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

[k2blader]

I still think of science, with all its generalities, as the methodological man's attempt, whether intentional or not, to describe the Creator God.

[Alamo-Girl]

Piffle, the exobiology link was wrong, it should have been this

[Lurking Libertarian]

[Simon Conway-Morris:}"I am also convinced that we are part of God's good Creation"

[You:] Sounds like a creationist to me. Sure, maybe he believes God did not create man as man, but he still believes God is the creator. (Of course, this thread seems to be mostly about arguing semantics anyway, so what the heck.)

The term "Creationist" is used, in these debates, to mean someone who believes in "special creation," i.e., that God created each species (or at least man) from scratch, while the term "Evolutionist" is used to refer to someone who believes that humans evolved from earlier species. Not all (or even most) evolutionists are atheists; theistic evolutionists (myself included) believe that God created man but that evolution was the method He used to do so. Conway-Morris is a brilliant evolutionary scientist, and also a Christian, and is thus a theistic evolutionist.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for the link to the article! It is very interesting indeed as he applies rigorous mathematics to Wolfram's assertions, whereas Wolfram prefers experimentation over proofs.

For lurkers who want to read up on Freeper reactions to Wolfram's views on natural selection, here is a Free Republic thread posted by betty boop.

[f.Christian]

Main Entry: di·chot·o·my
Pronunciation: dI-'kä-t&-mE also d&-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -mies
Etymology: Greek dichotomia, from dichotomos
Date: 1610
1 : a division or the process of dividing into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities
2 : the phase of the moon or an inferior planet in which half its disk appears illuminated
3 a : BIFURCATION; especially : repeated bifurcation (as of a plant's stem) b : a system of branching in which the main axis forks repeatedly into two branches c : branching of an ancestral line into two equal diverging branches
4 : something with seemingly contradictory qualities

[Condorman]

The theory of evolution can be summarized in three concepts: common ancestor, random mutations, natural selection. The mutations may not be as random as Darwin thought.

I'm not certain that is correct. Previously I posted that the theory of evolution is based on these three:

1. Heredity
2. Genetic variation
3. Natural Selection

There have been other mechanisms identified for variation than simply random mutation. For example, Sentis recently pointed out to me ongoing research to identify the role virii play in modifying the genetic code. I have pinged him in case he wishes to post more specific information. Even simple sexual reproduction is also a powerful force for creating unique genetic combinations. It is also worth pointing out that there has been recent work suggesting the possibility of multiple "common" ancestors.

I think your list is at least incomplete. Random mutation is more likely a component of a pillar of evolution than a complete support structure in and of itself.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very, very much for your reply!

If indeed, randomness is not a pillar of the theory of evolution then there is no substantive dispute between it and intelligent design! From the Discovery Institute, emphasis mine:

What is Intelligent Design?

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

So what are we debating then? We can tell the K-12 students that the theory of evolution does not necessarily mean that speciation was the result of random events.

[VadeRetro]

The point is that it is the randomness pillar which separates the theory of evolution from intelligent design.

You have the bar absurdly low for the demonstration intelligent design. The substitution of a deterministic process for a random one is not even a first step in demonstration of intelligent design.

Two space aliens are observing children on a playground. The playground has teeter-totter, where children mostly bounce each other up and down. One observes that once in a while one child will simply stiffen his/her legs and suspend another one in the air with the teeter-totter. He cites this behavior as random.

The second space alien eventually notices some non-random features in the behavior. "For some reason, a skinny kid can't do that with a fat kid," he says. "I think it has something to do with the total gravitational mass. Furthermore, there's a correlation with being something the kids call 'a jerk.' The kid who stops the action and leaves the other kid up in the air is always a 'big jerk,' whatever that is. Sometimes you can even hear the smaller one call the bigger one 'You big jerk!' So it's not random."

"So," says Alien Number 1, "are you telling me someone is forcing these kids to do what they do?"

"Where on earth are you getting that? How does that follow? No, they're just playing. It's still something like a spontaneous behvior, but there are constraints and biases. Not everyone can and not everyone will. Some can and will with some partners but not with others."

Randomness as a supposed pillar of evolution is beaten to death by creationists. Evolution as understood by people actually trying to understand it is not so random as the strawman version. It is constrained by things like chemistry, existing developmental pathways, and natural selection.

Showing intelligent design strikes me as quite a separate problem from showing deterministic behavior where stochastic had been assumed.

[VadeRetro]

From the Discovery (of Nothing) Institute:

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

"Undirected" can be equated loosely with "random," but beware the fallacy of equivocation. Proving that something is deterministic ("lawful and predictable") in behavior--and thus non-random--is not the same as proving that it is directed by an intelligence. Planetary orbits are deterministic, but planets are not pushed about by angels.

