I had originally planned to tack Intelligent Design (henceforth referred to as ID) onto the post for creationism, since ID is basically creationism with a twist. However, the arguments that ID proponents put forth are a whole different sort of idiotic, so I feel they merit a separate response.

The main problem with the ID argument is that IT”S NOT SCIENCE.

Science, by definition, does not deal with the supernatural. The answer “insert deity here did it,” is never acceptable in science. IDers know this, and it pisses them off. Their response is not to acknowledge that ID is a philosophical argument, rather than a scientific one. No, they want to change the definition of science to allow for the supernatural. They want to CHANGE SCIENCE to accommodate their religious beliefs.

It was when I realized that this was one of their main goals that I became somewhat irate. If people want to believe that some intelligent creator was responsible for the universe’s existence, they are certainly welcome to. Just like creationists, IDers are entitled to believe whatever they want. Unlike the creationists, though, IDers are trying not only to get their non-science pushed into school science classes, but they want to cram it down all of our throats, by changing the very definition of science.

Pardon me while I retch.

I think the thing that irritates me the most about the ID movement is that I get the feeling the people behind it are disingenuous in their assertions. It is the ID twist, the thing that differentiates it from creationism, that gives me this feeling. Creationists believe in the Bible’s account of how the universe was created; God did it. ID proponents are quick to point out that ID does not make any claims about the nature or identity of the intelligent designer. The thing is that as far as I can tell, the ID movement in the US is comprised almost entirely of Christians. But of course, they can’t really be Christians. If someone subscribes to ID, if they truly believe in the main tenet of the movement, they must abandon their religious beliefs.

The main premise of ID is that there are some organisms that are simply too complex to have evolved from simpler organisms. The human eye and the bacterial flagellum are the two most popular examples of this alleged “irreducible complexity.” I’m going to ignore for the time being the flaws inherent in the whole “irreducible complexity” argument. For this post, the important claim made by IDers is that these and other organisms were created by an intelligent supernatural agent. IDers are adamant in pointing out that they are not talking about God, or any other specific deity, simply an intelligent agent.

And there’s the rub.

In order for a Christian to push ID, they have to state that it is entirely possible that the universe was created by something other than the god of their religion. (Otherwise, they’re merely creationists, and we all know that that doesn’t fly in US public schools.) And if it’s entirely possible that the universe was not created by the Christian god, then the entire Bible must be dismissed as merely the work of men and not the word of God. After all, was Jesus the incarnation of the one true god, or merely of some minor deity? Should there be a notice at the beginning of Genesis that the god mentioned within may not be the same god from the rest of the Bible?

So to all IDers out there, do us all a favor and leave science alone. Accept that what you’re pushing is philosophy, not science. And until you can come up with a crackpot theory of the creation of the universe that doesn’t require destroying the very religion you hold so dear, please just shut the hell up about it.