Despite the complaints by ID proponents that Intelligent Design is not about religion or faith, they seem to have a hard time convincing even their fellow creationists.
In Lecture Planned on Intelligent Design we read the following
In the current controversy between scientific proponents and religious opponents of evolution, Hugh Ross concedes that scientists have a valid point.
“The most ubiquitous complaint from scientists is that evolution-bashers don’t have the courage to say what their model of the origin of life is. Frankly, I have to agree. All they’re doing is making negative arguments,” Ross said from his office in California. “We don’t critique the evolution model, we present our model.”
It only gets better:
Ross developed what he considers a scientifically testable theory – he prefers the word “model” – of the origins of life and the universe that fully conforms with biblical teachings, he said. He has spent most of the last 20 years trying to persuade both skeptical scientists and fellowbelievers that not only is his theory true, it can be taught in public schools because it satisfies the requirements of secular courts.
Ross will present a lecture, “Intelligent Design Evidence,” Wednesday at All Saints’ Episcopal Church in Lakeland. The author or coauthor of several books, including the forthcoming “Putting Creation to the Test” (NavPress), Ross will try to make the case that Christianity can be scientifically demonstrated to be true.
The Rev. Reid Hensarling, associate rector of All Saints, said Ross’ lecture will contribute to the debate about intelligent design.
“People are interested in the subject of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. The interplay between science and theology has always fascinated people,” he said.
Ross does realize, as apparantly did the Discovery Institute when it hastily filed an Amicus Brief in the Kitzmiller case, that the lack of scientific relevance makes the conclusion that ID is merely religious almost inevitable.
Ross differs from some proponents of intelligent design in his insistence that claims must be specific, testable and able to make predictions about the discovery of future evidence. That is the weakness of the school board’s position in the case now being tried in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania, he said.
“The way intelligent design is being argued . . . the court has no option but to try it on religious merits. Even within the context of a Christian nation, it’s a violation of the First Amendment,” he said.
The lack of scientific relevance has placed the Wedge strategy at significant risk now that the courts may have to rule on the scientific vacuity of Intelligent Design.
Perhaps Ross is the closest ID proponents may come to deserving the term ‘scientist’?
“If you could prove there is no beginning to the universe, that would be fatal. Or if humans were not specially created, that would be fatal to our model. Other discoveries would simply be corrective,” he said.
So certain is Ross that he’s right, he’s willing to risk more than his theory. He’s willing to stake his faith on it.
“If our model fails, we have to reconsider our commitment to Jesus Christ,” he said.
He acknowledges it’s a risk not all churchgoers are willing to make.
“You make that kind of comment in a church and jaws drop. But we follow after the apostle Paul, who said if we can’t prove that Jesus Christ didn’t rise from the dead, our faith has no basis,” he said.
Hensarling, the associate rector of All Saints, said most church members don’t have the scientific background to make that kind of leap.
“But for a scientist, that is a bold statement. The interesting thing about Dr. Ross is that he’s coming at the proof of Christianity from creation,” he said.
Linder said it’s important for people to hear Ross because the media often portrays advocates of intelligent design as anything but intelligent.
“Television makes them look like dimwitted people. There are scientists who believe in intelligent design,” she said.