Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Present at the re-creation of Intelligent Design
The Houston Chronicle ^ | Aug. 20, 2005 | WILLIAM SAFIRE

Posted on 08/20/2005 11:29:44 PM PDT by neverdem

THE word creationism, coined in 1868 in opposition to what was then called Darwinism or evolutionism, had fallen on hard times. The proponents of a theory faithfully attributing the origin of matter to God, "the creator," were seemingly overwhelmed by the theory put forward by Charles Darwin and bolstered with much evidence by 20th century scientists. As a result, the noun creationism (like its predecessor, teleology, the study of purposeful design in nature) gained a musty connotation while evolutionism modishly lost its -ism.

Then along came the phrase intelligent design, and evolution had fresh linguistic competition. Though the phrase can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American and in an 1868 book, it was probably coined in its present sense in Humanism, a 1903 book by Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller: "It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design."

The phrase lay relatively dormant for nearly a century. "The term intelligent design came up in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Wash., called Sources of Information Content in DNA," recalls Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, who was present at the phrase's re-creation. "Charles Thaxton referred to a theory that the presence of DNA in a living cell is evidence of a designing intelligence. We weren't political; we were thinking about molecular biology and information theory. This wasn't stealth creationism. The phrase became the banner that we rallied around throughout the early '90s. We wanted to separate ourselves from the strict Darwinists and the creationists."

At about that time, the traditional creationists took up the phrase. "We are a Christian organization and use the term to refer to the Christian God," says John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research in Santee, Calif. "The modern intelligent design movement looks at Dr. Phillip E. Johnson as its founder. ... His book, Darwin on Trial, kind of started it all in the early '90s. We were using intelligent design as an intuitive term: a watch implies a watchmaker." (That mechanical analogy was first used by the philosopher William Paley in his 1802 book, Natural Theology, a pre-Darwinian work holding that the complexity of nature implies an intelligent creator — namely, God.)

The marketing genius within the phrase — and the reason it now drives many scientists and educators up the walls of academe — is in its use of the adjective intelligent, which intrinsically refutes the long-standing accusation of anti-intellectualism. Although the intelligent agent referred to is Divine with a capital D, the word's meaning also rubs off on the proponent or believer. That's why intelligent design appeals to not only the DNA-driven Discovery Institute complexity theorists but also the traditional God's-handiwork faithful.

This banner floating over two disparate armies challenging evolutionary theory has the Darwinist scientific establishment going ape. Leonard Krishtalka, a professor at the University of Kansas, lumped the armies together last month in a widely quoted definition of the ID movement as "nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo." Reached by my researcher, Aaron Britt, Krishtalka added: "It's a sophisticated camouflage of Genesis-driven creationism. Intelligent design sounds scientific, and they couch it as science instead of religion. It's frighteningly Orwellian." Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, says: "Whether or not there is or was an intelligent designer is not a scientific question. It's not an alternative to evolution. What they are trying to do is get religion in the science classroom."

Media scorn piles on: The liberal pundit Jonathan Alter of Newsweek finds "the threat to science and reason comes less from fundamentalists who believe the Earth was created in six days than from sophisticated branding experts and polemical Ph.D.'s," while the conservative columnist-psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer in Time denounces "this tarted-up version of creationism." The cartoonist Signe Wilkenson of The Philadelphia Daily News has President Bush pointing to a convoluted map labeled "Iraq Strategy" with a general in a pupil's chair asking, "So when can we study intelligent design?"

To counter the "sophisticated branding experts" who flummoxed establishmentarian evolutionaries with intelligent design, opponents of classroom debate over Darwin's theory have come up with a catchily derisive neologism that lumps the modern ID advocates with religious fundamentalists: neo-creo. The rhyming label was coined on Aug. 17, 1999, by Philip Kitcher, professor of the philosophy of science at Columbia University, in a lively and lengthy online debate in Slate magazine with the above-mentioned Phillip Johnson, professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley: "Enter the neo-creos, " Kitcher wrote. "Scavenging the scientific literature, they take claims out of context and pretend that everything about evolution is controversial. ... But it's all a big con." Johnson replied: "I want to replace the culture war over evolution with a healthy, vigorous intellectual debate. The biggest obstacle is that the evolutionary scientists are genuinely baffled as to why everyone does not believe as they do. That is why they appear so dogmatic, and why they tend to slip into sarcasm and browbeating."

ID advocates like to point to Albert Einstein, an apostle of order in the universe, who repeatedly rejected a statistical conception of physics with his famous aphorism, "I cannot believe that God plays dice with the world." However, his recent biographer, Dennis Overbye, a science reporter for The Times, says: "Einstein believed there was order in the universe but that it had not been designed for us." Overbye also notes that Einstein wrote the evenhanded "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."

I will leave the last word on this old controversy with its new phraseology to the neuroscientist Leon Cooper, a Nobel laureate at Brown University.

He tells all of today's red-faced disputants: "If we could all lighten up a bit perhaps, we could have some fun in the classroom discussing the evidence and the proposed explanations — just as we do at scientific conferences."

Safire is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist of the New York Times, based in Washington, D.C.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Kansas; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; darwinism; evolutionism; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last

1 posted on 08/20/2005 11:29:48 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

No design including the proponents of "intelligent design" can be called "intelligent".


2 posted on 08/20/2005 11:37:39 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

unnngh!


3 posted on 08/21/2005 12:09:11 AM PDT by King Prout (and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
I see you've done your homework, Einstein.

sorry...I mean Mr. Von Braun.

4 posted on 08/21/2005 12:09:58 AM PDT by RedQuill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

Psalm 53

The fool says, "There is no God." But God will deliver the righteous from their oppression


5 posted on 08/21/2005 12:19:50 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

I'll be a bit more upset about religionist doing evolution when evolutionist stop doing religion.


