Is Intelligent Design Religion?

One of the major arguments against Intelligent Design being admitted as an accepted area of study within the scientific community is that ID is not science at all--far from it.   The Intelligent Design Movement is a religion.

One Darwinist gentleman said (quoting from "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"):  "Get Intelligent Design in the schools today and we can have school prayers tomorrow."

In fact, Darwinists somewhat self-righteously claim that ID is not only a religion, it is religion masquerading as legitimate science.  These men and women see such alleged pretending as an unforgivable sin--a slide into backwards thinking that can threaten the purity of Darwinist science.  However, one must go to the facts of the matter for oneself, taking into account the claims and issues on both sides of the matter, if one is to form an opinion with any hope of it being a reasonable one.

But what do the proponents of ID claim?  Is the evidence they cite scientific by nature or religious?  Are they, despite their many claims to the contrary, pushing religion?  

Intelligent Design Theory suggests the following:  There are some aspects within nature that are best explained through the presence of an intelligent designer.  What ID does not claim--at least as of yet--is who that intelligent designer is.  Some believe he/she/it is God, some believe it is evidence of aliens, others have no clue as of yet; however, those who study the Intelligent Design Theory in a scientific manner have yet to make a definitive claim.  They continue to assert that it is through scientific processes alone that they hope to find the answer to this question if, indeed, such an answer exists.  (It might seem they have been too busy battling for the right to be heard to come up with a prime suspect on that front.)  Ironically, it is the Darwinists that are the first to jump to the conclusion that this "intelligent designer" is God--but, of course, this is an accusation, not an admission.  The Darwinists are very concerned, and for good reason, that the Intelligent Designer will somehow be revealed to be God.  If this ever happens, all they have worked for, they feel, will be lost.

However, consider this question:  If the intelligent designer is eventually scientifically proven to be the work of aliens (who, themselves evolved through natural processes of which we are not yet aware), would ID then be science or religion?  Well, science, of course, because the proof would have come through scientific processes.  Religion, in this scenario, would have no place.

But, what if the intelligent designer is proven (to everyone's scientific satisfaction) to be God, after all?  Would ID then be science or religion?  Well, again, we would have to concede that if God's existence was scientifically proven, ID would be primarily science.  God would be then seen as a Being--albeit a very powerful and possibly somewhat scary one--in the same light that we now see the giant squid or Tyrannosaurus Rex (other beings that were also thought to be nothing more than myths before proven to exist by science).  

So, no matter what the outcome of the question, the Intelligent Design Movement--as long as it sticks to scientific methods in their pursuit of answers rather than religious ones--is, indeed, science, not religion.

Evolution: Theory or Fact?

When Darwinists discuss evolution, the invariably speak about it as a fact.  They even say, "Evolution is a proven fact."  Textbooks and children's books also record evolutionary events with very definitive language, such as, "100 billion years ago, when dinosaurs evolved..."  When creationists discuss evolution, they invariably tag it with the word "theory".  So, which is it?

There is a wide range of belief about whether or not evolution is fact or theory, largely due to how one defines the term "evolution".  I looked it up in on wikipedia.org, but discovered that their definition neither separates out nor defines those proven elements of evolution from those which are theoretical.  They simply use the cryptic word "may" a lot.  This kind of smoke-screen, unfortunately, is typical when looking for answers about evolution and Darwinism.  

Paul Nelson, Ph. D., professor at Biola University and ID proponent, had this to say: "'Evolution' is a kind-of funny word.  It depends on how one defines it.  If it means simply 'change over time', even the most rock-ribbed fundamentalist knows that the history of the earth has changed--that there's been change over time.  If you define evolution precisely, though, to mean 'the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutations and natural selection'--that's textbook definition of neo-Darwinism, biologists of the first rank have real questions."

So, is evolution a fact or a theory?  The truthful, but also frustrating answer, would have to be 'both, on some level'.  That leads us to ask, "So, which parts of evolution are fact and which parts are theory?"

Two terms have arisen that help us understand this question.  They are "microevolution" and "macroevolution".  Microevolution is generally agreed on by scientists and non-scientists to be proven.  It is macroevolution, however, that gives everyone fits.

Microevolution:  "...the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level." (Wikipedia.org)

Macroevolution:   "...Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species...."  (Wikipedia.org) OR "Large-scale patterns and processes in the history of life, including the origins of novel organismal designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiations, and extinctions. Macroevolutionary research is based on phylogeny, the history of common descent among species."  (Answers.com)

I found a simpler definition of the terms on  (About.com) which is as follows: 

"Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population — changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species’ coloring or size.

Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together."

Term Trouble:

It must be noted that there is an overlap between these terms in that the level of "species" is not yet clearly understood by science.  Furthermore, it must be understood that the processes proven by science to cause microevolution are the same processes claimed by them to cause macroevolution.  Therefore, the processes themselves are proven to function to some degree. The question remains; however, as to how far those processes have effected the variety of species in existence today.

