Introduction
To date, there is no universal agreement on the many questions surrounding our identity, origin, and purpose in life. Although there are many theories that attempt to provide responses to these questions, the podcast makes it sufficiently clear that human beings are yet to understand if their existence is by random mutation or by design. The present paper reflects on creationism, evolution and intelligent design (ID), before submitting that it is premature to introduce ID in academic and religious contexts as it is not embedded in real science.
Intelligent Design and Creationism: Similarities and Differences
Creationism is hinged on the account of creation in Genesis 1 which postulates that God made every living creature in this world, while ID is based on the notion that “even though we cant always tell by looking at an object who made it, we can still tell whether someone designed it or whether it came to be by chance” (Myjak, n.d., p. 2). This description, in my view, shows creationism and ID are in agreement that all living creatures were made by somebody.
However, a major difference arises in the fact that, while creationism shows God as responsible for creating all living creatures in the world, ID is still not clear on the involvement of a supreme being in the designing process.
Both creationism and ID heavily criticize the Darwinian evolutionary theory and do not accept the notions of common descent and natural selection (Bailey, n.d.; Forrest, 2007). Indeed, according to the podcast, ID has found support among contemporary Christians who do not believe in evolution. However, advocates of creationism seem to refute the assertion advanced by the ID school of thought that the intricate inner workings of single cells could be used to show all living creatures were deliberately designed (Pennock, 2003).
Upon closer reflection, it is also clear that while creationism uses theological and philosophical tenets to argue its case, ID is based entirely on observable scientific evidence. Lastly, creationism is taught in public and religious contexts as seen in the curriculums of public schools and doctrinal tenets of mainstream religious outfits. However, advocates of ID are yet to come up with substantial evidence to show why the concept should be included in these contexts.
Viability of Intelligent Design as a Topic in Public Schools and Sunday Schools
Upon closer examination of the content contained in the podcast and in other resources, it is my considered opinion that ID should neither be taught in public schools alongside evolution nor consulted in Sunday schools alongside creationism. Although it is fundamentally important to provide our children with a perspective on our origin that is consistent with our faith and beliefs, neither evolution nor creationism has been instrumental in availing a valid basis for comprehensive understanding due to fundamental methodological and procedural flaws. In my view, it serves no academic or religious purpose to introduce another concept before its authenticity and validity can be fully verified.
In the podcast, ID advocates are themselves critical about the notion of introducing this concept in public schools due to the fact that they are yet to make a scientific case for the ID theory. This view is supported in the literature, with Pennock (2003) acknowledging that ID attempts to seek closure to the many questions being asked about our origin but fails to provide any scientific justification beyond its usual rhetoric of deliberate design.
Conclusion
This discussion and reflection clearly shows that it is premature to introduce ID in academic and religious contexts as it is not grounded on real science despite its advocates’ insistence that ID theory is based on observable scientific evidence. More needs to be done to ensure ID will not lead to confusion and anxiety when adopted in public schools and religious settings.
References
Bailey, D.H. (n.d.). Creationism and intelligent design: False friends. Web.
Forrest, B. (2007). Understanding the intelligent design creationist movement: Its true nature and goals. Web.
Myjak, S. (n.d.). Evolution, creation, and intelligent design. Web.
Pennock, R.T. (2003). Creationism and intelligent design. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 4(2), 143-163.