6 posted on 08/21/2005 12:21:16 AM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
So when can we study intelligent design?

One does not study ID. One prays to it.

7 posted on 08/21/2005 1:34:31 AM PDT by Jeff Gordon (Recall Barbara Boxer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
we could have some fun in the classroom discussing the evidence and the proposed explanations

Precisely. Expose the debate for all, not just for the ivy-tower class.

Which is what both the President and Senator Frist have said.

8 posted on 08/21/2005 3:30:30 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

Interesting article. But it's not really news, mostly commentary, and we've got a few hot threads going right now. So this one is going to have to languish.


9 posted on 08/21/2005 4:12:14 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
It's time to bring on the "debate"..

Here's the challenge to Intelligent Design..

You've spent a great deal of effort telling us what Evolution "isn't".. i.e., criticizing the tenets of Evolution..
Now, step up to the plate..

What is the theory of Intelligent Design?
Not just "God did it"...
Show the full context..
Where life comes from..
Where the different life forms that exist today come from..
Show proof.. Show proof.. Show proof..

Be prepared to defend your "hypothesus"..

10 posted on 08/21/2005 4:18:59 AM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Sorry but I am sticking with the Flying Spaghetti monster.


11 posted on 08/21/2005 4:23:01 AM PDT by doodad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"If we could all lighten up a bit perhaps, we could have some fun in the classroom discussing the evidence and the proposed explanations — just as we do at scientific conferences."


Ha ha ha ha ... I think there is a big joke in there. But, seeing Safire was willing to write a column about this in the NY Times ... well.... it appears to be great news, again.


12 posted on 08/21/2005 4:25:13 AM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
No design including the proponents of "intelligent design" can be called "intelligent".
The smallest living organism requires a minimum of 239 individual protein molecules.
Protein molecules are made from amino acids.
Amino acids are made of carbon, hydrogen nitrogen and oxygen.
Amino acids joined together in a long twisted string form a protein molecule.
Each protein molecule requires a minimum of 410 amino acids. All formed in left handed spirals. (protein molecules do not have right handed spirals for some unknown reason.)
The chances of at least 410 amino acids accidentally forming a chain to produce one protein molecule is 10 to the 123 power.
The odds against this happening in at least 239 protein molecules to form the smallest living organism are 10 to the 29,345th power.
The odds of that one organism surviving long enough to learn to eat, breathe and reproduce. Ahh – priceless. Intelligent, yes. Who requires the most faith to believe that the human brain (more ad vaned than any computer) was just an accident, or to believe that the Great Artist could draw more that one picture. (an art critic can identify who the artist is by his brush strokes, whether the picture is of a bird or a tree.)
13 posted on 08/21/2005 4:33:21 AM PDT by liliesgrandpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: liliesgrandpa
The chances of at least 410 amino acids accidentally forming a chain to produce one protein molecule is 10 to the 123 power.

And this is where all Creos/ID'ers make there greatest mistake..
The claim of randomicity..

What proof do you have that amino acids forming a chain is an "accident" ???

What happens to your "math" if one introduces the idea that Mutual Benefits and Survival are active elements in the creation of that protein molecule?
I've just changed the equation, haven't I??
The "random" element has been removed..
There is now "purpose" and "direction"..

This affects your outcome.. Decidedly..

14 posted on 08/21/2005 5:01:10 AM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
Aargh.. "preview is your friend.."..

"make their greatest mistake.."

And I should have shut off the Italics..

15 posted on 08/21/2005 5:04:12 AM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
So you come across a Hamburger Wrapper. It's thickness is extremely consistent, it has square cut corners, it has several images on it.

Do you figure that something as simple as an hamburger wrapper had to be designed?

Or.

Do you pick it up and say "Look what the atmospheric conditions must of produced!"?

16 posted on 08/21/2005 5:39:14 AM PDT by Mark was here (My tag line was about to be censored.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Nice way to take a stand, there, Safire.


17 posted on 08/21/2005 5:45:36 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs Mark
... Hamburger wrapper.. [snip] Do you pick it up and say "Look what the atmospheric conditions must of produced!"?

No, I recognize it as a hamburger wrapper..
I understand the conditions and requirements for it's existance..

Do you have a cohesive, concise provable alternative explanation to evolution??
If so, stop playing games with metaphor and simile, and state your hypothesus, and let's see if it can stand up to criticizm..

18 posted on 08/21/2005 5:56:18 AM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
Do you have a cohesive, concise provable alternative explanation to evolution??

If all the commotion surrounding evolution was cohesive, concise and provable we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Some take it on faith that the skull mutated by mere chance, to allow for an eyeball, an eyeball mutated by mere chance to contain an focusing lens in the front and rods and cones in the back, that the optical nerve just mutated into existence connecting the eye ball to the brain... in other words highly complex and integrated systems just mutated into existence.

Mutations from the design tend to lead to heartbreak and death. Well, that is just according to all the evidence that surrounds us every day.

19 posted on 08/21/2005 6:33:34 AM PDT by Mark was here (My tag line was about to be censored.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mrs Mark
You didn't answer my question...
Do you have a cohesive, concise, provable alternative explanation to evolution??
Answer: NO.. You have nothing..

Some take it on faith that the skull mutated by mere chance, to allow for an eyeball, an eyeball mutated by mere chance. ..

You too, fall back on the "randomicity" argument..
"Chance" is not an element in this debate....
There is nothing "random" involved here..
It is Life, doing what life does best..
Survive and reproduce..

You fail to meet the requirement for debate..
Go download some music..

20 posted on 08/21/2005 6:52:21 AM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson