Jonathan Neal, "Intelligent Design theory is flawed, anti-scientific" (2005)

---

> <div>

Intelligent Design theory is flawed, anti-scientific

> <br>
> <p>Why is there so much resistance to introducing Intelligent Design into our public schools? Most Americans have religious beliefs that are compatible with scientific knowledge. Intelligent Design is a theology that is at odds with science and the religious beliefs of most Americans, including the theologies of the Catholic Church and most Protestants. Most Americans agree on the concept of an &quot;Intelligent Designer.&quot; However, the ID movement uses this agreement as a Trojan Horse to sneak their own brand of controversial theology into public schools.<p>

ID theology claims that some "gaps" in scientific knowledge are evidence of the "Hand of God" and that these gaps therefore, cannot be explained by science. So far, gaps that ID proponents have claimed to defy natural explanations have, after closer scrutiny, been found not to defy natural laws after all.

Most Christian theologians recognize serious flaws and weaknesses in ID (Gap) theology. When science shrinks a "Gap", "God of the Gaps" (ID) theologists are forced to watch "God" (whom they have placed in the Gap) shrink or fight advances in scientific knowledge to prevent the gap (and God) from shrinking. This makes ID and other "Gap" theologies anti-science. Most Christians believe alternative theologies that are robust enough to incorporate expanding scientific knowledge and reject "God of the Gaps" theology as weak because it makes claims that are eventually indefensible.

The ID movement has tried to frame this debate as Religion versus Science. It is not. The ID debate is between an ID theology that is anti-science and competing theologies that are capable of incorporating scientific knowledge into their theological framework. Do we really want to introduce a controversial, anti-science religious theology into our public schools disguised as "Science?"

 

Jonathan Neal

Purdue Faculty