A mousetrap consists of several interacting pieces—the base, the catch, the spring and the hammer—all of which must be in place for the mousetrap to work.
What we have here is a mess. Lamoureux misrepresents ID in a number of ways. I am not saying that Denis intends to deliberately misrepresent ID. But at the very least, he seriously misunderstands it.
The view represented by the TE book is, however, what TE boils down to when it is stripped of theological verbiage and left with what its scientific claims are. In particular, evolution is teleological and features a plan, a purpose, and a final goal. Evolutionary creationists firmly reject dysteleological evolution and the belief that the evolutionary process is the result of irrational necessity and blind chance.
Evolutionary creationists are also adamantly opposed to secular interpretations of evolution such as deistic evolution, Intelligent design evolution in public evolution, Neo-Darwinism, atheistic evolution, and dysteleological evolution.
Regrettably, antievolutionists often misrepresent evolutionary creation by conflating this distinctly evangelical Christian view of origins with these liberal theisms and secular evolutionisms.
Deborah Haarsma, president of Biologos, feels the same sting, and says in response to the TE book: One is to address exactly this problem: EC is a subset of TE that emphasizes that the Creator is the personal God revealed in the Bible and incarnated in Jesus Christ, and that the triune God is actively involved in both natural and human history.
Apparently people who call themselves TEs are a heterogeneous bunch. The term has become associated with some heterodox or deistic points of view. Hence the desire to change the name. Lamoureux goes so far as to say that God worked through intelligently designed evolution.
That coopting of intelligent design is no doubt intentional, and at the same time, a sort of admission. They must feel a need to adopt such language, so insistently.
I leave the reader speculate. Lest we become too hopeful, Denis makes an important distinction. Evolutionary creationism EC still holds that evolution is the means by which God created living things, and further, that he used random processes to do it.
But in what sense does Denis mean random? Evolutionary creation contends that this is also the case with biological evolution. With unfathomable foresight, the Creator set in motion and upheld over time intelligently designed self-assembling natural processes, including random processes, to create the universe and life as well as humans.
This is the nub of our disagreement with TE or EC. They do not build new things. And loaded dice are biased.
In other words, God had to guide it. ID theorists acknowledge that a designer could use guided mutations. The point is, new information has to be infused somehow.
Loading the dice means infusing information. Is that a bridge too far for Denis? In the interests of space I have not included all, though I will highlight points made already because they are important. We much prefer the term ID theorist to antievolutionist. Antievolutionist is a negative word that defines us in terms of what we critique, rather than what we affirm, namely intelligent design.
Furthermore, evolution is a term with multiple meanings, as Steve Meyer points out in the book. ID is not about God-of-the-gaps. ID is not based on holes in our knowledge. It is based on our positive knowledge about what is required for certain kinds of things to happen: What is the source of the information for these things to take place?
We know of one thing, in our repeated and uniform experience that can create information:Coyne responds that in light of the evidence, "either life resulted not from intelligent design, but from evolution; In statements directed at the general public, they say intelligent design is not religious; when addressing conservative Christian supporters, they state that intelligent design has its foundation in the Bible.
A federal judge rules that "intelligent design" is "a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory" and cannot be taught in biology classes in a public school district. A study shows that Americans are divided about the teaching of evolution in public school science classes, but that many are uncertain about what should be taught, and most are interested in hearing from the scientific community about the subject.
A guide to the key cases involved in the debate over whether evolution and intelligent design should be taught in public schools. A particular hot-button issue today that tests the separation of church and state is the addition of intelligent design to the curriculum of public school science classes.
The Battle Over Teaching Evolution. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, F. Supp. 2d (M.D. Pa. ) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design.
In October , the Dover Area School District of York County, Pennsylvania changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design.