not to be confused with legitimate adaptation or "micro-evolution") is not a scientific proposition. There is no theory that compels it to be true. Neither can it be tested under laboratory conditions.
4. Only Creation, meaning biblical, young-earth creation should be taught in any school, whether public or private. All scientific pursuits must be explored with the historical fact of creation and the global flood as premises. Evolution must not be taught in any school, public or private, as it is not legitimate science, and is patently false.
5. There is no such thing as the "constitutional separation of church and state," because the statement exists nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. The "separation of church and state" has its origins in a statement that Thomas Jefferson personally made, but it does not exist in any governing document. The 1st Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This means no more than what it says, and actually restricts the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, which would be in any sector, public or private."
6. Regardless of what the U.S. Constitution or any other governmental authority says, God represents the highest authority of law, and his explicit revelations, such as are contained in Holy Scripture, are above any law of the land or government made of men. If the scriptures say that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days, and that Jesus rose from the dead, then these and similar revelations trump anything that man would desire to declare rule of "law", including the U.S. Constitution.
The opponents of the ID movement should be credited for identifying that it is merely a facade to attempt to secularize the concept of biblical creation in order to make it palatable to the secular public as a loophole to bypass the prevailing sentiment of legal interpretation by lawmakers and judges.
If you are a Christian promoting "Intelligent Design" as a "godless" alternative to the full knowledge of the revelation of God, how can you expect God to honor you efforts, if your "godless" testimony does not even honor Him?
I grant this work to the public domain.