Originally published: . Volume 4, No. 9. Source pages: 2.
(Editor’s note: In our April 2013 issue, Dr. David Williams wrote regarding a letter by Dr. Tom Hannie, published in our February 2013 issue. Below, Dr. Hannie is writing in answer to Dr. Williams letter. The Times appreciates both of these gentlemen’s contributions.)
In a letter to the editor in the most recent issue of Psychology Times, David J. Williams, PhD, MP, disagreed with my previous letter in which I asserted that evolution was a concept in science and intelligent design was a concept in religion. Thus, evolution is appropriate for science classes in public schools while intelligent design is not.
In the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover, this issue was addressed in court by scientists, philosophers, and theologians. Their testimony was based on years of scholarship and critical analysis of intelligent design. The evidence showed irrefutably that intelligent design is creationism, which rests on belief in a supernatural designer. The leading proponents of intelligent design themselves have specified this. The conservative judge also recognized this and ruled accordingly. Thus Dr. Williams' statement that "Reality is either defined by an intelligent designer or it is not" is irrelevant. Given the fact that the hypothesized intelligent designer is admittedly (by those who propose this entity) a supernatural being, its existence can neither be verified nor rejected by science. Thus intelligent design does not belong in a science class; it clearly belongs in a religion class.
Another fact was brought out in court: Since the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that creationism could not be taught in public schools because it requires belief in supernatural creation, the Discovery Institute tried to promote creationism using the substitute term "intelligent design." But they have been unable to alter the fact that intelligent design is merely a slightly updated version of creation "science." It is still a religious concept.
Intelligent Design lacks empirical support, offers no testable hypotheses, and attempts to describe nature in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes. In no way can it be considered to be a scientific concept. Its "scientists" have produced no original data to support any of their claims. They merely reinterpret the scientific data produced by legitimate scientists in an attempt to undermine it.
Numerous court rulings have established that the public schools have no right to teach religion as science. Therefore, the schools cannot teach intelligent design as "reality." Were they to teach a course in philosophy that would address methods for the acquisition of knowledge, they might well teach our young people how to tell the difference between science and religion, which would allow them to understand why evolution is science and intelligent design is not.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.