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

[VadeRetro]

That's where you run right into a brick wall, Vade!

The people who like creation assume that every presumed obstacle to evolution is proof of creation. Better put the bar a little higher than that if you intend to convince any non-believers.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

I think intelligence is a bit more involved than stimulus-response.

It is a very, very low level of intelligence to be sure - but I can stand here for millennia looking at a rock, waiting for it to do something - anything - and it won't. It has no autonomous intelligence whatsoever, and it won't replicate.

[f.Christian]

Every slippery slope is proof of evolution !

[f.Christian]

Every slippery slope // leap is proof of evolution !

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

Better put the bar a little higher than that if you intend to convince any non-believers.

There is no height to which a bar can be raised that would convince all the non-believers. Some will not be convinced until they come face-to-face with Jesus. But that is not the point. In K12 public schools, kids should not be taught to put faith in any ideology - including materialism.

Again, I say: tell the kids the truth, the whole truth, without any prejudice - and let them figure it out themselves.

[mdmathis6]

"Is cow dung different than bull dung?"

Only if you're a feminist cow. Plus dung from bulls is left all over the house, cow dung is always neatly put away!

[Doctor Stochastic]

Again, I say: tell the kids the truth, the whole truth, without any prejudice - and let them figure it out themselves.

Like how some people believe that Damballah created the world? Or how the Flute-Playing-Locust led the Souls of Men from the Third World into Ours? (Through the Sacred Sipapu, before it became a ski resort.)

[mdmathis6]

"ID is creationism wearing a fig leaf"

I tend to agree.... creationism has a God noting that his creation is "Good"!

Intelligent design has a "designer" that makes no such distinctions as "good" or "bad".(I thought Aristotle was "old hat")

(it's no wonder that when moral considerations are taken out the equation, that otherwise rabid evolutionists are quite willing to accept ID as a legitimate theory...it would help them fill in some of those nagging "missing link" questions with-out a "God" person to answer to!)

[Heartlander]

Interesting post…

Just a thought, a comparison for DNA might be a Pro-Engineering CAD Model being sent to a Rapid Prototype machine and assembled robotically.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for the chuckle.

Like how some people believe that Damballah created the world? Or how the Flute-Playing-Locust led the Souls of Men from the Third World into Ours? (Through the Sacred Sipapu, before it became a ski resort.)

You know I don't mean that. I said to tell the kids the truth, the whole truth, without prejudice. That means to give them a good understanding of the mechanisms involved, including randomness or lack thereof - autonomy and self-organizing complexity

[Lev]

I am using the term mutation at the "A" level. Not all mutations are random. For instance, some are reactions to invading viruses, some are to changes in the environment, some are provoked by researchers in medicine.

Well, mutations provoked by researchers can be non-random, but I thought we were discussing things occurring naturally (i.e. w/o our interferance). So, if we are observing a population in nature can you predict which mutations will occur during particular time period?

Regards,
Lev

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[Aric2000]

Placemarker for me as well.

It's fascinating to me how Creationists/IDr's love to claim that people that believe in the scientific theory of evolution, are athiests etc.

From the E-mail I recieved, it is obvious that this is not true, even for a scientist who knows FAR more about Evolution then any of us.

Yes, there are some atheists that believe in evolution, but atheists are a minority in the belief of evolution as they are in the general public.

Evolution is NOT atheistic, and never has been.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution is NOT atheistic, and never has been.

Neither is drinking whiskey and playing poker. But there are those who believe otherwise.

[f.Christian]

Evolution is what ever lie you want it to be !

[gore3000]

You are seeing computer coding constructs in the DNA "code." That's nice. I assume, for instance, that codons themselves are the "symbols" for their aminos

For a change you got something right Vade! So tell us please, what materialist school was RNA sent to to learn how to read these symobolic codes as amino acid symbols. We need to send kids to school to learn to read the symbols in our alphabet so there must have been some kind of DNA school that little RNA's were sent to.

[gore3000]

The people who like creation assume that every presumed obstacle to evolution is proof of creation.

Since evolution has been claiming it is a scientific fact for some 150 years, I think it is time it starts answering some of the hard scientific questions. Complaining that we are being nasty at poor little evolutionists does not cut it. If evolution is indeed the best explanation for life on earth then it has a lot of explaining to do.

[gore3000]

It's fascinating to me how Creationists/IDr's love to claim that people that believe in the scientific theory of evolution, are athiests etc.

Well Aric, you are doing better than usual! You are half right. Evolution is not science.

[gore3000]

Evolution is what ever lie you want it to be !

That's a great one! I just stole it!

[Doctor Stochastic]

Self-organized complexity is a consequence of "random" choices.