The new standards dropped a phrase that had been in previous ones requiring students to study the “strengths and weaknesses” of all scientific theories. Although that language may seem innocuous, it has been construed in recent years as code words for introducing critiques of evolution theory put forth by advocates of creationism and its close cousin, intelligent design.
The New York Times Editorial Opinion called intelligent design and creationism close cousins. This is a common tactic to muddle the discussion of the relevance of ID being presented in public schools. In earlier decades there had been discussion in courts over the promotion of creation science. Intelligent design theories do not share a seamless connection with creation science. Creationism can mean several things, but the media has more commonly associated it with biblical literalism.
Very briefly here are five big reasons why ID and creationism are not close cousins.
1. ID does not refer to the Bible whatsoever in its inquiry.
2. ID does not address the biblical claim of a worldwide flood.
3. ID does not infer that fossils are a product of a worldwide flood.
4. ID does not promote the idea that all language groups were formed at Babel, as the Bible declares.
5. ID does not promote a young earth.
If there can be any comparisons made between ID and creationism it might be 3rd cousin twice removed. Certainly not close cousins!
