John Hanna of the Associated Press has a very good, balanced and straightforward look at Kansas’ upcoming hearings over evolution and education, in today’s Kansas City Star.
In the article Hanna looks honestly at the debate, identifies the people testifying as predominately supporters of ID, but goes on to explain that they are not calling for ID to be put in the classroom, but instead want to teach more about the scientific criticisms of Darwinism.
Intelligent design advocates haven’t proposed citing ID in the standards or including it in lessons. Yet ID is under scrutiny because scientists fear there will be an attempt to sneak it – or even creationism – into the classroom. Critics contend intelligent design is a response to court rulings against teaching creationism in public schools.
Backers of intelligent design said opponents are trying unfairly to identify ID advocates with Christians who take literally the Bible’s account of a divine, six-day creation. Advocates stress that ID doesn’t identify the intelligent cause of creation – or claim that science can.
“You cannot, by seeing something that’s designed, know anything about the designer,” Harris said. “The data doesn’t take you to the God of the Bible, the Koran, or some little green man on Mars. We’re not being coy.”
Hanna does a good job with a more accurate definition of ID, which he amazingly has boiled down to less than 20 words: some features of the natural world, because of their well-ordered complexity, are best explained by an intelligent cause.