Religious Defense of 'Scientific' Intelligent Design

People who deny the truth and reality of evolution do so for exclusively religious reasons. There are no legitimate scientific arguments against or alternatives to evolution. Most people are as ignorant of this as they are of evolution itself, so while they think they might be able to base their objections on science, in the end all they have is religion — and the fact is, that's their only motive as well. Sometimes this comes through when a person makes a vague gesture towards allegedly scientific objections to evolution but then only talks about their religious objections.

Patrick Johnston writes a letter to the editor of the Zanesville Times Recorder in this he demonstrates this phenomenon:

Why can't the evolutionists handle criticism of their precious little theory? It's as if their taxpayer-subsidized atheism is to be accepted on blind faith, with a mandatory inquisition for all opponents. ...Evolutionists reject reasonable explanations for the origin of life not as a result of scientific inquiry, but because it conflicts with their religious ideas. ...Their commitment to practical atheism is not based upon scientific fact, but is a dogmatic statement of faith.

Patrick Johnston alludes to possible scientific critiques of evolution, but then he doesn't bother trying to offer any. Instead he changes gears entirely and suggests that evolution itself is somehow a religion which doesn't want competition from another religion. This is a great example of projection: it's Christianity which has been privileged for so long in American and Western society generally that it can't tolerate competition or critique from any outside sources, whether they be other religions or secular, scientific sources.

The only dogmatism in this issue comes from Christians who are in denial — denial of reality, denial of science, denial of biology, and of course denial of natural evolution. There are legitimate conflicts between biological evolution and traditional, orthodox Christian doctrine — far more than apologists for theistic evolution will admit — but the correct response to being confronted with conflicts between reality and one's ideology is to alter that ideology. Denying reality in order to preserve obviously false parts of an ideology doesn't do anyone any good.

The question is not whether religion should be injected into the discussion of origins, but whether one religion should have monopoly on the debate and forcibly silence dissent. ...They prove well the Scripture in Romans 1: they know the truth, but reject the Creator for the worship of self and nature.

Evolutionists appeal to a separation of church and state to censor competitive theories of origins, but what we desperately need is a separation of atheism and state. For too long America has believed the myth that governments and public institutions can be legitimately neutral with regard to Christianity and its claims. But Jesus said we are either for Him or against Him, that if we do not gather with Him we scatter abroad. We are either in rebellion or submission to Him. "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord" but "every nation that forgets God will be turned in hell."

Patrick Johnson pays lip service to the idea that it's wrong for any one religion to have a monopoly on official support such that dissent become silenced, but after that initial gesture we read nothing about that. Instead, everything else is more compatible with giving Christianity exactly the status which he complains atheism and evolution have: it's wrong for the government to be neutral with regards to Christianity, we must be with or against Jesus, we must submit to or rebel against Jesus, and any nation which submits will be blessed while nations which rebel will suffer.

This is, in effect, an apology for Christian theocracy in America: establishing Christianity as the one true religion, using government power to promote and even enforce Christianity, and using the power of the government to suppress anything which conflicts with traditional Christianity — including especially evolution and atheism. The only way a theocracy could avoid active suppression of truth and reality is if it were already in possession of a perfect and complete picture of reality.

Since no ideology has this, then eventually every theocratic system will be forced to suppress some discovery, idea, or insight which conflicts in some fashion traditional dogmas. This is why freedom of religion, conscience, and scientific inquiry are so important. We cannot discover the truth so long as the government is used to impose religion on us. Evolution is not a religion and it isn't being "imposed" on anyone any more than the Germ Theory of Disease or Plate Tectonics is being imposed — which is to say, they aren't being imposed any more than reality imposes itself us. It only seems that way and seems objectionable when reality fails to live up to our ideological expectations.