I found a link to an online source with the text.Over the past several months, there has been a growing public debate about the theory of intelligent design, whether it is science, and whether it should be taught in public schools. President Bush's recent endorsement of teaching about different ideas when studying evolution, including intelligent design, is sure to add fuel to the controversy.
Unfortunately, all the attention has not necessarily led to greater public understanding of the theory of intelligent design or the views of the scientists who support it. Indeed, as intelligent design has become more prominent, foes and friends alike have latched onto it to promote their own agendas. For foes, intelligent design is merely the latest tactic by the "religious right" to use government to impose "creationism" on unsuspecting students and teachers. These critics of intelligent design typically depict scientists who support the theory as zealots determined to twist the findings of science to support their faith in God. If foes are guilty of misappropriating intelligent design, however, so are some of its newfound friends.
As intelligent design has become a household term, a few well-meaning but misguided public officials have conflated the theory of design with creationism or tried to impose it by legislation.
In Utah, a state senator recently advocated the adoption of what he calls "divine design." In Pennsylvania, the Legislature held hearings on a bill that would allow school districts to mandate the teaching of design. These conflicting voices in the public arena claiming to speak for intelligent design have promoted serious misunderstandings about what the theory actually proposes and what its supporters really want.
The first misunderstanding is that intelligent design is based on religion rather than science. Design theory is a scientific inference based on empirical evidence, not religious texts. The theory proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause as opposed to an undirected process such as natural selection. Although controversial, design theory is supported by a growing number of scientists in scientific journals, conference proceedings and books. While intelligent design may have religious implications (just like Darwin's theory), it does not start from religious premises. A second misunderstanding is that proponents of intelligent design theory are crusading to have it required in public schools. In fact, they are doing the opposite.
Discovery Institute, the main research organization supporting ID scholars, opposes efforts to mandate intelligent design. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community.
A third misunderstanding is that there are widespread efforts to mandate the teaching of design. In reality, what most states are considering is not teaching design but teaching the weaknesses as well as the strengths of modern Darwinian theory. This is the approach adopted in the science standards of Ohio, Minnesota and New Mexico. It's also the approach under consideration by the Kansas State Board of Education, which earlier this year heard testimony critical of Darwin's theory from professors of biology, genetics and biochemistry.
While scholars supporting ID are not seeking to impose their views, opponents have tried to silence critics of Darwin's theory using coercion and intimidation. At George Mason University, a biology professor was banned recently from teaching about intelligent design in her classes. At the Smithsonian Institution, the editor of a biology journal says he faced discrimination and retaliation after accepting for publication a pro-ID article.
Supporters of intelligent design are willing to disavow misguided efforts to impose it by government fiat. Defenders of Darwinism likewise need to reject efforts to enforce their views by trampling on academic freedom.The validity of intelligent design should be decided through fair and open debate, not through legislation enacted by its friends or witch hunts conducted by its foes.
John G. West is associate director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute and an associate professor of Political Science at Seattle Pacific University.
Link
I am going to try and write up a rebutal to be posted in my local paper.
The way I see it, there are several points to raise.
The first is to point out that ID is not proper science. Explain what science is, and point out how ID fails.
The second is to point out that Evolution has absolutely no religious implications (other then rendering certain religious theories wrong), and that ID requires religion.
The third is point out that the primary ID supporters not only want ID taught in schools exclusively, they want to eventualy make Creationism mandatory.
The fourth point is to show the Discovery Institute in its true colors. Point out they ultimately don't care about fair discussion.
Last of all, state that there is no contraversy and that the ID supporters are trying to attack Evolution in the public and through the courts because they can't touch it in science itself.
If I could get some nice quotes and suggestions, I would appreciate that. I will be working on this essay and post each version for critique and suggestions.
"
