To the Editor:
In response to Frank Curcio’s March 24 letter “God and science,” I’d like to explain the difference between creationism and intelligent design, which Mr. Curcio seems to use interchangeably. He mixes them up and in the process, may confuse readers.
Creationism holds that the universe and all that is in it was created by a supreme being. Creationists come in two kinds: young-earth creationists and old-earth creationists.
Young-earth creationism is based on an interpretation of the book of Genesis in the Bible. According to young-earth creationists, the God of the Bible created the universe and everything in it in six 24-hour days, the universe is about 10,000 years old, and the fossils were largely created by the global flood of Noah’s time when great masses of sea, aquatic and land animals were swept across the continents to be deposited in clusters, even on mountaintops.
Old-earth creationists allow more latitude in their interpretation of Genesis. They accept standard “scientific” dating, which places the earth at about 4.5 billion years old and the universe at 13.7 billion years old. They also accept “microevolution” as God’s method of adapting existing species to their changing environments, but they reject “macroevolution,” which Darwinism evolutionists asserts are the radical, dramatic changes that produce completely new species.
Intelligent design is different from creationism. Intelligent design does not rely on prior theological assumptions for recognizing intelligent activity, but instead relies on methods developed within the scientific community.
Intelligent design does not identify the designer. Intelligent design theorists hold that organisms show clear, scientific evidence of design and reject Darwin’s claim that random variation and natural selection alone account for apes and humans having descended from a single, common ancestor which oozed out of a primordial soup and eventually walked erect, spoke a language, etc.
Mr. Curcio seems to be intent upon suppressing intelligent design in order to promote his own naturalistic world view.
“Science” is generally defined as possessing knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding. It would seem, then, that science should be open to new evidence and new ideas. Not so long ago, Darwinism was the new kid on the block. For about 40 years, it has been the only “science” taught in the public schools. We are expected to believe that undirected material processes rather than intelligent cause best explain complex machine-like structures such as the bacterial flagellum.
Mr. Curcio apparently believes that students in our public schools would be forever tainted and their minds stunted if they were to be exposed to new evidence that perhaps accounts for what is better than does the flawed 19th century theory of Darwin.
I will concede that many religious people have seized intelligent design and appropriated it to their own use, whereas intelligent design theorists have, for the most part, attempted to remain apart.
In Mr. Curcio’s mind, we would be “forcing” religion upon students if we even open the door to allow the teaching of nanotechnology and about flagellum, which are best explained by reference to a designer.
Finally, Mr. Curcio incorrectly places the blame for the Dred Scott decision and slavery itself on the ideas of creationism.
Indeed Darwinism evolution was used by Adolf Hitler and other atheistic regimes to establish that Caucasian humans were the highest life form and therefore entitled to subjugate and murder the “lesser” life forms, whether they were their own citizens or foreign. Every atheistic dictatorship in the 20th century was also, and is presently, Darwinist.
It should be noted that the correct and complete title of Darwin’s book is “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” Is it any wonder that Hitler and other atheistic dictatorships have appropriated Darwinism?
Mr. Curcio should not conclude that he must give up his theism in order to study creationism and/or intelligent design as academic subjects. It is possible that his theism might be reinforced, ratified and confirmed as the evidence of an intelligent designer is at least brought into the conversation.
I presume that Mr. Curcio is a theistic evolutionist. Theistic evolution holds that God used Darwinism evolution to produce the diversity and complexity of life forms. If his faith in Darwin should be shaken, he would at the least still have his belief in God. That might not be so bad.
R. DALE WINGET