Eugenie Scott is continuing her crusade against any dissent from Darwin with an article in the journal Cell entitled, "Creationism and Evolution: It’s the American Way." The piece is an exercise in condescension, essentially arguing that decentralization of both religion and education has allowed theists ignorant of theology and science to keep the fight against evolution going.
Of course, the notion that only the ignorant oppose the teaching of evolution as settled fact is demonstrably false (see here). But what is just as troubling is that Scott continues to hammer away at the lie that intelligent design is a religious project. This claim has been addressed by everyone involved with intelligent design at some point. But responses don’t seem to mean much to “hammerers.” Well, here are two brief paragraphs to hammer back.
Intelligent design is a scientific project. Design theorists contend that it is possible to rigorously, scientifically identify when something has been designed, as opposed to occurring by undirected means. This inference of design holds even when dealing with things that are biological in nature. If design is detected in a biological system or structure, then that structure did not arise entirely by material causes.
Intelligent design is not a religious project. Though the notions are consistent, it absolutely does not follow that if a biological system or structure is designed that the designing agent is any religious or theistic entity (or any non-natural entity for that matter). It is true that many design theorists are religious, and are pleased that their religious beliefs and their science coincide. [Edited] By the same token, it is true that many opponents of intelligent design are atheists, and are pleased that their religious beliefs and their scientific theories coincide. But atheism does not follow from evolution, and neither does religion follow from intelligent design (or even theism for that matter). Properly understood and employed, both intelligent design and evolution are scientific enterprises which must be judged according to the best interpretations of the best available data.
