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

[Aric2000]

My grandfather was a chemical engineer as well, had a doctorate. He invented the waterproof glue for plywood that allowed plywood to be used outdoors during WWII.

So what?

Does that mean that your opinion on evolution is valid, I don't think so.

Does that mean that you saying ID is science somehow makes it true?

I didn't think so.

[DallasMike]

My grandfather was a chemical engineer as well...

I'm assuming that you've little formal training in science (I had already guessed as much) since you declined to answer my question. If you had been trained as a scientist, you might be a little more open-minded and you might understand why so many scientists -- especially chemists, biochemists, and physicists, in my experience -- are open to the idea of intelligent design as a viable alternative to evolution.

Do you really enjoy getting trounced post after post?

[Aric2000]

That is what you call a trouncing?

I give you links to articles, I give you information regarding facts, you give me rhetoric, and you say I have been trounced?

Again, as you would say, BWAHAHAHAHAHA, you are a funny man....

Keep trying, I am sure your shots in the dark will soonner or later hit something, I am not sure what yet, but I am sure they will hit something.

Well, I am off to do some fun stuff with my family, I will look forward to you "trouncing" me later on tonight.

Trouncing, LOL, that's a good one!! I am gonna be laughing about that all day long.

[DallasMike]

Aric2000:

Now: Duh, of course they were creationists, I never argued that point, or did you NOT notice that?

Earlier: The word creationist did not exist at that time, there were no creationists per se...

I don't even have to argue with you because you do such a good job of skewering your own arguments.

[DallasMike]

Well, I am off to do some fun stuff with my family, I will look forward to you "trouncing" me later on tonight.

Don't count on it, you're beginning to be tiresome.

Arguing with you reminds me of the infamous scene between the King Arthur and the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. At this point you're at the intellectual equivalent of nipping at my ankles and calling me a chicken for not coming back to fight you more.

[f.Christian]

old ground being re-planted . . . 'evergreens' (( link )) - - - liberals // evolution ! ! !

[rmmcdaniell]

Can't call Galileo and Newton creationists? Bwah-hah-hah-hah! What about Faraday?

You should open your mind a bit more.

Perhaps you should try explaining your position instead of posting a childish "Bwa hah hah" which does nothing to convince anyone.

[DallasMike]

Perhaps you should try explaining your position instead of posting a childish "Bwa hah hah" which does nothing to convince anyone.

I think most people were so amused by you trying to wrangle around the fact that Galileo and Newton were creationists that they had the same reaction I did. For an encore you can prove that Ted Kennedy isn't a liberal.

[Aric2000]

Dallas loves to play word games, as you probably have noticed.

Since the term creationist DID NOT exist at the time of Galileo, Newton etc, because there were no other theories at the time, and therefore the term creationist was NOT needed, does NOT escape him, he just chooses to ignore it.

This way, he can think that we sound like fools, when in fact it is the EXACT opposite.

He claims that they were creationists, well, if they were alive today, their beliefs would make them creationists, but then.... Well, you get the picture.

He does too, but thinks he has a hold of something, so he will continue in that vain until we tire of trying to explain it to him, then he will say that he won the argument.

It's really kind of amusing, in a sick kind of way, when you think about it.

[Aric2000]

And how is that skewering myself?

The word or term creationist did NOT exist at the time, it appeared ONLY after Darwins theory came about and the believers in Genesis had to make up a term for themselves to keep them separate from the unbelievers.

All your doing is sounding like an ignorant idiot, and you seem to do that so well.

You may like to think that they were creationist, and as a modern term, they would have been, but since the term DID NOT exist at the time, I assure you that they did NOT consider themselves such. It was just a basic assumption, kind of like flat earthers, everybody believed the earth was flat in the middle ages, except of course for a few scholars and scientists, but you didn't hear them call themselves that.

Poor Dallas, I feel for you dude, I really do. Historical context has EVERYTHING to do with this conversation, and yet you just don't seem to get it. You seem to be the closeminded one here. Because it certainly is NOT I.

[Heartlander]

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).

