Intelligent design is losing support

Intelligent Design, or as I call it, the Intelligent Design / Intelligent Origin Theory, is losing support among members of the conservative community.

Interestingly enough, one reason for this waning support may be the – *ahem* – evolution it's undergone.

In the beginning, we had Creationism, which said the Genesis account of origins is the literal truth. Then, when the courts insisted state-of-the-art science had to be taught in schools, and Creationism was anything but, we saw the development of "Scientific Creationism", or "Creation Science". This was, essentially, Creationism with the serial numbers filed off.

When "Scientific Creationism" was bounced, we saw a third stage in the evolution of the idea. More serial numbers were filed off, and we saw the birth of "Intelligent Design".

Now, in response to the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision, the fight is on over which serial numbers to file off now. There are limits to how much of this the Creationists can engage in. There's only so much metal in any gun, and if you file off too much, soon you won't have anything.

Now we have an observer of the Campus left saying it's time for Evangelicals to make their peace with Darwin.

Christians need to make their peace with evolution. Let me amend that, evangelical Christians need to make their peace with evolution. This is not likely to happen, as opposition to evolution has almost become a litmus test of faith among evangelicals, but it is necessary if they are to retain their integrity and influence.

Evangelicals challenge evolution out of religious, not scientific, conviction. Very few of those who believe scientific creationism, of which I.D. is the latest incarnation, even have any scientific training. What they do have is a belief that the theory of evolution is antithetical to their faith. I have worshiped with evangelical Christians all my life, and their rejection of evolution comes from the Bible first, with whatever scientific rationales they can stitch to their standard coming much later.

A year ago, John Derbyshire cheerfully predicted the demise of I.D. in National Review. "Neither science nor religion ever had much use for I.D. Both will proceed happily on their ways without it." His sanguine prediction seems to have some accuracy, given the recent judicial and educational backlash against the anti-evolutionists. Unfortunately, by publicly defining their faith by allegiance to scientific folly, the creationists (of all kinds, from young-earth to I.D.) have indeed exposed Christianity to ridicule and obstructed the road to belief.

A quote worth re-quoting:

In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing. — Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica