Recently, both Time and Rolling Stone have featured pieces discussing the Intelligent Design movement. Time’s piece immediately sheds the appearance of objectivity by taking the form of an op-ed piece, written by Eric Cornell, Nobel Prize for Physics winner for 2001. Rolling Stone’s piece sets out to report on the Harrisburg, PA Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District et al. case centering around whether or not Intelligent Design deserves a place in the local school curriculum.

Cornell sets out pretending to draw a balance between “science” and the “faith” surrounding Intelligent Design, admitting that there are some areas where we should let God be God, even though Cornell can now explain why they sky is blue. Yet, Cornell’s article soon removes ID from the realm of science altogether, placing it under the realm of theology, making the bold claim that “for science, intelligent design is a dead-end idea� because it removes the drive to know and understand and simply rests on the basis “that’s the way God wants it.” Cornell treats the discipline of Intelligent Design as little more than superstition, while “science” is now able to explain the mysteries of life.

Rolling Stone tries to make the witty play of portraying the Harrisburg trial as bad sequel to the Scopes Trial. They paints a vivid picture of the ID proponents setting out to reverse Scopes, at least in principle, that even if they don’t win the case, they practically come out as the winners by verifiably demonstrating that Darwinism is in fact hostile to religion and that we currently practice of the farce of trying to have our cake and eat it to, pretending that Scopes was a victory over ignorance, but not religion.

Cornell pushes hard for the separation of ID from science altogether. He even makes the bold statement that we shouldn’t say “science disproves intelligent design.” He further advises that we should “stick with the plainest truth: science says nothing about intelligent design, and intelligent design brings nothing to science,” and that ID should “be taught in theology, not science classes.” In other words, though Intelligent Design is not science, “science” (read: secular humanism) is not hostile to your quaint little views of God, so you can still hold on to your security blanket until you outgrow it…

In other words, he proposes exactly what Rolling Stone argues against, trying to say that Darwinism may peacefully coexist with “theology.” Rolling Stone, however, in a brief moment of clarity (who thought we’d ever be saying that?), argues that at some point, “we’re going to hit a fork in the road, beyond which this have-it-both-ways philosophy” in which we pretend that God is both dead and not dead must end. At least Rolling Stone recognizes that at some point, we must stop pretending that current views of science are not only not-compatible with, but openly hostile to traditional beliefs in God. We must challenge Darwinian Evolution as a faith rather than objective science and we must again assert the Gospel as Total Truth, with insight into every area of life.

Read Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey.
Read Darwin On Trial by Phillip E. Johnson.
Read Uncommon Dissent by John Wilson.
Watch Inherit The Wind.