dajoga
02-25-2005, 08:38 AM
Bethlehem, Pa. — IN the wake of the recent lawsuits over the teaching of Darwinian evolution, there has been a rush to debate the merits of the rival theory of intelligent design. As one of the scientists who have proposed design as an explanation for biological systems, I have found widespread confusion about what intelligent design is and what it is not.
First, what it isn't: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments....
For example, unintelligent physical forces like plate tectonics and erosion seem quite sufficient to account for the origin of the Rocky Mountains. Yet they are not enough to explain Mount Rushmore.
Op-ed by MICHAEL J. BEHE in the The NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/opinion/07behe.html?ex=1109480400&en=98715b6bd3701622&ei=5070&oref=login&oref=login&oref=login)
You have to register (free) to read it.
First, what it isn't: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments....
For example, unintelligent physical forces like plate tectonics and erosion seem quite sufficient to account for the origin of the Rocky Mountains. Yet they are not enough to explain Mount Rushmore.
Op-ed by MICHAEL J. BEHE in the The NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/opinion/07behe.html?ex=1109480400&en=98715b6bd3701622&ei=5070&oref=login&oref=login&oref=login)
You have to register (free) to read it.