Darwinism: Philosophy, not science

As a mentor of mine was telling me, there is no such thing as a worldview-less worldview. Darwinism is no exception. While evolution in and of itself does not infer anything about the existence or non-existence of a creator, Darwinism has no room for such folly. I think it is abundantly clear that there is no God in the Darwinist worldview. Thus, while evolution is a scientific theory backed up by archaeological evidence, Darwinism is a philosophy regarding the origin of life.

So what is my point? Well, according to John E. Jones, a U.S. Middle District judge in Harrison, Pa., intelligent design is not fit for study in public schools. In brief, his reasoning is that intelligent design is simply creationism with a mask, and we all know that intelligent design does imply a designer. Therefore, according to Jones, teaching intelligent design in schools violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment which states, “…Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..” He would be right if creationism was a worldview held only by those weak-minded Christians (cynics, here is your chance to prove your naivety). However, this is not the case. While the majority of the proponents of intelligent design may in fact be Christian, and while Christianity may agree with intelligent design on the sole basis of there being a creator, it does not respect Christianity any more or less than it does Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or Unitarian Universalism. Indeed, we could say that Darwinists believe in a creator. Their creator, and I exclaim that their god (not capital because I am not referring to the God) is random chance.

Have I gone too far? Good.

Let us assume for just a moment that my logic is flawed (which could verily be possible) and that intelligent design does respect an establishment of religion due to its ulterior creationist motives. What, then, are we to deduce about evolution? Does evolution respect an establishment of religion such as atheism, agnosticism or Buddhism due to its ulterior Darwinist motives? I would argue that in the same way that intelligent design is nothing more than a watered down form of creationism, the theory of evolution nothing more than Darwinism in disguise. To put it analogously, intelligent design is to creationism as evolution is to Darwinism. Be careful to note that in this context I do intend to label atheism and agnosticism as “establishments of religion.” While they may not have an “established” church, they are undoubtedly forms of personal religious beliefs. Indeed, they are much more than worldviews. Your god is anything you submit your innermost being to. Darwinists submit their innermost being to random chance.

In our courts, judges like John E. Jones are interpreting the First Amendment of our constitution to condone censorship. Any American with a single open-minded nerve cell in their brain will recognize that intelligent design as a scientific theory wields a great wealth of merit. We cannot allow our judges to censor theories that are so promising to science. After all, we can only make scientific theory into scientific law by testing that theory to see if it holds its water. What greater way to test evolution than to see how it holds out against another widely embraced theory?

The big distinction that needs to be clearly made is that intelligent design and evolution belong in the realm of science but creationism and Darwinism to the realm of philosophy. I hope it is clear that I am not fighting to eradicate our schools of the teaching of evolution. I am fighting to integrate intelligent design into our biology textbooks and into our classrooms. I am not trying to brainwash your children into believing in my God. I want your children (and mine one day) to see that there are two sides to the story. If we affirm the teaching of evolution in our schools, then let us be logically consistent and include intelligent design alongside evolution in our textbooks and in our classrooms.