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

[f.Christian]

Is that what evolution is . . . a reality license // exemption - - - fantasy // delusions // lies only ! ! !

[DallasMike]

What insight does chemical engineering give you into the theory of Intelligent Design...

First of all, I also have a degree in chemistry and thus approach these matters from the perspective of a scientist. That's a perspective that you don't have, no matter how many scientists you know. And if you're playing that game now, I know a lot more scientists than you. A lot more. Some believe in evolution, but a large percentage of them believe in intelligent design, especially the chemists and biochemists.

And why would chemists and biochemists be likely to support some form of intelligent design theory? Primarily because we understand, for example, how many chemicals are involved in such things as blood clotting, vision, digestion, etc. If a particular enzyme out of the many required for blood clotting, the blood doesn't clot less well, it doesn't clot at all. Evolution simply does not explain how all the chemicals managed to get in the right place at the right time. Does that make sense? I would suggest you read Behe's book for a good explanation of why this matters. There are others as well but Behe does a decent job of laying things out in a manner that non-scientists can understand.

Arguing with you has grown tiresome. You're uneducated (and seemingly proud of it), like to engage in silly word games, and abusive. I also recall that you posted a silly statement around post 151 about the apostles building an army. I called you on it and, of course, you were unable to provide a source except for unnamed secular documents that only you and probably Art Bell have access to. Right. And you have the gall to accuse me of not backing up my claims! Evidently you didn't read the source I provided -- something every scientist learns early on in their education -- that the notion of evolution was around 2,000 years before Darwin popularized it. So, yes, Galileo and Newton were creationists in whatever strange way you want to define it.

I'm not going to play your games any more, so don't bother to spew out more of your abusive nonsense. If you truly support evolution, keep arguing because you're doing a great job of making your side look silly.

[MEGoody]

"I won't get into it any further then I already have, you will find out"

Spoken like a man who is blowing smoke and takes off running as soon as he is challenged.

[MEGoody]

"Because they are NOT on the web, nor are they available to the general public."

LOL Run, boy, run.

[Aric2000]

I'll walk thank you, but I will be redeemed, I can afford to walk away.

Because it is going to happen, it's nice to know something that a majority of people have no clue of.

You may like to think I'm running, and that's just fine with me. But I will be vindicated, and you will not be.

Like I said, it will be fun to watch, LOT'S of fun!!

Enjoy, cause it won't last long.

:)

[MEGoody]

"They will remain outcasts of the scientific community unless they capture a specimen."

Well, that's not a bad thing much of the time. The scientific community is guided as much by politics as it is by the pure love of scientific discovery (if not more so). After all, gotta brown nose the right people to get funding for research.

[Aric2000]

I am clueless?

So far I have given you FACTS and links, you have given nothing but rhetoric.

Spoken like a true creationist ID'r, I won, even if you have facts, I won, because I am a "scientist" and you're not, I won, because I believe in god and god will vindicate me.

Sorry stud, give me facts, NOT rhetoric, some scientist you are, you are making a laughing stock of yourself and those that follow you.

Name me ONE paper that has been published on ID, give me names, a link, anything, on ANY paper that has been published on ID that has been peer reviewed, JUST ONE!! That's all I want.

If not, I think I know who won. I also know who looks silly, and it ain't me.

[MEGoody]

Whether the term 'creationist' existed at the time of Galileo or Newton, are you trying to deny that they believed that God created everything? I certainly hope not, because you'd be wrong. (And by the way, if that isn't the definition of a 'creationist' in your view, then what is it?)

[f.Christian]

Where did you get your reality licence . . . kindercartoon ! ! !

What evolution is . . . a reality license // exemption - - - fantasy // delusions // lies only ! ! !

An illegal forbidden monopoly too ! ! !

[MEGoody]

"I can afford to walk away."

LOL Run, boy, run.

[Heartlander]

Thank you for a honest response in regards to your ‘beliefs’.

Now, as for ID not being science; if science (as currently defined) is:
1. Impartial investigation
2. Applied materialist metaphysics

What does science do when to two go opposite ways?

[Heartlander]

What does science do when the two go opposite ways?

[DallasMike]

So far I have given you FACTS and links, you have given nothing but rhetoric.

