Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same

Discovery Institute ^ | January 9, 2003 | John G. West, Jr.

[Heartlander]

Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same


John G. West, Jr.
Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology
January 9, 2003

---

Recent news accounts about controversies over evolution in Ohio and Georgia have contained references to the scientific theory of "intelligent design." Some advocates of Darwinian evolution try to conflate "intelligent design" (ID) with "creationism," sometimes using the term "intelligent design creationism." (1) In fact, intelligent design is quite different from "creationism," as even some of its critics have acknowledged. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to identify ID with creationism? According to Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." (2) In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of those who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

In reality, there are a variety of reasons why ID should not be confused with creationism:

1. "Intelligent Design Creationism" is a pejorative term coined by some Darwinists to attack intelligent design; it is not a neutral label of the intelligent design movement.

Scientists and scholars supportive of intelligent design do not describe themselves as "intelligent design creationists." Indeed, intelligent design scholars do not regard intelligent design theory as a form of creationism. Therefore to employ the term "intelligent design creationism" is inaccurate, inappropriate, and tendentious, especially on the part of scholars and journalists who are striving to be fair. "Intelligent design creationism" is not a neutral description of intelligent design theory. It is a polemical label created for rhetorical purposes. "Intelligent design" is the proper neutral description of the theory.

2. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts.

Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3)

3. Creationists know that intelligent design theory is not creationism.

The two most prominent creationist groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM’s "refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God" and noted that "philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group." Indeed, according to AIG, "many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation…." (4) Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing "the Biblical method," concluding that "Design is not enough!" (5) Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism.

4. Like Darwinism, design theory may have implications for religion, but these implications are distinct from its scientific program.

Intelligent design theory may hold implications for fields outside of science such as theology, ethics, and philosophy. But such implications are distinct from intelligent design as a scientific research program. In this matter intelligent design theory is no different than the theory of evolution. Leading Darwinists routinely try to draw out theological and cultural implications from the theory of evolution. Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, for example, claims that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (6) Harvard’s E.O. Wilson employs Darwinian biology to deconstruct religion and the arts. (7) Other Darwinists try to elicit positive implications for religion from Darwin’s theory. The pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has organized a "Faith Network" to promote the study of evolution in churches. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE, acknowledges that the purpose of the group’s "clergy outreach program" is "to try to encourage members of the practicing clergy to address the issue of Evolution in Sunday schools and adult Bible classes" and to get church members to talk about "the theological implications of evolution." (8) The NCSE’s "Faith Network Director" even claims that "Darwin’s theory of evolution…has, for those open to the possibilities, expanded our notions of God." (9) If Darwinists have the right to explore the cultural and theological implications of Darwin’s theory without disqualifying Darwinism as science, then ID-inspired discussions in the social sciences and the humanities clearly do not disqualify design as a scientific theory.

5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

Scholars and science writers who are willing to explore the evidence for themselves are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is different from creationism. As mentioned earlier, historian of science Ronald Numbers has acknowledged the distinction between ID and creationism. So has science writer Robert Wright, writing in Time magazine: "Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it's just creationism in disguise. If so it's a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us." (10)

Whatever problems the theory of intelligent design may have, it should be allowed to rise or fall on its own merits, not on the merits of some other theory.

(1) For a particularly egregious example of use of this term, see Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, edited by Robert T. Pinnock (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001).
(2) Richard Ostling, AP Writer, March 14, 2002.
(3) For good introductions to intelligent design theory, see Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996); Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Stephen Meyer, Science & Evidence For Design in the Universe (Ignatius, 2000); William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence (Rowman and Littlefield, 2002); and Unlocking the Mystery of Life video documentary (Illustra Media, 2002).
(4) Carl Wieland, "AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement," August 30, 2002, available at http://www.answersingenesis.org.
(5) Henry M. Morris, "Design is not Enough!", Institute for Creation Research, July 1999, available at: http://www.icr.org/.
(6) Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1996), 6.
(7) E.O. Wilson, Consilience (New York: Vintage Books, 1998).
(8) Eugenie Scott, interview with ColdWater Media, September 2002. Courtesy of ColdWater Media.
(9) Phina Borgeson, "Introduction to the Congregational Study Guide for Evolution," National Center for Science Education, 2001, available at www.ncseweb.org.
(10) Robert Wright, Time, March 11, 2002.

