During the Dover intelligent design trial, Barbara Forrest and others insisted that intelligent design (ID) was just an attempt to smuggle fundamentalist Christianity into our science classrooms. Judge John Jones swallowed this claim despite the many scientists and scholars outside of Christianity who have embraced ID (like British philosopher Antony Flew). They illustrate the obvious: A theory (ID) that makes no appeals to Scriptural authority, but instead bases its arguments on scientific evidence, is a theory that anyone from a deist to Deepak Chopra could embrace.
More evidence that intelligent design is not disguised Christianity comes from this fine essay in The Jerusalem Post by Jonathan Rosenblum.
Not only does Rosenblum not fit Barbara Forrest’s stereotype of the Darwin skeptic motivated by fundamentalist Christianity, his essay also makes the case that Darwinism itself possesses many of the qualities we associate with a religious dogma accepted in the face of contrary evidence:
By contrast, Darwinists proceed by assuming the truth of the theory and then seeking empirical support. Studies of the fossil record that fail to buttress the theory are deemed “failures” and never published. The search for Darwinian common “ancestors,” according to Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History, proceeds on the assumption that those ancestors exist and then selecting the most likely candidates.
The full essay is here.