Darwin, the lightning rod

From the Weekly Standard, an article titled "The Survival of the Evolution Debate":

WHAT IS IT ABOUT EVEN the slightest dissent from Darwin's theory of natural selection that drives liberal elites (and even some conservative elites) bonkers? In the 1920s, in the days of the Scopes trial, it was the fact that anyone could believe the story of Genesis in a literal way that offended the delicate sensibilities of our cultural mavens. Then in the 1970s it was something called "creation science" that drove them apoplectic. Today it is the heresy of "intelligent design" that they seek to extirpate root and branch. To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, liberals are haunted by the specter that someone, somewhere harbors doubts about Darwin's theory.

What is it about even the slightest hint natural law, unsupervised by any supernatural intelligence, is sufficient to account for life on Earth, that drives religious people bonkers?

In the end, that's what "evolutionism" says. Life on this planet, from small generation-to-generation changes to fundamental questions of how it arose in the first place, can be explained by naturalistic rules, and these rules can be discovered and understood by human beings.

Creationist explanations, including ID/IOT, assert that natural law is not sufficient to explain these things.

In making such claims the IDers are putting old wine in a new bottle. Some version of the design thesis is to be found in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and, perhaps most famously, in the writings of William Paley. The 18th-century English theologian argued that when we find a watch we infer a watchmaker; so too when we discover evidence of design in nature we properly infer a Maker or Creator. The basic point is that one can make a legitimate, rational inference from the orderliness and regularity of the cosmos to some sort of intelligent first mover. And it's important to point out that this inference was thought, up until recent times, to stand on its own merits, requiring no assistance from Divine Revelation.

Unfortunately, research has shown, and continues to show, that complex, ordered systems do arise spontaneously. An Intelligent Designer may have set up the rules that govern the system, but there's no evidence that ongoing tinkering is required.

There is one more point I'd like to look at:

It seems pretty clear that ID, as a public teaching, is going to meet the same fate as creation science. This modern update of an older understanding will not soon be taught as part of the science curriculum in our public schools. And this may be a good thing, in so far as it isn't really "science" anyway. What's unfortunate is that the ideology of Darwinism--that is, the mistaken notion that Darwin defeated God--not only reigns culturally supreme, but also apparently increasingly has the legal backing of the state.

Note, once again, a reference to the "notion that Darwin defeated God". Ultimately, this isn't about science. Or more precisely, it's about the notion that science must invoke God to be acceptable. To some, it may appear that one particular theory has "the backing of the state", but this is because a highly vocal group insists on attacking it by any means it thinks necessary. If vandals keep painting graffiti on a particular wall, the fact that its owner paints it every week doesn't mean he's giving an elevated status to that wall, it means he's opposing the work of the vandals.