Last week, a judge in Pennsylvania ruled against teaching Intelligent Design in schools, saying it was nothing more than a new package for presenting Creationism.  Most likely, he is correct . . .

In Harrisburg, PA, a federal judge ruled against a school district that was attempting to teach Intelligent Design in its school system.  The judge essentially ruled that Intelligent Design is nothing more than Creationism.  Since the Supreme Court has already ruled against teaching Creationism, the out come of this case was an easy call once the judge concluded the two approaches are the same.  An article on the decision may be found here on wired.

Intelligent Design is an approach that teaches the need for a Designer in the world's formation process.  The concept is that things are so complex, it is the complexity that is necessary for life and if the various components evolved one-by-one, the life involved would not have survived until the entire component had been formed.  As a result, the component needed to be formed all at once, a result that does not fit into the evolutionary design.  Thus, there must have been an intelligence behind the design of the component. 

Promoters of Intelligent Design have volumes of examples to demonstrate their premise.  They have attempted to separate their views from Creationism by arguning not for the God of Christianity but simply for a Designer.  However, when you actually read their works, all that is missing are references to the Bible.  The arguments sound like lame biblical positions.  The PA judge clearly recognized this fact.

The problem surrounds the issue of getting a hearing ground.  Science sees evolution as its "faith."  Not all of the scientists will outwardly state this, but it really comes down to a false belief.  The way to attack false teachings is by using Scripture.  The failings of Intelligent Design is that it attempts to slip into discussion via the ways of the world.  They want a "rule" that allows them to teach Intelligent Design (Creationism) rather than going forth and presenting the Gospel to win hearts, one at a time. 

Some authors recognize this fact.  For example, while using the Intelligent Design arguments, Grant R. Jeffrey's Creation: Remnarkable Evidence of God's Design, makes it clear that this is still Creationism.  It is all about God versus evolution.

The call is for Christians to win others to Christ, not to convince the courts to teach Creationism.  History clearly shows that groups do not become Christian by virtue of government decrees.  However, the approach of Intelligent Design seems to be an effort to do just that.  I am certain there is more involved (tenure, scientific acceptability, etc.), but in the end the call is for us believers to be different and use the love of Christ to move others to the Gospel.  Maybe the judge in Pennsylvania did us all a favor by making us pay more attention to the Gospel and evangelism and less time mimicking the ways of the world.

Jim A.