Intelligent? Design

The battleground that I.D. supporters have chosen for their theory - their scientific theory - is political, not scientific, although they deny this. They do not seek the validation of fellow scientists. They seek validation from local and state Boards of Education in culturally conservative states such as Kansas and Ohio. This is preaching to the choir, not gaining converts.

It seems extremely important to the proponents of intelligent design that children are exposed to their theory before the scientific community has accepted even the smallest part of it. No other central scientific theory has ever sought or won approval in this manner. Indeed, it is particularly telling that no other fringe theory - and I.D. is a fringe theory - is clamoring for equal time in high school classrooms or equal space in science standards. Even the wackiest are making their fight in the halls of academia.

The central idea of intelligent design is not new. Idle scientists and imaginative science fiction writers have wondered for decades whether life on Earth may have been launched with a little help from a higher intelligence. (Check out Arthur C. Clarke, David Brin and Douglas Adams.) But where scientists and science fiction writers see tantalizingly remote possibilities for extraterrestrial assistance or "older" races, intelligent design's supporters see God.

The strictest supporters of the theory publicly deny God. They say, again for political reasons, that the name of the intelligent designer must be left blank. I.D. does not require an I.D. for the designer.

But the I.D. rank and file are not afraid to speak the truth about the theory. The Christian conservatives who carry the banner of intelligent design in their left hand and a Bible in their right, know what name should be written in the blank. They have no illusions about what the designers of the theory are really saying.

If they were truly motivated by science, that burning desire to know all things, Intelligent Design's architects would be avidly seeking to discover, through scientific study, the identity of the designer. But they do not. They place a stop sign before the most intriguing question of their theory.

The reason is simple. To investigate the designer, even to speculate about the designer, invites dissent. The I.D. "movement" cannot survive dissent, especially if it might offend the rank and file Christian conservatives. To preserve the illusion that I.D. is a scientific theory, the designer cannot be named. To preserve I.D.'s support, the designer cannot be investigated.

Intelligent Design is a political movement not a scientific movement. It will continue to find supporters in churches and on school boards, but it will never be considered seriously by the scientific community because the movement refuses to acknowledge any need for acceptance.

Conrad Easterday

Pratt Tribune