How much do you know about the scientific theory of Intelligent Design (ID)? If you’re receiving your primary information from major news outlets, your knowledge will be both minimal and misleading. According to popular analysis, the Intelligent Design theory is either camouflaged biblical creationism or comparable to theories about little green men from outer space.

False comparisons and misrepresentations of ID have been the common grind in the media. Repeatedly we have been told that ID is a thinly concealed form of Christian fundamentalism from right-wing extremists. But commentators who make these comparisons reveal how little they understand ID. More often than not, their reporting leaves one with the distinct impression that they have not read anything about ID beyond their own pre-set biases. Intellectual integrity requires one to research a viewpoint before critiquing it. A profitable public discussion is impossible with the continual regurgitation of the same ill-researched condescending ridicule. We need to move beyond reactionary and sarcastic oversimplification if we want to promote thoughtful debate. When critics of ID cry, "Creationism!" and advocates chant, "Evolution is just a theory", no progress is made toward better understanding.

Breaking with the typical reporting, the New York Times (Feb. 07, 05), published a favorable piece by a respected proponent of ID. Dr. Michael Behe, professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University and author of Darwin’s Black Box, briefly outlined some of the important facts about ID. His stated aim was to address the "…widespread confusion about what ID is and what it is not." His first point addresses the most misrepresented facet: "The theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments….ID proponents do question whether random mutation and natural selection completely explain the deep structure of life. But they do not doubt that evolution occurred. And ID itself says nothing about the religious concept of a creator." (emphasis mine).

Reporters are too quick to use religious motivation to discredit ID. Would these reporters also object to the Civil Rights Act because Martin Luther King Jr. was motivated by his faith to defend social justice? I don’t think so. The fact is that religious motivation (like other motivations) is irrelevant to deciding if something is good policy. Further, it is intentionally misleading to drive the discussion of ID to religion (by advocates or adversaries) because ID is about science not religion. As Behe wrote, "…the contemporary argument for ID is based on physical evidence and a straight forward application of logic."

In another exception to negative reporting, The Wall Street Journal (Jan. 28, 05), published a piece defending scientist Richard Sternberg. Sternberg, who holds two PHDs in evolutionary biology and is a research associate at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington, had the audacity to publish a pro-ID paper by Stephen C. Meyers in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Although Sternberg, as managing editor, followed standard procedure for publication, he became the object of a widespread, vicious smear campaign.

The Wall Street reporter, David Klinghoffer, in his piece titled, The Branding of a Heretic, exposes the unwillingness of the elites of the science community to debate ID on scientific grounds---to respond to it "with argument instead of invective and stigma."

Klinghoffer perceptively invites us to "Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn’t have been because it’s unscientific. They banish certain ideas from certain venues as if by holy writ, and brand heretics too."

Klinghoffer offers an honest conclusion: "Intelligent Design, in any event, is hardly a made-to-order prop for any particular religion. When British atheists philosopher Anthony Flew made news this winter by declaring that he had become a deist—a believer in an unbiblical "god of the philosophers" who takes no notice of our lives---he pointed to the plausibility of ID theory. Darwinism, by contrast is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches---like the National Museum of Natural History."

While the high profile debate rolls on, it is interesting (as polls continually indicate) that a large majority of Americans believe in either direct creation by God or a divinely guided process of evolution. This is the same majority who largely distrusts most major media outlets. These outlets will not be able to stop the public discussion of ID. And their reactionary and hostile reporting will only strengthen the common man’s resolve to find the facts. At the close of his NYT piece, Behe wrote: "…whatever scientists adopt for themselves don’t bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed. And so do many scientists who see roles for both the messiness of evolution and the elegance of design."

For a suggested reading list on the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, contact me at s.cornell@millersvillebiblechurch.org or 58 West Frederick Street Millersville, PA 17551.