While I was in San Diego a couple of weeks ago, a reporter for the Sydney Morning Herald called to interview me about the ID (Intelligent Design) movement. (The article appeared today — Sunday, November 27.) Now and then I read a newspaper article and groan somewhat, as I know, from my perspective, it doesnt say what I hoped it would.
What I recall saying is something like this: “Some in the church see the intelligent design movement as a way of trying to, at least, have students question naturalism — and that may lead to them questioning other aspects of evolution.” I explained that because of the Supreme Court ruling about creation and the Bible in public schools, many in the church see the ID message as one way to try to reach students, to perhaps get them to question evolutionary ideas. But I said the ID movement has a different agenda — the ID movement is not about getting the Bible into schools.
Many within the movement are Christians, but some are not. Most seem to accept billions of years and/or Darwinian evolution, as long as an intelligence is involved. I explained that the ID movement in no way dismantles any aspect of evolution except naturalism. They are essentially fighting atheism in science. Also, I said that “whoever gets on school boards, secularists, Christians, Muslims, etc., will all act in accordance with their worldview.” I explained that “humanists say that Christians shouldnt be on school boards because they will impose Christian ideas — but at the same time, it needs to be recognized that the humanists will impose their humanist ideas.” (I used the example of Supreme Court nominees in America — liberals want someone who supports their liberal agenda, conservatives want someone who supports the conservative agenda — it’s a worldview issue).
I went on to explain in detail that it was really a battle between worldviews. I didn’t use the phrase “Trojan horse!” I recall the reporter using that term, but I did not agree and explained the difference between people in the church using the ID arguments about school board issues, and the ID movement itself. I also explained that the intelligent design advocates were actually against what was happening in Dover, from what I had heard them say. I said that “the intelligent design advocates were really only dealing with observational science regarding irreducible complexity, and that they were not a Christian movement and were not about getting the Bible into schools.” I said that “those who begin with a naturalistic assumption will see the same evidence used by ID for design as evidence of naturalism.” I explained how one’s starting points determine how one interprets the evidence, but that observational science (i.e., I used Werner Gitts arguments regarding codes and information confirming an intelligence behind life) directly confirmed an intelligence behind the universe — which is what Romans 1:20 states.
I also said that the Supreme Court ruling (Edwards v. Aguillard) did open the door to teaching other views of origins, if they were from a secular perspective. I said the ID teaching seemed to fit that, but would probably eventually be tested in court to see if that was so. I also said that even though we were an unashamedly Christian organization, we did not publicly oppose the ID movement — as far as were concerned, we are thrilled that they are fighting atheism — but the church needs to be ready to point people to who the real Creator is if they do start to question naturalism. I also talked about genetics and natural selection as observational science confirming biblical kinds, as I explained AiG’s teaching regarding Genesis.
The above is a summary of what I can recall saying to this reporter, which, by the way, is the same sort of thing I’ve said many times to many different reporters recently. I’ve been interviewed many times about the ID movement, sometimes in front of our Chief Communications Officer, Mark Looy. Mark knows very well the typical answers I’ve been giving, and will attest to that.
Overall, the majority of secular articles, television interviews, etc., are fair to good, and the publicity around the world from all the interviews we’ve had has been good for the creation movement.
Now read this article, remembering my comments above. For a secular reporter, I believe he tried to understand the issues. I believe he misunderstood me, though, regarding his “Trojan horse” analogy. As I stated above, there are many in the church (not the ID movement itself) who are hoping that by using ID arguments, it will give them a foot in the door to stimulate students to begin questioning evolution — which is understandable, given the current situation where students are taught evolution as fact, and usually are not even allowed to know there are problems with the theory. And we have to be honest, because such people by and large are Christians, ultimately, they do want students to be influenced to consider the Bible and the claims of Christianity. However, their modus operandi is to work out how to do this in the context of the Supreme Court ruling. The problem is, when Christians are behind something, the secular humanists claim an agenda (which is true — a Christian agenda), but the same secular humanists won’t admit they have an agenda — which they do, secular humanism!
Thanks for stopping by — and pray for all the interviews we do, that the reporters will represent us fairly and accurately.