* This article originally ran in the December issue of Research News

---

Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in Seattle dealing with national and international affairs. The Institute is dedicated to exploring and promoting public policies that advance representative democracy, free enterprise and individual liberty. For more information visit Discovery's website at http://www.discovery.org.

Please report any errors to webmaster@discovery.org

[gore3000]

When a Creator can be observed, touched, and examined then he can become part of anyone's reality.

To deny that just because you cannot see, touch or make love to something it does not exist is to deny reality. Your own intelligence denies this absurd view. Your own consciousness, conscience, logic, and all of mathematics and philosophy and art denies this viewpoint. We continuously infer a designer from the design. We do not think that the Sistine Chapel ceiling is the result of paint cans falling up. There is no difference between that and seeing God in His works.

[gore3000]

And Intelligent Design is focused on defending essentially nothing,

Absolutely wrong. ID is specifically designed to defend against the claim that the universe is a random jumble of matter with no meaning or purpose.

[LogicWings]

A prime example of this is LabelThink. Certain Evolutionists will always categorize opposition to Darwinism, however thoughtful, rational and fact-filled, as "Creationism". If tolerated, this tactic allows the avoidance of any debate on the merits. It is inherently dishonest. It is Clintonian. And it has a distinct anti-Christian odor. Those who employ this tactic are essentially, by their behavior, fanatics, who will, with their "fellow travellers", call you names and shout you down. They will call you "liar".

And the Christian side has a penchant for destroying the true meaning of words in order to obfuscate that one is the search for facts, truth and reality, while the other seeks to justify its form of mysticism. The following is from an earlier post on this thread. (Not by you)

The evolutionist believes that he has a world-view built on irrefutable scientific evidence, WHEN IN ACTUALLITY HIS IS A FAITH BASED PHILOSOPHY, TOO.

This continual insistence that evolution is based upon 'faith' that is on the same level as religious 'faith' is just as dishonest as anything you assert. It is clear Equivocation and falls in the same category as what you assail here, lying about the other's position. And I just finished a book called Climbing Mount Improbable (if I remember correctly) that was a very cogent defense of evolution, that was very recently published. There is plenty of defense of evolution out there, if you care to look, instead of merely claiming there isn't, which is doing exactly what you are complaining about here. There is enough dishonesty to go around on both sides.

[gore3000]

Any change over time (including speciations!)

Speciation is not the question. It is gain of abilities that is the question of whether evolution is true or not. Spliting a gene pool in two does not create any new genetic information, in fact, it makes a species less viable, it degrades the species. For evolution to be true the creation of new abilities, and faculties is required. There is no such proof to be found anywhere.

[gore3000]

These methods [used by evolutionists] are practiced by pretenders, by intellectual thugs, wherein arrogant mischaracterization attempts to supplant subtle truth.

The evolutionists always shout like a mantra that 'evolution is science' yet when asked to back it up with scientific facts they insult and gang up on those who question their statement.

[gore3000]

This continual insistence that evolution is based upon 'faith' that is on the same level as religious 'faith' is just as dishonest as anything you assert.

No it is not. If you yourself cannot give scientific evidence for your adherence to evolution, then you hold your views due to faith. If you yourself cannot disprove contrary evidence to your theory but nevertheless continue to adhere to it, then your acceptance of evolution is based on faith, not on science.

[Aric2000]

What world do you live in, is this Clinton world, where the truth is a lie and lies are the truth?

G3K, you really have your head in your nether regions, or else you lie like a Clinton. I don't know which yet, but you are again on ignore, your lies are getting really really thick, I am gonna need my waders here pretty quick to get through it.

[Aric2000]

There he goes again, if you are NOT a scientist and cannot state EVERY study that has ever been done on Evolution, you have no right to state it is a fact, no matter how many facts or how many scientists agree with you.

Well then, let's go the same way, if you are not a graduate of a seminary college, and do NOT have a degree from a seminary college, then you have no facts to say that you believe in creationism, because if you do NOT have ALL the facts at your disposal, then you have no right to an opinion. If you do not have enough faith to go to a seminary college, then you have no right to state that creationism happened.

Yo, G3K, stupid stupid statement, you really are clintonite.

It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Get a clue dude!!

[Aric2000]

And yes, you are back on ignore,

ignoramous...

Not an opinion, just statement of fact as I see it.

[jennyp]

Speciation is not the question. It is gain of abilities that is the question of whether evolution is true or not. Spliting a gene pool in two does not create any new genetic information, in fact, it makes a species less viable, it degrades the species.