I believe you may be referring to the bacterial flagellum. If so, I do encourage you to read:

Evolutionary Origin of Bacterial Flagellum Through Cooption: A Critical Survey – Part 1
Evolutionary Origin of Bacterial Flagellum Through Cooption: A Critical Survey – Part 2
Evolutionary Origin of Bacterial Flagellum Through Cooption: A Critical Survey – Part 3
Evolutionary Origin of Bacterial Flagellum Through Cooption: A Critical Survey – Part 4
Evolutionary Origin of Bacterial Flagellum Through Cooption: A Critical Survey – Part 5

But beyond this, it seems (to me at least) that intelligent design is apparent in DNA by the mere fact that transcription takes place.

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.)

Well, if you didn’t like the “erroneous table”, you probably won’t like these pictures either…

FIG O: Origin of the Phyla: Darwinian predictions

FIG Q: The origin of the phyla: the fossil evidence

The sudden appearance of between 50 and 100 disparate body plans with extremely low species diversity supports the conclusion that neither gradual Darwinian evolution nor lower taxon-level punctuations can account for the origin of the higher taxa and the major body plans.

FIG P: Origin of the Phyla: Darwinian predictions

FIG R: The origin of the phyla: the fossil evidence

The sudden appearance of between 50 and 100 disparate body plans with extremely low species diversity supports the conclusion that neither gradual Darwinian evolution nor lower taxon-level punctuations can account for the origin of the higher taxa and the major body plans.

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).

Well, the science commune still seems unsure if humans have a bigger DNA difference between mice or chimps (I do admit the research is young in this area though). But it is interesting in the area of “Genes and functional parts” that flying mammals and swimming mammals have echolocation in common. (an extremely complex system and apparently bats have done this twice according to DNA).
Spiders and snakes have hollow fangs and venom (spiders without cytotoxic phospholipases though)…

Anyway, personally I find it hard to believe that this eco-system has survived and reached this level of complexity with only the mechanisms of RM&NS (random mutations and natural selection). I say this because if nature is random and without purpose, it extends into natural selection making the whole thing – well, random and without purpose.

If nature has no purpose, but life does… is it just the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and – well… reproducing?

[DallasMike]

He claims that they were creationists, well, if they were alive today, their beliefs would make them creationists, but then..

Which is the point that you're seemingly unable to grasp, preferring to play little word games instead -- and then accuse me of playing word games! I'll give you points for audacity.

I'm sure you don't know this, but the idea of evolution didn't just pop into existence at the time of Darwin. Take a look at this article if you still imagine that the idea of evolution had never occurred to anyone before Darwin, which seems to be the point around which your little word games revolve. The notion of what Aristotle called "dynamic change" in biology was certainly familiar to all of the scientists I mentioned who lived before Darwin, even if you're not familiar with them.

What about scientists like Faraday, Descartes, Kepler, Lister, Maxwell, Joule, Linneaus, and modern-day scientists like Werner von Braun, Fred Hoyle, and Louis Agassiz? All of these were or are believers in some form of intelligent design.

So what are your scientific credentials again? They must be pretty good to allow you to have such confidence in your opinions. Grandpa having been a chemical engineer doesn't count, by the way.

[DallasMike]

Poor Dallas, I feel for you dude, I really do.

After a day of reading your "logic," I assure you that this doesn't upset me in the least. Keep on feeling sorry for me, dude.

[DallasMike]

All your doing is sounding like an ignorant idiot...

At least I know the difference between your and you're.

[Heartlander]

Wow, do you really think mankind could put the entire creator of the cosmos on a leash to display? Or for that matter, an alien being who possibly seeded the planet with life?

By the way, looking at your post#168 – you should be kind enough to share your ‘beliefs’ - i.e. atheism, Islam, naturalism, etc…

I am a Christian.

[Aric2000]

I didn't know that I needed scientific credentials to have an educated opinion on Evolution or ID.

What insight does chemical engineering give you into the theory of Intelligent Design, what are your credentials that makes you so positive that it is true, and of course that it is science?

I am not a scientist, I don't even play one on TV.

But I see what you are doing, since you cannot refute my arguments, which you have not, by the way, you have decided you will do your best to discredit me instead. Can't fight the message, kill the messenger.

Sorry stud, doesn't fly here, doesn't fly at all.

