Image via WikipediaIs intelligent design a duplicitous ruse to get religion into science and schools as Jerry Coyne believes?
“Far from a respectable scientific alternative to evolution, it is a clever attempt to sneak religion, cloaked in the guise of science, into the public schools.” -- Jerry Coyne, here.Not according to William Dembski:
Intelligent design is a modest position theologically and philosophically. It attributes the complexity and diversity of life to intelligence, but does not identify that intelligence with the God of any religious faith or philosophical system....
Even so, there is an immediate payoff to intelligent design: it destroys the atheistic legacy of Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. This gives intelligent design incredible traction as a tool for apologetics, opening up the God-question to individuals who think that science has buried God." -- William Dembski, 2005, here.Intelligent design asserts design but stops short of speculating about the nature or identity of the intelligent designer. It does so because it is a scientific construct. It is a disciplined theory which stops where the empirical evidence ends.
Unlike darwinism, which endlessly asserts there can be no God because God "would not have designed it this way":
Would an intelligent designer create millions of species and then make them go extinct, only to replace them with other species, repeating this process over and over again?” If so, the intelligent designer must be “a cosmic prankster". -- Jerry Coyne, here.This philosophical/theological strain began with Darwin, and continues to the present day.
However, going beyond the science, philosophically and theologically there is little common sense doubt whose imprint marks of design in nature would point to, as Dembski acknowledges in his second paragraph.
So, is ID duplicitous?
No. It is honest and disciplined in what it asserts.
It's unclear the same can be said about darwinism.