Yes I know: When a species splits in two, each new species only gets half the genes. I'm beginning to understand your reasoning.

(Maybe it's just the Courvosier.)

[LogicWings]

No it is not. If you yourself cannot give scientific evidence for your adherence to evolution, then you hold your views due to faith. If you yourself cannot disprove contrary evidence to your theory but nevertheless continue to adhere to it, then your acceptance of evolution is based on faith, not on science.

Yes it is. If I restrict myself to only that evidence which is given by a study of the natural world as revealed by the senses then my views are not 'due to faith.' You are Equivocating the meaning of 'Faith.' The definition of 'faith' in the religious sense, "A belief in a supernatural source for the universe" and the idea that one has confidence in a given theory, is not the same thing. To conflate the two is to commit the Fallacy of Equivocation, something Creationists do willy-nilly, as you are here. (Which was my point, thank you!) It is faulty reasoning, and THEREFORE, rejected.

And by the way, there is no 'contrary' evidence that can be given without smuggling in the premise of the supernatural, and that is called Begging the Question, which is also THEREFORE to be rejected.

[jennyp]

Your comparison of the predictions of common descent vs. design had a couple minor errors. I've corrected them for you:

Line of Evidence	Prediction of descent	Prediction from design	Data	Best explaining theory:
Biochemical complexity	High information content machine-like irreducible complex structures will not be found. [see Orr: "This scenario was first hinted at by the geneticist H. J. Muller in 1918 and worked out in some detail in 1939. Indeed, Muller gives reasons for thinking that genes which at first improved function will routinely become essential parts of a pathway. So the gradual evolution of irreducibly complex systems is not only possible, it's expected."]	High information content machine-like irreducible complex structures will be found.	High information content machine-like irreducible complex structures are found.	Design Either
Fossil Record	Fossil forms will appear suddenly and without any precursors, except if you're lucky you'll find the isolated location where they underwent their gradual progression [see Dawkins: "The proper way to characterize the beliefs of punctuationists is: 'gradualistic, but with long periods of "stasis" (evolutionary stagnation) punctuating brief episodes of rapid gradual change' ... It is the emphasis on stasis that is the punctuationists' real contribution, not their claimed opposition to gradualism, for they are truly as gradualist as anybody else."]	Fossil forms will appear suddenly and without any precursors	Fossil forms appear suddenly and without any precursors	Design Either
Distribution of Molecular and Morphological Characteristics	Genes and functional parts will reflect those inherited through ancestry, and are only shared by related organisms, except in rare cases due to lateral gene transfer [see Thomas: "A recent study involved hundreds of genes, for dozens of species. [For example], the 50 genes used to compare old world monkeys to humans have a strong "peak" indicating 23 million years (MYa) since the last common ancestor of these species. ... When 107 genes of primates and rabbits are compared, these differences correspond to 90 MYa since the primate/rabbit common ancestor. The "message" is clear: humans are genetically much closer to old world monkeys than they are to rabbits. This accords perfectly with evolutionary expectations. Had the genes turned out otherwise, Darwin's "fantasy" would have evaporated."]	Genes and functional parts will rbe re-used in different unrelated organisms	Genes and functional parts often very rarely are not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often very rarely found in clearly unrelated organisms	Design Descent

[Dan Day]

There are approximately 10 trillion cells in the human body each with it's unique design for a specific function.

Nonsense. While there are many different types of cells, vast numbers of them are identical to all the other cells of the same type. There are nowhere *near* 10 trillion "unique designs" for cells, as you imply.

Also, within each cell are tiny molecular chemical manufacturing machines which take in raw materials through some of the millions of port-holes in the cell shell and output chemicals to be utilized in other cells.

Likewise, the "tiny molecular chemical manufacturing machines" are pretty much the same from cell to cell, even across different cell types.

My personal opinion... Due to the complexity of the aforementioned system, there is no other explanation other than Intelligent Design.

As long as you're just labeling it as your "personal opinion", fine, but then you immediately say:

Do the math...

And yet, *you* don't "do the math" -- you don't provide any actual calcualtions or mathematical argument for your conclusion other than "wow, that seems like a lot".

The 4 to 13 billion years attributed to the age of the earth is a drop in the bucket compared to the time needed for life to evolve by itself.

...and where exactly is the "math" which supports your claim about exactly "the time needed for life to evolve by itself"?

