Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same
Discovery Institute ^ | January 9, 2003 | John G. West, Jr.

Posted on 01/13/2003 10:33:14 AM PST by 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




TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 461-471 next last
To: Doctor Stochastic
LOLOLOL! Ok, here's score of scores plus one (if someone doesn't beat me to it.)
401 posted on 01/30/2003 9:38:46 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
I always avoid post 288 though.

It's two gross.

402 posted on 01/30/2003 9:44:37 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (The world is a solemn place, with room for tennis. - John Berryman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
LOLOLOL! Ok, it's too gross.

Another tidbit: The New Jerusalem

The number 288 is first implied in the description of the Spirit of God (Elohim) hovering over the face of the waters in the story of the acts of creation. Later Jewish mysticism (Lurianic Kabbalah) preceded these 288 to the creation of this world. From an original 320 Lights making the Divine Crown, 288 fell into the demonic mire, and humankind was created in order to redeem these 288 trapped light sparks, raise them to return them to God.

Like in Revelation 7, in the Book of Numbers (7:1-88) there is an exhaustive repetitious count of the 12 tribes. This comes after two realistic-like censuses of the number of members of each tribe (chap. 1 & 2, both adding to 603,550), but then comes the dedication of the Tabernacle, and each leader of the 12 tribes bring an exactly similar offering, made of 24 items (2 silver and one golden vessel, and 21 animal offerings). Thus the dedication of the Tabernacle/Temple is marked by 288 (12x24) offerings, reflecting on the Temple’s role in raising the 288 fallen light sparks, and only then does the Holy Spirit appear there.

403 posted on 01/30/2003 10:29:04 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Randomness is counter-indicative to order, complexity, symbolization, memory and conditional processes.

Sorry, I don't understand your reply. Looks like we have to go back to definitions to make sure we are not talking apples and oranges. What is random? And can you give me some examples of randomness in nature? Or there is no such thing?

Thanks,
Lev

404 posted on 01/30/2003 11:03:52 AM PST by Lev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike
#1 Yes, I gave up the argument because I have no facts available to back me up.

So OK, I'll give you that one. you won that, only because my proof is unavailable at this time, but when it does become available, I am going to trounce you on this one.

#2 Creationists as a word DID not exist. THerefore they were not creationists, NOW we would call them creationists.

Result, Tie at most, you winning it, not quite.

#3 Peer reviewed paper on ID, you quoted a person who has stated without any question that ID is NOT science and is not and has NEVER been an ID proponent. Therefore using HIS peer reviewed papers to prove your personal beliefs is not only disingenius, it is dishonest.

Result, I won, and I appreciate you admitting it.

#4 Evolution not explaining.

I gave you links to every one of your claims that refute your claim that they could not have evolved. They did evolve, get over it.

Result: I won whether you care to admit it or not, each link I gave you was by a scientist, peer reviewed and accepted as a definite possibility. You were tromped on this one, not just a little bit either, but trounced, HARD!!

There, now we are at least close to the truth.

Behe has been disproven, BIG time, whenever a scientist gets hold of one of his books, they trounce it like a red headed step child. It has so many assumptions that CANNOT be proven that it is insane, and the ones he claims can be proven, such as irreducably complex have been trounced and trounced and trounced.

ID is NOT science, it is religion, get over it.
405 posted on 01/30/2003 11:09:35 AM PST by Aric2000 (Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Show me ANYWHERE G3K besides in your psycho little head that states that Evolution is NOT science.

I would LOVE to see it.

Come on Gore, 1 Link to a peer reviewed scientist who claims that evolution is not science.

Prove to me that this is a serious statement and not some sick little thing that pops out of your head because evolution scares you.

I have yet to see ANY prrof from you on any of your socalled facts.

I have seen each and every one of them refuted and then blown away like so much dust.

You are clueless, as usual.

Evolution isn't science, come G3K, you need to do a LOT better then that.
406 posted on 01/30/2003 11:13:07 AM PST by Aric2000 (Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Re #3, you get a bonus for Dallas Mike's own-goal.
407 posted on 01/30/2003 11:17:22 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (The world is a solemn place, with room for tennis. - John Berryman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Viral evolution is often used as evidence for the theory of evolution...

Random mutation and natural selection of viruses is used as evidence of evolution.

Germinal (sic) mutations can also be caused by viral infection, i.e. it is not limited to chemical mutagens and background radiation.

We know that a virus can cause mutations in the host genome. And those mutations are random.

IMHO, if the viral mutations of DNA were not largely predictable (e.g. not random) - medicine would have great difficulty in treating infections and developing vaccines.

Treatment of infections is a separate issue from DNA mutation. Many infections do not change the host DNA and those that do may or may not have a mutagenic effect that results in heritable changes (most don't) or DNA mutations changes that cause disease (most don't). What's more, predictability of a phenomenon is different from predictability of a mutation. We can predict a rain shower tomorrow but that gives us no information about where each rain drop is going to hit. We can predict the effects of an infection that a virus may have on the host, but such an effect is random.

We can predict that mutations happen and we can even predict the rate/species. We can predict that this results in evolution. But the mutations are random. This doesn't help your case in any way. You are way off with this one.

408 posted on 01/30/2003 11:24:22 AM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Re #3, you get a bonus for Dallas Mike's own-goal.

Yes, but he shouldn't be so proud of himself. You don't have to look too closely to recognize that Conway Morris uses the language of ID, just doesn't call it that and refuses to identify himself as one. That's why his views are called "controversial" and "unorthodox," as you'll note. When ID becomes more acceptable (and it is every year, which is what scares you guys) then he may well come around and admit it.