Intelligent Design vs. Creationism

Is Intelligent Design Just "Beating the Dead Horse" of Creationism?

One of the major arguments against the Intelligent Design Movement is that it is just re-heated religious creationism trying to gain a foothold within the schools and governing laws of the nation under the guise of a scientific theory.  P. Z. Meyers, atheist, Darwinist, Prof. of Biology at the University of Minnesota and author of the blog "Pharyngula", states, "Intelligent Design is a set of excuses to squeeze creationism into the classrooms."*  

The proponents of ID, however, disagree.  They insist that Intelligent Design is simply an alternative theory to use in answering the big questions of life which, they claim, Darwinism simply does not and can not.  While Darwinists insist ID isn't science at all, ID-ers continue to provide scientific data and theory to back their claim that it certainly could be approached through a purely scientific process--if the "powers that be" would be more open-minded about the possibilities.

So, what are the differences between Creationism--the theory that God made everything--and the Intelligent Design Theory?  

Paul Nelson, Ph. D., professor at BIOLA University in Los Angeles, CA, explained the Intelligent Design Movement best when he stated, "Creationism properly understood begins with the Bible and says, 'How can I fit the Bible into the data of science?'  Intelligent Design doesn't do that.  Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are better explained as a result of intelligence.  ...Intelligent Design is a minimal commitment scientifically to the possibility of detecting intelligent causation."*

Seems straightforward enough to me.  Any questions?

*Quotes taken from the documentary:  "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

Who Was Charles Darwin?

Birth, Family and Religious Ties:

Charles Robert Darwin was born on February 12, 1809 in Shropshire, England to wealthy society doctor, financier and freethinker Robert Darwin and Susannah (Wedgewood) Darwin. Darwin and his siblings were raised primarily Unitarian, though they had Anglican ties through their mother.  When aged only eight years old, his mother died, causing him a great deal of personal hardship.  

Education:

In 1817 Darwin began attending a Unitarian day school, but the following year became a boarding student at the Anglican Shrewsbury School.  He spent the summer of 1825 apprenticing with his father in medicine and in the fall attended the University of Edinburgh to study medicine.  However, he was revolted by the practice of surgery and neglected his studies. During his second year he joined the Plinian Society, a group of student natural history buffs. He developed an interest in evolutionary theory through his relationship with Dr. Robert Edmund Grant, who studied anatomy and the life cycles of marine animals.  Darwin was influenced by his father's and Grant's research into evolutionary theory, inherited characteristics and homology (the study of similar characteristics of internal organs pointing to a common ancestor).

Darwin failed to vigorously pursue his medical studies and so left Edinburgh and began attending Christ's College in Cambridge in January 1828 to become an Anglican parson at the insistence of his father.  Still finding course studying tiresome, he developed a great interest in his beetle collection, entomology and botany.  He did manage to pull it together, however, and in January of 1831 he performed well in theology and managed a passing grade in classics, mathematics and physics.  He stayed on until June, studying the theories for a divine design within nature and natural philosophy and the understanding of nature through through inductive reasoning based on observation.  He greatly desired to contribute to make his own scientific travels and planned to visit Tenerife to study natural history in tropics.  His dreams were finally realized through a different venue when he was recommended for the unpaid position of gentleman companion for Robert FitzRoy, captain of the HMS Beagle for its second voyage, (because the previous captain had committed suicide and there were those who felt that if the new captain had a friend and confidant during the long time at sea, he would have better mental health) which was to leave on an expedition to chart the coastline of South America.

The Voyage of the HMS Beagle:

Throughout the voyage Darwin collected, dissected or made notes on a variety of species, though primarily sea creatures.  He had some knowledge on geology, beetles and marine invertebrates, but otherwise he collected samples for analyses by experts.  He made various observations throughout this extended journey; however, his most well-known is when they arrived at the Galapagos Islands and he was intrigued how the natives could determine which island the tortoises were from simply by the shape of their shell.

Darwin's Theories:

On November 24, 1859, Darwin Published "On the Origin of the Species" in which he explained his theory of natural selection.  He simply stated it in the introduction thus:

"As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form."

His only reference to how this might apply to humanity was, "light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history".  He avoided the controversial term "evolution", but strongly emphasized "common descent".

In 1871 Darwin published "The Descent of Man", he argued that humans are animals and presented sexual selection to explain superfluous animal features as well as human evolution of culture, differences between sexes, and physical and cultural racial characteristics, while still acknowledging humans were all of one species.  He concluded thus, "that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system–with all these exalted powers–Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."

In 1872 Darwin published "The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals" and in 1880 "The Power of Movement in Plants".

Death:

Charles Darwin died in Kent, England on April 19, 1882.  Despite rumors that he had denounced his theories and converted to Christianity on his deathbed, this has been unfounded.  His wife and cousin, Emma Wedgewood, remained a devout Anglican Christian until her death, despite how Charles had relinquished his last remaining strains of faith upon the death of their 10-year-old daughter, Annie.