When Ohio's Board of Regents said that it would make optional a chapter about alternatives to evolutionary theory, evolutionists cried "foul" and intelligent design theorists (only a step below creationists) put a tally mark in the "success" category. Not so fast.

Intelligent design is, for all intents and purposes, creationism masquerading as science. Intelligent design theorists choose to remain ambiguous about who or what the intelligent designer is, and well they should, for the gum-chewing public "knows" what creationism is. Phillip Johnson is the author of the dubiously-titled books Darwin on Trial, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, Reason in the Balance, The Wedge of Truth, and The Right Questions. These books sound innocent enough; who could possibly be against reason or truth? But look at what the man is writing. In wondering what the future will be like in the year 2025 (when no one believes Darwin anymore) he observes:

Only the fool says that there is no God, or that God has forgotten us. Folly like that is as dead today as the discredited Inherit the Wind stereotype, which fit the facts of history no better than the secularization thesis. We no longer expect to meet intelligent beings on other planets, for we have learned how uniquely fitted to shelter life our own planet has been created to be.

The man advocates a belief in God in place of evolution. This is what the intelligent designers do: they theorize that since our physical world is so complex, it couldn't have arisen by pure chance, therefore a higher power must have intervened. But where is the science? Where is the testable hypothesis? In science, we cannot test hypotheses like, "I think fruit punch is superior to orange juice." There's no way to objectively test that. We also cannot test untestable assertions like, "A higher power created the universe." Since this higher power is beyond the range of our comprehension, it is logically impossible to determine whether or not he exists. Intelligent designers have created this little conundrum for scientists: to prove that a higher being doesn't exist. Of course, they can't, and intelligent designers cry "victory!" But science doesn't work that way. Simply because I can't prove something, that is not proof that it is true.

Evolution -- excuse me, natural selection -- is great. The theory conforms to the observations we have made in fossils thus far, and continues to conform to observations we make about genes. Sometimes. There are holes in natural selection, and the problem is that many scientists are unwilling to acknowledge the existence of these holes. I was never taught in high school that natural selection is the subject of a heated debate in the scientific world, which it is. I make a distinction between "evolution" and "natural selection" because practically every scientist believes in evolution, the process of organisms changing over time. Scientists merely disagree on the mechanism of evolution, the most popular of which is Darwin's theory of natural selection. Since they can't come up with anything better, some scientists stubbornly adhere to the natural selection theory without question. It has risen to the level of "dogma," and if you don't believe it, you're a heretic -- in spite of evidence which suggests that natural selection isn't all it's scientifically cracked up to be. The spirit of the scientific method is continued inquiry, and evolution must be approached the same way: we must continue to experiment and determine definitively what it is that makes evolution operate.

Given the flaws with natural selection, does that mean we must turn the debate over to intelligent design? Hell, no! Intelligent design is not grounded in any kind of science and it is wholly dependent upon one's belief in an untestable "higher being." There's no reason involved in that mode of thinking; the source of information there is not empirical, but supernatural. It does not belong in any public school. Natural selection belongs there, but with a clearly displayed caveat that it is only a theory and it does not have all the answers, but it is the best answer we have so far. Other scientific theories besides natural selection are permissible in a public school curriculum, but a blatantly religious-based theory is not. Intelligent design is merely creationism wearing a funny new hat.

If the world in 2025 is anything like Phillip Johnson predicts, I'm moving out. "We no longer need to meet intelligent beings on other planets"? Intelligent design theorists like to point to probabilities and say, "It's highly unlikely that we evolved by chance." I would point them to the same probabilities and say, "It's highly unlikely that, given the size of the universe, Earth is the only planet inhabited by intelligent life." "Only the fool says that there is no God"? Why is that? Have scientists empirically determined the existence of God? If they have, then good for them. We will have a lot more answers in 2025 than we have now. But if scientists in the future adhere unquestioningly to a belief in creationism, it is the end of reason and the death of enlightenment.