As for the rest of Aric2000's rantings, it's baloney with an extra dose of belligerence.

409 posted on 01/30/2003 11:32:33 AM PST by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
#2 Creationists as a word DID not exist. THerefore they were not creationists, NOW we would call them creationists.

Result, Tie at most, you winning it, not quite.

Your argument was that there were no competing theories. I proved that there were. You're back to your word games again.

SoreLoserman.

410 posted on 01/30/2003 11:36:35 AM PST by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Lev
Thank you for your post!

The theory of evolution requires that the process never be directed and that it have no purpose.

Therefore, evidence of order in biological systems which cannot arise by random chance (a fair toss of the coin) suggests direction or design. The underlying order of biological systems is being aggressively explored in response to von Neumann’s challenge, as Chaitin described in this 1988 article for Scientific American:

Chaitin: Randomness in Arithmetic

At the end of his life John von Neumann challenged mathematicians to find an abstract mathematical theory for the origin and evolution of life. This fundamental problem, like most fundamental problems, is magnificently difficult. Perhaps algorithmic information theory can suggest a way to proceed.

It has indeed progressed with the epistemological zeal of mathematicians, physicists and information theorists. (I have previously offered various links to substantiate that claim.)

Ultimately, each of us will have a different hope for the results of this effort:

Science at the crossroad between randomness and determinism - Karl Svozil Institut für Theoretische Physik, Technische Universität Wien Wiedner Hauptstraße November 2002

``What appears to be more frightening: a clocklike universe which is totally governed by deterministic laws, or a lawless universe which is totally unpredictable and random?''

Bottom line: the natural realm is either guided or random. If it is guided, it may be by deterministic laws or by intelligence. If it is guided by deterministic laws, then the goalpost has moved and one can either choose intelligent design or anthropic principle in resolving it, metaphysically speaking.

411 posted on 01/30/2003 11:48:32 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike
When ID becomes more acceptable (and it is every year, which is what scares you guys) then he may well come around and admit it.

Call us when it becomes as popular as Astrology.

412 posted on 01/30/2003 11:56:07 AM PST by balrog666 (If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
Thank you for your post and for sharing your information!

We can predict the effects of an infection that a virus may have on the host, but such an effect is random.

Because of the wording of that statement, and my past failures to communicate with you on other threads, I stand down from exploring this any further.

Thank you for the discussion!

413 posted on 01/30/2003 11:56:56 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike
Yes, but he shouldn't be so proud of himself. You don't have to look too closely to recognize that Conway Morris uses the language of ID, just doesn't call it that and refuses to identify himself as one.
Not only that, but both Morris and Behe write in the English language!

In other news, Both the Republican Pres. Bush and Democratic Gov. Gary Locke spoke Tuesday night, but even though they both spoke the same language, they disagreed with each other. How can that be???

LOL!

414 posted on 01/30/2003 12:00:17 PM PST by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
As I asked in prev post: Could you define 'random' and give some examples of randomness in nature?

If you'd rather not, no problem, you may have more important things to go.

Thanks,
Lev

415 posted on 01/30/2003 12:06:50 PM PST by Lev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Bottom line: the natural realm is either guided or random. If it is guided, it may be by deterministic laws or by intelligence. If it is guided by deterministic laws, then the goalpost has moved and one can either choose intelligent design or anthropic principle in resolving it, metaphysically speaking.

There are probably other ways of dealing with the existence of deterministic laws (I assume you mean, for example, the laws of physics). It may not be thrilling, but there's also dumb luck, in that we have a universe which is the way it is. [But seriously folks] I suspect that deep down lies a fundamental principle which requires that in order to have a universe, things have to be the way they are. In other words, simple physical necessity. But we haven't begun to figure all of this out yet. It's way to early to give up trying to solve these problems, and (with a shrug) toss it all in the lap of an intelligent designer.

416 posted on 01/30/2003 12:12:31 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: Lev
Thank you for your post!

As I asked in prev post: Could you define 'random' and give some examples of randomness in nature?

I answered the question with the authorities I linked at post 411. Randomness is discussed in both links. The first link had an HTML error, so here they are again:

Chaitin on Randomness

Science at the crossroad between randomness and determinism

I see a completely ordered natural realm and thus cannot point out an instance of randomness anywhere. Indeed, my hypothesis is that algorithm lies at the root of all that there is in the natural realm.

If these replies and links do not answer your question, then I must presume a failure to communicate on my part and withdraw from discussing it any further with you.

417 posted on 01/30/2003 12:21:41 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thank you so much for your post! Indeed, you are correct - the plentitude argument is a third disposition, metaphysically speaking:

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.

The "dumb luck" and "in order to have a universe, things have to be the way they are" are probably swept up in the anthropic principle argument.

418 posted on 01/30/2003 12:27:05 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; VadeRetro; jennyp
Just thought I share this with you: "The Quixotic Message", or "No Free Hunch"
*stilllaughingmyarseoff*
419 posted on 01/30/2003 12:40:12 PM PST by BMCDA (ID is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
OK, so I'm what some on this thread would call an extreme evolutionist. I believe the evolution paradigm can usefully be applied to many processes, including human thought (the very intelligence that others say is required to design anything complex). I believe evolution is useful in explaining how learning works in humans and animals, how technology develops, how societies and moral codes develop.

So I am not at all surprised at the idea that biological systems may appear to be learning from experience, that DNA might exhibit a simple thought process (which you call an algorithm). To me, learning and evolving are the same process, though the time scales and physical implementation are different.

As tortoise might say, physical implementation is immaterial. Pun intended.

420 posted on 01/30/2003 12:40:44 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 461-471 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson