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]

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.'

Problem with the above is that evolution is a process. A process by which a species transforms itself into a higher more complex species. This process has never been observed. So yes, my statement is true, evolution is a faith in more ways than one and it certainly is not science.

[gore3000]

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.

There are actually 100 trillion cells in the human body. While of course many are the same yet, there are numerous different kinds of cells. The thing is that for a the proper cells to end up in the proper place you need extreme specificity. It is so specific, that the developmental process of an organism is called a program by developmental biologists. As we all know programs cannot be changed stochastically.

[gore3000]

If I can't see it, touch it or make love to it, it has no significance or validity in my reality.

That does not address in any way the part of my post that says:

Your own intelligence denies this absurd view. Your own consciousness, conscience, logic, and all of mathematics and philosophy and art denies this viewpoint.

Do you deny that such things as consciousness, consciene, logic, mathematics, philosophy and art exist? Are you making such an absurd claim?

The Sistine Chapel was observed to have been painted by a man on a scaffold.

No one saw the caveman that painted the caves of Altamira. Does that mean they happened by chance? What this proves is two things - you can discern a designer from his works. It also proves that there is such a thing as intelligence which is completely outside your realm of reality yet it is the most powerful force in the Universe. It is undeniably the most powerful force in mankind.

[gore3000]

Why do you keep lying?

Why do you keep insulting? Can you not discuss anything like a human being? If I am wrong, show where I am wrong. Insults prove nothing except your lameness and lack of character.

[PatrickHenry]

Blue skipping placemarker.

[stanz]

You are not making any sense. The paintings at Altamira are just that---paintings. No one denies how they got there.
No one denies how the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel got there. But most rational people deny that you and I got here by some magical hand in the sky. Intelligence and consciousness are merely the by-products of eons of evolution and....humans are not the only possessors. Other primates and mammals are capable of language and symbolic reasoning as well.

[Aric2000]

It's not an insult when it's the truth.

You are a full blown congenital liar when it comes to evolution. You have the same strawmen that have been refuted over and over again, and don't give me garbage about why don't I state them. YOU know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

You are fooling NO ONE but yourself.

The lying Blueman is now back on ignore.

[gore3000]

You are not making any sense. The paintings at Altamira are just that---paintings. No one denies how they got there. No one denies how the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel got there.

You claimed that the Sistine Chapel paintings were intelligently designed because it is a historical fact. The paintings of Altamira are not a historical fact yet we do attribute them to having been man made. So my assertion that you can tell that there is a designer from the object he has designed is clearly true.

But most rational people deny that you and I got here by some magical hand in the sky. Intelligence and consciousness are merely the by-products of eons of evolution and....humans are not the only possessors. Other primates and mammals are capable of language and symbolic reasoning as well.

Actually most of humanity believes in a Creator so unless you claim that most people are irrational, then that statement is false.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Actually most of humanity believes in a Creator

True! According to the numbers, over 86% of the World's population and every American President that has been in Office believe in a Creator.

Regards, MM

[Phaedrus]

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.

Can we discuss this? We'll see.

First, I stand by the content of my earlier post (#86). Second, I agree with the article that there is a current attempt by Darwinists generally to conflate ID to include Young Earth Creationism. You see references to "stealth creationism" in the media and you see the attempts to equate the two on this thread. It's rhetoric, it's political and it's dishonest.

I have posted that species are many -- hundreds of thousands at least, that they are characterized by stability over time, that there are few if any credible transitional forms and that "chance" and "mutation" are both failed attempts at explaining Evolution's fundamental mechanism. These are facts, not religion, and this mode of argument that cites the evidence is in accord with the rules of science. The very credibility of science is dependent upon evidentiary support for its theories found in the real world.

Yet there is a small but growing segment of the Evolutionists here on FR that asserts, out of the chute, that I am (1) a "liar" and (2) a "Creationist", the latter of which charges is intended to be pejorative. These are ad hominem attacks intended to discredit me personally. I am neither. Well, if this is the "mode of argument" chosen, those employing it will find that I do not turn the other cheek.

In my experience, everyone has a theory. Everyone. Ask anyone you meet and if they believe you're sincere and they are in the mood, they will tell you. An exaggerated example to make a point -- there was a 60 Minutes segment some while ago about idiot savants, the folks who can do amazing calendar "tricks" and mathematical calculations almost instantaneously. No one knows how. When asked how he was able to perform such "intellectual" feats, one such savant responded "Because I'm smart".

The essential point is that human beings can be rational and objective in spite of the fact that their life is influenced or governed by a structure of belief. (It is also true that wrong ideas can and do have a widespread deleterious cultural influence.) Western Science, which enshrines objectivity, grew to fullness in the womb of Christianity. This is fact, not supposition.

And Yes, along with everyone else, I have a theory. But I don't particularly care whether you agree with my theory or not. I want to know for myself and I am passionate in my desire to find and know truth. My "theory", if you will, is that God, among many other "things", is Truth.

Why should you care about my "theory"? No good reason. EXCEPT that I was a naive believer in Evolution as a child (having been so taught in the public schools) and well into my adult years UNTIL I read works that asked fundamental questions about the "theory" and examined the evidence in its support. I will post a list of books, if you like. I am prepared again to believe in Evolution if it can be shown that the facts support it. I must say, though, that the more I learn, the more bogus it appears to be. This begs the questions as to what motivates its supporters and why they are so vehement. I have my thoughts on this, but they will remain unexpressed for the time being.

When I joined FR some 4 years ago, great controversy surrounded the "issues" of "chance" as a driver of Evolution and abiogenesis as truth. Many long acrimonious threads were devoted these topics. Since then, Evolutionist support for these lines of argument has melted away because they have both been discredited. Today the Evolutionist position is that abiogenesis has nothing to do with Darwinism. The Darwinist position, in my humble view, is in retreat, so much so that it finds refuge in the banality, "change over time".

Now I am not often given to long posts, so I will step back at this point. (I am not among those who believe that length equals strength -- not enough hours playing Bridge, I suppose). But I have one final point about accusing others of lying before I stop. Some on my side of the debate do this. I don't like it. Who am I to be so judgemental? No one in particular. But if I am so accused, the poster will be attacked or dismissed in response because calling me a liar IS an attack.

[Aric2000]

Your nonbelief in evolution is fine, but it shows an ignorance of facts.

It also fails to take into account that over 99% of scientists believe that evolution is true, this tells me a great deal. Also, when Biologists, genticists, etc USE the theory in their work EVERY day, then it also tells me a great deal.

Yes, there are some holes in the Theory that have not been filled, but they are fillng with the missing facts.

Creationists like to make these holes look huge, when in fact they are nothing when the whole theory is taken into account.

Evolution CANNOT use god, that is why it is science. Science CANNOT prove, NOR disprove god, therefore god CANNOT be used as a causation, otherwise it would be called religion.

As long as creationists DEMAND that god be used as a causation in evolution, they will continue to be disapointed.

As soon as an intelligent designer, god, or whatever you choose to name it, is used, it is NO LONGER science, and therefore does NOT compete with the theory of evolution.

If you can come up with a theory that is scientific, not using god as a causation, then we will talk about it being taught alongside evolution, but until then, evolution is the most accepted and will continue to be the most accepted theory by science.

If you wish your children to be taught ID, creationsim, etc, then teach them, feel free, but do not expect the public schools to do it, because they are NOT science.

[PatrickHenry]

Be prepared for the creationist rebuttal to what you've just said:

[Dataman]

natural excretion . . . evodelusion ! ! !

Yes, excrement, being a natural product of a natural process, would best fit a naturalistic theory.

[stanz]

Actually most of humanity believes in a Creator so unless you claim that most people are irrational, then that statement is false.

To me they are just that - - -irrational - - if they spend their lifetimes wrapped up in worshipping figments of other people's imaginations.

[Dataman]

I keep hearing about this return thing, fanatics continue to spout that the end is nigh. I have yet to see it

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will com with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers died, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.

I Peter 3:3&4

How about that!

[f.Christian]

The over lamification of the atheist mind // ego . . . under realization of God // science - - - is evolution bias // blather ! ! !

[Dataman]

You (PatrickHenry)are very, very narrowminded.

The inmates have become the doctors. So many of these smug evolutionists insist on belittling the intelligence of creationists when they themselves come no closer to logic than an ad hominem fallacy.

[Aric2000]

How about what?

I have heard all about his coming back, I hear about this rapture thing, everyone being lifted up to heaven from their cars etc. Sounds like a mass ET kidnapping to me.

Do you really have a clue of the political ramifications of what you are talking about? Do you REALLY know what happened 2000 years ago, has it occurred to you that maybe Jesus WAS the KING of the jews, was in fact royalty, but because of the fact that the Romans were there, he could NOT come to power as the prophecy foretold? Did it ever occur to you that maybe faking his death to keep the Romans off his tail was a REAL smart political thing to do? Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe He Ran for his life? He was a revolutionary, the ROMANS wanted to KILL him.

He was a DANGEROUS man, he could have pulled ALL the Jews together to create a revolutionary Army and overthrown the Roman government if he had had the time.

Jesus WAS KING OF THE JEWS, a DIRECT descendant of King David, his apostles would have done anything to hide him. They would have DIED to keep the secret, because he was going to come back after things settled down and they would have started the revolution for the freedom of Israel, problem is that things NEVER settled down, and when it was tried a few years later, IT FAILED, miserably.

History teaches a LOT about ancient times, maybe you need to study MORE history and less biblical "the world is ending" and I will be saved because I am a christian.

Sorry, went WAY offtrack there, but this coming back bit just kills me. Yes, the messiah is coming back, but you are truly clueless as to when and how. It will be fun to watch.

THe apostles were originally building an Army, but after they were killed, their teachings were perverted into religion. It's about POWER and always has been.

[Dataman]

I put these two points together and I see a prophet who blew it, or is running a couple millenia late

Nice try but not even close. You would need to understand what the "Kingdom of God" was, how or if it was diffrent from the "Kingdom of Heaven" and why Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this earth.

I know theology looks easy to some of you but it is, as Mortimer Adler has demonstrated, the higest of the intellectual pursuits. It is higher than philosophy, says he, because it deals with the origin, purpose and destiny of man. -- And don't tell me that darwinism touches on any of these points. Chance is not an origin, meaningless is not a purpose and dust is not a destiny.

[Phaedrus]

You're not listening, Aric. More specificially, you're not reading my posts carefully enough. Now a little of this nonsense will be tolerated, but not a whole lot more.

Your nonbelief in evolution is fine, but it shows an ignorance of facts.

If you had read my post, you would know I am not ignorant of the facts.

It also fails to take into account that over 99% of scientists believe that evolution is true, this tells me a great deal. Also, when Biologists, genticists, etc USE the theory in their work EVERY day, then it also tells me a great deal.

I don't believe anything like 99% of scientists believe in Evolution. Prove it. And I would be most interested in hearing how they USE the theory every day. And do you really believe that the biology establishment is without an agenda and that that agenda relates to research dollars?

Yes, there are some holes in the Theory that have not been filled, but they are fillng with the missing facts.

When the so-called theory can't even come up with a credible evolutionary mechanism, there are more than holes to be filled, the "theory" is all holes.

Creationists like to make these holes look huge, when in fact they are nothing when the whole theory is taken into account.

Now this is very irritating and another indication you did not read my post. I am not a literal Biblical Creationist. Stop addressing posts to me that have anything to do with what Young Earth Creatiionists believe or maintain.

Evolution CANNOT use god, that is why it is science. Science CANNOT prove, NOR disprove god, therefore god CANNOT be used as a causation, otherwise it would be called religion.

You are attempting to put words in my mouth. This is not anything like my position. Turning it arouond, when Evolution claims, as science, that the origin of our orderly and beautiful universe was attributable to "chance", which was a Stephen Jay Gould position, then, according to you, it is out of line. I happen to agree. The Evolutionists should therefore sit down and shut up when it comes to origins because that is not within science's purview.

As long as creationists DEMAND that god be used as a causation in evolution, they will continue to be disapointed.

Repeat after me, Aric: "Phaedrus is not a literal Biblical Creationist".

As soon as an intelligent designer, god, or whatever you choose to name it, is used, it is NO LONGER science, and therefore does NOT compete with the theory of evolution.

Just take the time to read the posted article, Aric.

If you can come up with a theory that is scientific, not using god as a causation, then we will talk about it being taught alongside evolution, but until then, evolution is the most accepted and will continue to be the most accepted theory by science.

Ah, more sophistry. Here's how science works, Aric. Someone comes up with an idea as to how the universe works. They formulate a theory. Then they check the facts, the evidence. If the evidence doesn't support the theory, it is junked. There is no requirement that a bad idea be replaced, just that it go away.

If you wish your children to be taught ID, creationsim, etc, then teach them, feel free, but do not expect the public schools to do it, because they are NOT science.

NEITHER is Evolution. I support the teaching of ALL the evidence with regard to Evolution in the public schools. That will be quite enough to bury it.

Now read and think before you post to me again. Repetition has a certain educational value but I do expect intelligent argument and a certain respect for the facts.