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

[DallasMike]

Go ahead and cry to the admin, they will tell you the same thing.

I'm not going to cry to the admin; I was hoping you would be mature enough to shut up on your own.

You are now afraid to debate me, because I tore your arguments to pieces,

You tore none of my arguments to pieces. Instead, you lied and misrepresented facts (though possibly sometimes not intentionally, but rather due to ignorance). There are intelligent people who can disagree reasonably on this thread -- you're not one of them.

[Aric2000]

You need to see a shrink, or do something.

You seem to be under the impression that you somehow have won this debate.

I am sorry, but I have proven:

A: your ID scientist is NOTHING of the sort, he is as a matter of fact, an evolutionist.

B: you claimed that blood clotting was irreducibly complex, I gave you links that prove that your premise is wrong.

There are others, but those are just 2.

You seem to have the impression that none of that meant anything, because I don't have a degree or whatever, well, the people that I linked to are not only degreed, but have PHD's, not only that, they have written peer reviewed papers etc.

Your main problem is the fact that I have been able to tear your fragile little worldview apart, without NEEDING A DEGREE, and so you need to ignore me or explode.

Sorry, no ignorance here, it ALL seems to be you, you claim something. I refute it, you call me ignorant, I find it very amusing. You ID'rs are as bad as creationists, but then again, YOU ARE creationists.

ID and Creationism, ARE JUST THE SAME!!

[DallasMike]

Again, what part of "do not copy me on any more of your moronic posts" did you not understand? Stop your infantile harassment. Are you a truth-challenged stalker in real life or do you just do it on the internet?

[f.Christian]

Evolution is a dumb // illogical theory (( insult // blasphemy )) of science (( creation // id )) !

[Aric2000]

End of thread placemarker?

[Heartlander]

Thanks for the excerpt by Simon Conway Morris.
(and might I add, in reading the posts, that you have exercised extreme patience)

[Heartlander]

New article – posted only once – no one is forcing you to read or debate.

[Heartlander]

Can you give an example of this?

Yes, here are two:
Anthropic Principle
Origin of Life

[DallasMike]

and might I add, in reading the posts, that you have exercised extreme patience

I felt bad a few times because I've never written posts like that but the guy is like the black knight who gets chopped to pieces in Monty Python and the Holy Grail and then demands to nip at the ankles of King Arthur. No matter how many times he's beat up with logic and facts he comes alive again and declares victory.

[Heartlander]

Wow…
I will try to keep my post pithy. Everyone believes a form of ID or the Design Theory with the exception of the atheist / agnostic. (although they may disagree on the starting and stopping of the process)

By the way, I can’t wait to tell my atheist friend who accepts ID as true (via alien seeding) - that he is a creationist. It seems that even some atheists see design in life… Hmmm…

[Heartlander]

LOL!

Yes, I have a theory about this but, to quote Aric2000, “there are NO publicly accessible papers or documents to prove my claim, therefore to continue to argue it or give more info is moot.”

[Aric2000]

Since I had no proof to show you, I gave up the argument.

I thought it was a perfect example of what ID'rs should do.

You have NO facts, nor scientifically verifiable data that show ID to be true, therefore, you should give up the argument until such time you have the proof you need.

Which of course is never gonna happen!!

[Aric2000]

Show me the "logic and facts" I would love to see them.

I never saw anything but rhetoric.

Go ahead Dallas, you are so positive that you showed me "facts and logic" repost them. I really really want to see this.

Put up or shut up there ID guy.

[Heartlander]

First off, Darwin did not publish his theory of evolution in a peer-reviewed journal - he published it in a book. Besides, ID is making progress and having an impact on the Information Theory as applied to biology.

But beyond this:
Trial by peers comes up short

Correspondence with Science Journals: Response to Critics Concerning Peer-Review

Commentary on Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch's "Guest Viewpoint: 'Intelligent design' Not Accepted by Most Scientists

Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature: Response to Critics

...and by the way, “id is not creationism”.
(and look, no CAPS)

[Aric2000]

Guess who actually wrote me back?

