The NY Times this morning has up a rather interesting article on the subject of Intelligent design, calledDesign for Living , by Michial J. Behe.
First, what it isn’t: 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. For example, a critic recently caricatured intelligent design as the belief that if evolution occurred at all it could never be explained by Darwinian natural selection and could only have been directed at every stage by an omniscient creator. That’s misleading. Intelligent design 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 intelligent design itself says nothing about the religious concept of a creator.
Rather, the contemporary argument for intelligent design
Correct. Those arguing against ID because of what they see as religious implications are also pushing misleading arguments.
I’m not sure which I find of greater import… the arguments themselves, or my amaze that the Times actually printed them.
Tip of BitsBallcap to Zee at Spiced Sass