Let's do a rough (very rough) estimate... The human genome is on the order of 1 billion codons long. To evolve a human from scratch in 4 billion years, you only need to have nature stumble across a way to add a useful codon once every four years or so (and keep in mind that nature has living populations of many *trillions* of creatures alive at any one time to "work" with).

One codon every 4 years doesn't seem insanely unlikely, in fact it's a pretty leisurely pace (especially since a large amount of human DNA is "junk" that's not directly involved in our "blueprint").

I'll say it one more time... Do the math. Life can't just happen.

I just "did the math", or at least a very quick rough estimate of the magnitude of the task. Looks possible to me. Have you "done some math" which shows otherwise? Or are you just saying "do the math" without having any to show yourself?

All these so-called scientific explanations are pure unadulterated BS. Total fairy tale hog-wash.

Show us *your* math. Just saying "there are lots of cells and it seems to complex to me to have happened in 4 billion years" doesn't even rise to the level of "math".

[Dan Day]

Where on earth did you get that erroneous table?

I strongly invite you to provide your alleged evidence for the following incorrect assertions which you have made:

1. "High information content machine-like irreducible complex structures are found." All alleged cases I've seen have been proven *not* to be irreducible after all (i.e., the creationists didn't know what they were talking about), or were still unresolved (i.e. *no one* can yet say whether or not they are irreducible, but that doesn't stop the creationists from flatly declaring that they must be).

2. "Fossil forms appear suddenly and without any precursors." Total nonsense. The great majority of "fossil forms" appear gradually and/or with clear precursors, except for those cases where one would not expect to be able to find fossil precursors (for example, if the precursor would be soft-bodied and have no fossilizable parts, or originated in an area which has been subsequently destroyed by tectonic subduction, etc.)

3. "Genes and functional parts often are not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms". Absolute twaddle. The greatest volume of data with the most inarguable evidence for descent is the DNA record. Literally countless examinations of DNA reveal unmistakable evidence of being "distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry", and offhand I can't think of a single counterexample (i.e. DNA that's hard to explain via descent or clear lateral transfer).

You know, the Lord looks harshly on those who bear false witness, Heartlander...

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[gore3000]

There he goes again, if you are NOT a scientist and cannot state EVERY study that has ever been done on Evolution, you have no right to state it is a fact, no matter how many facts or how many scientists agree with you.

Well that is an excuse and not a very good one. About all you are saying is that you are choosing to believe the statements of evolutionists rather than looking at the facts yourself. Unfortunately, evolutionists have not been scientists. Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, are in no way scientists and their claims have been often refuted by mainstream science as I have shown many times.

Now if you and your friends were not operating of faith but on science, then when confronted with facts which contradict your theory (if your adherence to it were based on science) then you should be looking to see if there was a refutation to those facts. Evolutionists do not seem to do that, instead they make excuses like the above and insult those who present them with such contradictory facts. This is the way that ideologues behave, not scientists and you and your evolutionist friends show all the characteristics of ideologues, not scientists.

[gore3000]

Speciation is not the question. It is gain of abilities that is the question of whether evolution is true or not. Spliting a gene pool in two does not create any new genetic information, in fact, it makes a species less viable, it degrades the species.-me-

Yes I know: When a species splits in two, each new species only gets half the genes. I'm beginning to understand your reasoning.

Aaah, the smirky semantic argument! Every species has different varieties of each gene in its gene pool. When a species splits off, the new species ends up with a smaller set of these genetic varieties (called alleles) than the original 'wild' species had.

(pass the Courvousier)

[stanz]

If I can't see it, touch it or make love to it, it has no significance or validity in my reality. I do not infer a designer when I look up at the sky or smell a flower unless I have proof that a designer performed the act of creation of these things. The Sistine Chapel was observed to have been painted by a man on a scaffold. This has absolutely no relationship to any deity or the works of any deity.

[Aric2000]

Why do you keep lying? You are NOT very good at it, because those lies are not very good ones either.

Biologists use the theory of evolution in their work ALL the time, there are also other biological sciences that use the theory ALL the time. If it were NOT true, they would NOT use it.

Another strawman from you G3K. You need to get a grip, or maybe take some truth serum or something.

You seem to enjoy lying about evolution, because if you have as many facts at your disposal as you say you do, then that is exactly what you are doing.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

That's OK. Darwinism isn't evolutionary theory either.