I suggest you look through our exchanges. You provided not one fact and not one link. I even specifically asked you for sources regarding your wild claims and in post 155 you refursed to provide any! On the other hand, I provided you with a link showing that scientists developed general, if incomplete, theories about evolution more than 2,000 before Darwin (something that any good science textbook shows) yet you still maintain that people like Galileo and Newton weren't creationists! I also recommended Behe's book for a layman's explanation of why so many chemists and biochemists are skeptical about the claims of evolutionary theory. What's more, you refused multiple times to explain why post-Darwin scientific geniuses from Joseph Lister to Werner von Braun believed that the universe was designed intelligently.

In short, you're long on bombast and fanciful claims and short on anything resembling an intelligent, reasoned argument for your position.

[DallasMike]

And by the way, if that isn't the definition of a 'creationist' in your view, then what is it?

If you read the exchanges between Aric2000 and me you'll find he believes that there was no such thing as a creationist before Darwin. Never mind that Aristotle postulated the theory of "dynamic change" regarding animals and plants some 2,000 years before Darwin and that others, most notably LaMark, had pretty highly developed theories of evolution long before Darwin and Huxley popularized it. To quote him:

"The word creationist did not exist at that time, there were no creationists per se, because there was no need for it, there was NO other theory. Of course they believed in creationism, or said that they did, because there was NOTHING that competed with it at the time."

If you believe that steaming shovelful, then I've got some great oceanfront property in west Texas to sell you!

In all my time as a Freeper I've never come across anyone so pointedly ignorant and as d@amn proud of it as Aric2000.

[Heartlander]

FYI – FWIW
JOHANN GREGOR MENDEL: WHY HIS DISCOVERIES WERE IGNORED FOR 35 (72) YEARS

[aculeus]

Right. The creationists are honest.

[Heartlander]

Because it is going to happen, it's nice to know something that a majority of people have no clue of.

You may like to think I'm running, and that's just fine with me. But I will be vindicated, and you will not be.

Like I said, it will be fun to watch, LOT'S of fun!!

I do admit that you have me confused and yet very curious… I hope you will share this information with us all – please!!! We can all watch with you - and as you said, it will be “LOT’S of fun!!”.

[DallasMike]

Name me ONE paper that has been published on ID, give me names, a link, anything, on ANY paper that has been published on ID that has been peer reviewed, JUST ONE!! That's all I want.

Here's one for starters, you simpleton:

Simon Conway Morris, “Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,” Cell 100 (2000):1-11.

In this article, Conway Morris (a paleontologist and professor in the Department of Earth Science, Cambridge University) argues that “when discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be ‘It happened.’ Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd.” Conway Morris goes on however to stress that “our understanding of evolutionary processes and mechanisms is incomplete” (p. 1), and “constructing phylogenies [evolutionary histories] is central to the evolutionary enterprise, yet rival schemes are often strongly contradictory. Can we yet recover the true history of life?” (p. 1). He concludes his review of current problems in evolutionary biology with a provocative thesis:

...if evolution is in some sense channeled, then this reopens the controversial prospect of a teleology; that is, the process is underpinned by a purpose. It is no coincidence that interest in the Anthropic Principle, which broadly seeks evidence for the boundary conditions of the Big Bang and the ensuing physics and chemistry uniquely favoring the emergence of life...is being extended to the fields of biochemistry and molecular biology (for one view, see Denton, 1998)

The book Conway Morris cites here -- by the New Zealand geneticist Michael Denton -- is entitled Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe.

[DallasMike]

Because it is going to happen, it's nice to know something that a majority of people have no clue of.

I assure you that we're all mystified at how you so consistently come up with the wackiest posts at Free Republic.

[Aric2000]

You see MEgoody, unlike you, when I state something and then realize that the proof I have, I cannot share, nor can I prove with written documentation that is publicly accessible. I back off and give up the argument.

If I cannot prove it through publicly available documentation, then to argue it is moot.

So to say that I am running away is actually a total misrepresentation.

Now to say that there is NO scientific theory of ID, that on the other hand is a fact that you cannot get away from.

Behe was the one that started ID, and he released his papers without ANY scientific peer review whatsoever, those papers have been gone over with a fine toothed comb, and NOTHING can be proven, because the premise is unscientific.

Goddidit is NOT a scientifically verifiable premise.

So sorry.