I have studied vigorously about Evolution, ID, Creationism, although with creationism you just read Genesis and you're done.

I also know a scientist in the field of evolutionary science, 2 archeologists, 1 paleantologists, 3 biologists, and 1 geneticist, oh, and an astronomer, and radioastronomer makes 2, and of course physicist, that's 3 physicists that I know, oh and a nuclear scientist as well. I find the physicists and paleantologist the most interesting of them all though. Karol, one of The physicists is a ball at parties!! Astronomy has always been a secret passion of mine, oh, and computer science is always fun as well, I know one of the main engineers at Intel, I helped him with the design of the USB, I was the regional sales manager for a connector company at the time, but that's another story and a long time ago.

So, you were saying something about credentials. If I do not know something, I can always ask an expert in the actual field, and I always do. Oh and of course, the internet is a wonderful resource as well, as you can see from the above post to G3K, which reminds me, I haven't heard from him yet. He probably hit the abuse button and ran.

Oh and the cutesy thing with "your" and the "you're" was interesting, but I had a 7 week old on my lap and was typing with one hand and was in a hurry.

Oh, and by the way, what rmmcdaniel said and what he meant was pretty obvious, YOU are the one that started the little word games, so don't even go there, you want me to post each and every post and prove it to you? I can, and not edit it at all.

Either come up with some hard facts to back up your silly rhetoric, or go play somewhere else. Because so far, that's all I have seen, rhetoric with no facts or links from professionals backing you up.

[Aric2000]

is it just the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and – well… reproducing?

Ohhh, he got it in 1!!

LOL, sorry, couldn't help myself.

[f.Christian]

We who use the scientific method have "faith" in mundane things: Regularity, non-contradiction, the fundamental honesty of our senses (however flawed they may be from the ideal). You, OTOH, place your faith in feelings & wishful thinking, shaped by a 2500 year old collection of middle eastern stories. You have no choice but to explain away the mundane evidence whenever it conflicts with your old stories.

This is like getting an A and saying your dog (( evolution )) did your homework // finals - - - everyone else flunks // fails !

[rmmcdaniell]

Wow, do you really think mankind could put the entire creator of the cosmos on a leash to display? Or for that matter, an alien being who possibly seeded the planet with life?

Theories require evidence for them to be considered scientific theories. Otherwise they are nothing but conjecture, no more scientific than guessing what next week's lottery numbers are. If you can't produce the evidence, whatever your excuse, then stop trying to pass intelligent design off as science.

By the way, looking at your post#168 – you should be kind enough to share your ‘beliefs’ - i.e. atheism, Islam, naturalism, etc…

I am a Christian.

I'm Somewhere between an atheist and an agnostic. An atheist believes that there is no god, while an agnostic believes there is a god but is not sure of that god's identity.

My response to the question "Is there a god?" would be "I don't know."

I understand that many can't live with that kind of uncertainty and join a religion without having any proof of that religion's validity. I however have chosen to be true to myself no matter how emotionally unfulfilling it may be to consider the possibility that there is no purpose to life and that when I die I will wink out into oblivion. I do hope that there is more to the universe than what appears to be. However, wishing and comforting myself by falsely believing in the certainty of an afterlife and a divine being does not make it so.

[f.Christian]

jennyp...

We who use the scientific method have "faith" in mundane things: Regularity, non-contradiction, the fundamental honesty of our senses (however flawed they may be from the ideal). You, OTOH, place your faith in feelings & wishful thinking, shaped by a 2500 year old collection of middle eastern stories. You have no choice but to explain away the mundane evidence whenever it conflicts with your old stories.


fC...


This is like getting an A and saying your dog (( evolution )) did your homework // finals - - - everyone (( science // Truth )) else flunks // fails !

also by---

jennyp...

We know through observation & valid inference that the world is an ordered universe. You don't need to tack on a mythical person who willed it that way in order to understand that it is that way. Just like you don't have to tack on Apollo & his chariot pulling the Sun across the sky in order to understand that the Sun moves.


fC...


Like saying the sole explanation for Christmas is santa claus---

how evolutionist write // think ! ! !

How old are you ? ? ?