Adriana put up an excellent vid on Intelligent Design. It's not getting attention likely to the title because it's so absurd. The absurdity lends to the great speech that goes on within. I used this vid this morning as bait on Facebook and tested the waters of a new direction in the ID debate. Call it the religion that it is, and use that to wedge out Christians.

Many of us have heard of the Wedge Document. The short of it is:

1.) "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"

2.) "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Point one defeats itself even in the public square filled with theists. Everyone knows that the world if better for having science and most everyone finds it somewhat interesting. How many CSI shows are there? This is hopeful thinking from the devout.

Point two is where they have had the most success. Religionists fall for anything that makes them more god like or knowledgeable about god over the next Christian. So they've convinced religionists that this fills the holes that scientist poke in their religion. Of course it's meant to be the God of the Gaps, but it's failed. In the process to become mainstream, The Discovery Institute has had to back off the Christian God as the Intelligent Designer. From their own website, "Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism." Besides appealing to School Boards, this opens a much larger international market. More importantly for us, we can agree with them.

Intelligent Design is not Creationism. It's Evolution and other disciplines mixed in where God doesn't survive the assault from reality. It is not Genesis, it's a break from the Bible. Michael Behe is the resident Biologist with the Discovery Institute. He wrote this in 2001, "...while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open" Casey Luskin the spokesman has said that he's agnostic as to the nature of the intelligent designer. So we have the main proponents and the official position as being they don't know who god is and they are confused as to his character. This crack is where we should be driving a wedge back.

The God of the Bible is not a character that we are agnostic about. He spends around 800 pages laying out who he is (depending on the size of your Bible and what Bible you have). There can be no confusion or agnosticism as to his nature. Yet Behe and Luskin can't place their designer as Yaweh. If we simply note that they are proposing another god since they are agnostic and don't follow Genesis and follow that up with the 1st Commandment, Thou Shall Hath no Other Gods Before Me, we'll have our opponents cornered. Anyone honest in the discussion must drop the argument for ID as soon as this key point sinks in.

My experiment on Facebook with my many friends who are Evangelical didn't go on long. I let the last point go because it's as close to a concession as I'll ever get. The point had sunk in. And this is how I worded it.. "The core point being that ID proposes the same problem as evolution, plus one. Another God." /crickets/

Views: 32

Comment by Kirk Holden on January 27, 2010 at 4:52pm
We cannot reason them out of a position that they did not reason themselves into. Deniers will resort to Ray Comfort's bananas if they don't have bacterium flagellum in their toolkit.

The way they look at is "my side may have a fuzzy god but your side has monkeys!"


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service