[PatrickHenry]

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

So what are we debating then?

According to evolution theory, natural selection is not intelligently directed (so far this is an untestable notion), but it's not exactly random either. Given a litter of newborn critters, some will survive, expecially if they have any genetic advantages (stronger, faster, immune to disease, etc.), and those that may have genetic defects will not. That's not "random," rather, it's virtually inevitable. The appearance of genetic mutations is closer to being random, because mutations are generally unpredictable, but they are still governed and constrained by the underlying chemistry. Think of it like the weather -- often unpredictable, but still the result of understandable natural processes.

[Lev]

The theory of evolution can be summarized in three concepts: common ancestor, random mutations, natural selection. The mutations may not be as random as Darwin thought.
On the one hand, some mutations may be an opportunistic (built-in capability) reaction to the environment, which creates a different environment and yet more opportunistic mutation, etc.

Thanks for the reply. It's a bit clearer now but not quite there yet. What's not clear is your usage of mutation. Is it
A. change in genes or
B. the resulting organism?
A is random, B is not (after changes occured). Do you disagree with the randomness of A? As far as I know it's caused by factors such as radiation, etc. Seems pretty random to me. Please let me know whether we are talking about different things.

Regards,
Lev

[f.Christian]

angel ?? ?? ??

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 (( angels pushing planets ))! ! !

How old are you ? ? ?

[f.Christian]

333

[Doctor Stochastic]

Halfway marker?

[VadeRetro]

Since Professor Morris has clearly stated he believes in "God's creation", how has anyone hijacked his work?

I was specifically predicting that you or someone else would make a point of not getting anything being said here. Worry less about how old Aric2K is or isn't and worry more about how smart you look or don't.

He specifically repudiates the citation of his work as supposed evidence against evolution, which is the use to which creationists and ID-ers alike try to put it.

Creationists do these quote-salads to paint a dishonest picture with other people's words. Oddly enough, although ID-ers supposedly aren't creationists, they have the same license from somewhere to do deliberately sloppy scholarship, selectively and very misleadingly quoting against the author's overall sense in many cases.

[Condorman]

So what are we debating then?

I was specifically challenging your assertion that the theory of evolution was predicated on random mutation. There are other sources of genetic variation.

Keep in mind also that even random events can often be described in terms of probability functions.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

You have the bar absurdly low for the demonstration intelligent design. The substitution of a deterministic process for a random one is not even a first step in demonstration of intelligent design.

I assert that showing deterministic behavior where stochastic had been assumed substantiates intelligent design, especially when the deterministic behavior is actually genetically encoded, autonomously, via symbols, conditionals, process and recursives!

Proving that something is deterministic ("lawful and predictable") in behavior--and thus non-random--is not the same as proving that it is directed by an intelligence. Planetary orbits are deterministic, but planets are not pushed about by angels.

I’m not claiming that planets are being pushed about by angels. If the deterministic behavior is rooted in Physical Laws all you have accomplished is to move the goalpost. At some point, to maintain an agnostic or atheistic worldview, you must appeal to the Anthropic Principle --- even if you plead the plenitude argument along the way:

Interview with Nicolo Dallaporta, one of the fathers of modern cosmology

To get away from this evidence, cosmological scenarios are offered that in one way or another repropose a form of the old principle of plenitude ("everything that can exist, does exist"). The existence is thus postulated of an infinity of chances, among which "our case" becomes an obvious favorable case (today the most popular form is that of multi-universes). What is your view on this?

It is very possible, but it is not physics. It is a metaphysics in which recourse is made to a chance that is so enormously limitless that everything that is possible is real. But in this way it becomes a confrontation between metaphysics in which chance collides with purpose. This latter, however, seems much easier to believe! Physics up to now has been based on measurable "data." Beyond this it is a passage of metaphysics. At this point I compare it with another metaphysics. Those who sustain these viewpoints (like Stephen Hawking, for instance) should realize that this goes beyond physics; otherwise it is exaggerated. Physics, pushed beyond what it can measure, becomes ideology.

So what's wrong with telling the K-12 students that the theory of evolution does not necessarily mean that speciation was the result of random events? That's true, isn't it?

[Condorman]

Who else has noticed that the original challenge, for which Dr. Morris was offered, remains unmet?

[js1138]

Speaking of secret patents, I believe that CAs have been used for decades in crytography to generate pseudorandom strings.

[js1138]

It should be pointed out that errors other than mutation occur in sexual reproduction, including variation in chromosome count, not all of which are lethal or produce sterility.