More Intelligent Design Hooey

Over at IntellectualConservative.com, Robert Meyer has a thoroughly unoriginal article about intelligent design. In it, he (or course) winds up comparing scientists' committal to the theory of evolution as "blind religious faith" and goes on to lament that one can't "convey honest skepticism without banishment." And this is what is wrong with this entire debate, if we can even call it a debate. How are we ever going to get anywhere in this discussion if we can't get past name-calling and false comparisons. Here's part of the passage that really struck me:

It seems curious, though, that some evolutionists and non-theists, such as Stephen J. Gould and Francis Crick, were not comfortable with the classical Darwinian paradigm of gradual changes via natural selection. Both came up with theories of origin, which made the need for intermediate types a non-factor.

First of all, and I cannot stress this point enough, Darwinism is not a theory of origin! Get that, people? The theory of evolution is not about the origin of life but the origin of species, the diversity of life on earth.

Second, note who Meyer evokes as supporters of evolution: Gould and Crick. Atheists. Naturalists. Hawkins often comes up as well. He's pretty much an atheist too. Do you know who doesn't come up ever by proponents of Intelligent Design as an example of an evolution supporter? The Pope. Or any other scientist who believes in evolution and God. The Discovery Institute, the major funder of ID "research" has one atheist. How often do you think they mention him? So often that you'd think he's the only atheist in the world that believes in ID (probably because he is). But how often to you here them talk about all of the thousands of scientists whose faith, true faith in God, isn't shaken by the notion that we might have evolved from apes? The hundreds of thousands, no, millions of people in the world who have absolutely no problem with evolution and still believe in God? Never, ever mentioned.

He continues to lament the fact that he perceives the debate as being loaded in favor of evolution:

We must also denounce the farce of objectivity. Science is supposed to take you where the evidence leads, and must have a patina of skepticism about it. Yet how many evolutionists are rooting for the universe to be a specific way, namely without an ultimate purpose or meaning.

Well now, Mr. Meyer, that's a totally different question, isn't it? The world being full of purpose or meaning? That's philosophy. He's correct to point out that people who use evolution as proof of the non-existence of God are overstepping the bounds of what science can tell us and are approaching religious dogmatism. But just because some people are misinterpreting what the theory of evolution can tell us doesn't mean that we need to replace it with one that has significantly less (if any) scientific credibility.