Intelligent Designer Not Necessarily God; Could Be Chanel, But Definitely Not Hilfiger

Snopes redux: A Lehigh University science professor whose own colleagues have publicly distanced themselves from his unscientific views is trying to convince a Pennsylvania judge that “intelligent design” is not creationism.
”Intelligent design … does not rely on any religious text,” Michael Behe said Tuesday in a federal trial over the teaching of evolution in public schools. ”It relies exclusively on physical information about nature and logical inferences.”
Behe maintains that while creationism is a religious concept, intelligent design — the belief that humankind’s development is too complex to have evolved without an intelligent designer — is a scientific idea. Creationism is a biblical explanation of the origin of life the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled cannot be included in public school science education.
Eight families are suing the Dover Area School District, which requires biology teachers to make a statement in class that there are alternate explanations, including intelligent design, to Darwin’s theory of evolution. The families believe the mandatory statement blends religion and science.
According to the Allentown Morning Call:
Behe testified Tuesday that intelligent design, unlike creationism, does not make references to religion or religious text. Although he said he believes that the intelligent designer is God, he said the intelligent design movement does not identify the designer and that there could be other causes….
But during the cross-examination of Behe, ACLU attorney Eric Rothschild reminded the court that the National Academy of Scientists, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and even the biology department at Lehigh University, have denounced the idea of intelligent design.
”So you have not been able to convince your colleagues,” Rothschild said to Behe after reading a statement from Behe’s peers.
The statement, posted on Lehigh’s Web site, reads in part:
”While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.”



