| The Discovery Institute's only purpose[1] is to push creationism into public education under the guise of 'Intelligent Design'. Of course they never specify 'what' or 'who' the 'designer' is, but we all know what they are pushing. Their only way of providing 'evidence' for an Intelligent Designer is fallacious at best [2]. Like all creationists, they can only provide bad faith arguments of ignorance and the god of the gaps. They can't even differentiate between what is 'designed' and what is 'natural', what's worse, they think everything is designed in the first place. Let's say the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution is wrong, and the evidence put forth is wrong (160+ years of evidence.) If this were the case, neither creationism nor intelligent design is suddenly the alternative. Intelligent design does not have any scientific merit. It does not explain anything about the abundance of evidence we actually have. It cannot make predictions, nor can it be falsified. It's a worthless unscientific mess that should have been put to rest many times over by now. If there was ever evidence of 'design', that's evidence of 'design', not evidence of a designer. Before anything, you would first have to meet the burden of proof on the designer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy [2] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-flaws-in-intell... |