Intelligent Design is Not About Religion

Here is an excerpt from an op-ed piece that caught my eye, which explains the difference between ID and Biblical creationism:

"While many Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists support Intelligent Design as a rational answer to Darwinism, Intelligent Design itself stands apart from biblical creationism as a non-religious approach to origins" (my emphasis)

Opinion Editorials
January 10, 2006
Intelligent Design is Not About Religion
Gregory Rummo

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." – Charles Darwin, "Origins"

If Kansas can be considered Ground Zero in the debate between Darwinists vs. Intelligent Design proponents, a recent explosion rocking the battle zone took place last month at the University of Kansas in its religious studies department. A course titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies," was to be offered.

I suspected, despite the closed-mindedness of the department chairman-Paul Mirecki-and his approach to relegating ID to "mythology," there would have been lively debates in the classroom.

And had this been the case, hopefully more light than heat would have been shed on a debate that simply won’t go away between Darwinists, who base their theory more on naturalism-a philosophy-than science, and the proponents of Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design is a systematic evaluation of observed biological phenomena resulting in the logical conclusion that design is inherent in living systems. The inescapable implication-and I guess the thing that drives its critics hysterical-is that design implies A Designer. Why this never presents a problem when we admire a work of art by Van Gogh or a musical composition by Claude Debussy escapes me. But logic and common sense dissipates when Darwinists are confronted by an alternate theory to their most hallowed orthodoxy. And instead of dealing with the substance of the arguments for ID, they skewer its proponents, labeling them as "stealth creationists;" a charge that is not altogether fair.

While many Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists support Intelligent Design as a rational answer to Darwinism, Intelligent Design itself stands apart from biblical creationism as a non-religious approach to origins. William Dembski, one of its chief proponents describes it as "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence."

Tom Burr, a retired biology teacher from Franklin Lakes explains on his blog: "Intelligent Design Theory is not the same as Biblical Creationism. The ID theorists are trying (if the evolutionists, the press and the general public would let them) to approach their ideas as pure science. They are smart people and they know how to separate their science from their theology… Biblical Creationists, on the other hand, openly admit to using God’s Word as the basis of their worldview and as their approach to science. ... " [More ...]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
"Problems of Evolution"