I thought that I would copy BOTH of you, since you both claim that the professor is an ID proponent.

Here is my Original E-mail that I sent the Professor.

Professor,

I found an article on the radio netherlands website that I found very fascinating, and wished to confirm some things that have either been misconstrued, or misrepresented or maybe not.

I wish to hear it from you directly, if you have the time to answer such a request.

Some people that believe in Intelligent Design, have used your Convergence theory, to claim that ID is scientific and use your thesis as the proof.

My direct question to you is this, are you of the belief that ID is a valid scientific theory, and with your thesis, are you trying to prove it as scientific?

And my last question to you is direct and straight forward, are you a proponent of the Theory of Intelligent design?

Thank you for your time and I hope that you are able to answer my questions.

I also find your convergence theory very fascinating, to think that if we had not evolved intelligence and self awareness, some other creature would have is just a wonderful concept. It makes a lot of sense to me, not from an ID standpoint but from a basic necessity standpoint. Life would have HAD to evolve intelligence and self awareness. It is a survival thing, and does not put the theory of evolution itself in question, but really brings it to a head.

The whole concept is brilliant.

Best Regards,

Now, for both of you, here is his ENTIRE response, UNEDITED, except of course for my REAL name.

Dear

Thank you for your e-mail. I am, of course, very happy to answer your queries. Briefly,

(a) No, in my opinion Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific theory. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed, but ID is not scientific.

(b) I am sure a number of ID people will use my ideas on evolutionary convergence. So too, I expect, will creationists.

(c) No, I am not a proponent of ID. In my next book (Life's Solution) I spell this position out, I hope quite clearly.

However, I am convinced that evolution has constraint and direction, hence the ubiquity of convergence. I am also convinced that we are part of God's good Creation, but unlike ID I take creation seriously, and can see no way how we can emerge except by the processes of evolution based on normal Darwinian principles. These, in their way, are as basic as the mass of an electron or speed of light.

To some the universe is a contingent muddle, blind and meaningless. My view is the complete opposite, and science is one avenue to see how utterly extraordinary is the world we live in. lf we took that message a bit more seriously, we might be less inclined to trash it. Others, once again, differ.

I hope my answer is helpful.

Yours sincerely
Simon Conway Morris

He states, Unequivocally that he is NOT a proponent, NOR a believer in ID theory, not only has he said this, he SPELLS it out.

It seems that I knew exactly what he was saying and you Dallas, miscinstrued him into saying something that he had not said.

PH, Don, Dan and Radio, I have pinged you because I want you to witness what happens when a scientist who is claimed to be an ID'r is asked DIRECTLY. He states NO, I am NOT a proponent of ID and in my opinion, it is unscientific.

He is a believer in god, and it again shows that to believe in evolution does not mean that you are an athiest or anything else that most ID'rs and creationists claim.

This is the actual E-mail Dallas, and you are going to claim that I wrote it or whatever, but I assure you, I wrote him and he wrote me back.

Your argument, once again, TORN ASUNDER, by the poor little black knight. Get a grip Dallas....

[PatrickHenry]

Nice going.

[Aric2000]

PH,

Would you be so kind as to ping the list for post 275, I want everyone to be able to smack down an ID'r if they ever again claim that Professor Morris is an ID proponent.

Thank you sir!!

[PatrickHenry]

Ping. See post 275. Aric2000 wants everyone to be able to smack down an ID'r if they ever again claim that Professor Morris is an ID proponent.

[VadeRetro]

Your 275 is bookmarked. Now if I can just remember to use it at the right times!

[Doctor Stochastic]

"Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies."

Thereby joining in alliance with the Post-Modern-Deconstructionists. At least the Creationist-ID group didn't complain about "Western Linear Thinking."