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

[gore3000]

The bottom line is that even though we know that viruses can cause mutations,

And that's why we have medicines, to get rid of the darned things. It's funny that the "evidence" evolutionists give for their theory kills the organisms instead of improving them. Maybe we should call it the theory of DEvolution??????

[gore3000]

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).

Interesting that you should compare evolution to human intelligence. That is exactly what ID says, that species, organisms, etc. show signs of organization similar to those in human intelligence. That evolutionists have to try to adopt this analogy to fight ID shows quite well that evolution is in its death throes.

[gore3000]

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.

How Darwinian of you - promises, promises, but no facts. Evolution - 150 years of lying.

[js1138]

I think you should be careful about tarring other evolutionists with my sins.

[gore3000]

Most of the virus example doesn't have anything to do with DNA damage. When viruses do cause damage, it's random.

Absolutely false and you know it. Viruses cannot replicate themselves, they take over the cell of the body they are infecting and change their DNA to use for replicating themselves. There is nothing random about it. Shame on you.

[balrog666]

Blue-idiocy skipping placemarker.

[Alamo-Girl]

Let's assume that you are right. Now, are random mutations really necessary for evolution to work? Do proponents of evolution require true randomness or they use the term only because mutaions seem random? … Are you saying that if mutations are not truely random evolution stops working?

As I have mentioned before, if the randomness pillar of the theory of evolution crumbles, it doesn't mean the genetic research and research into natural selection will fall with it. IMHO, it shouldn't!

However, because the theory of evolution currently requires that the process never be directed and that it have no purpose – were the randomness pillar to implode - a new name would be a good idea. People are used to differentiating between Einstein's theory v Newton's - they may need to differentiate between Doe's theory of evolution and Darwin's.

I wish evolutionists were more malleable on randomness. IMHO, if they were, there would be no tsunami coming from the mathematics, physics and information theory corner - and no contest over K-12 education by the ID movement.

One final point, the common descent pillar might be next to suffer from the same line of research. But in this case, because of exobiology and astrobiology theory, if the math doesn’t support a single common ancestor on earth, then the first instinct might be to look to the stars for multiple ancestors. I would expect that of science, but terrestrial or not - the intelligent design argument would remain.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The second link (Karl Svozil) has a bunch of incorrect statemtnts, viz: "Both chaos theory and quantum mechanics assert that there is an irreducible randomness in nature. "Chaos theory asserts the opposite. Chaos theory is a theory of deterministic dynamic processes. Likewise the section is entitled: Lawless universe whereas chaos theory is governed by deterministic laws. Another example: Formally, a lawless universe can be represented by a Martin-Löf/Solovay/Chaitin random bit string, but random bit strings follow laws. One of Martin-Löf's papers even proves that such strings obey: the weak and strong laws of large numbers, the law of the iterated logarithm, and the Borel-Cantelli lemmas. (He does mention this fact, but still calls these lawless.) To be fair, his approach reflects that of the Vienna circle (as opposed to the Ringstrasse).

[Lev]

As I have mentioned before, if the randomness pillar of the theory of evolution crumbles, it doesn't mean the genetic research and research into natural selection will fall with it. IMHO, it shouldn't!

But I am not asking about genetic research. I am asking whether you think that the machinery of evolution stops working if mutations are not random.

Regards,
Lev

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your analysis of the article!

Do you have a better one which would help explain the crossroad and differences between randomness and determinism for the lurkers?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

But I am not asking about genetic research. I am asking whether you think that the machinery of evolution stops working if mutations are not random.

I would not throw the baby out with the bathwater. IMHO, the machinery - autonomy, self-organized complexity - does not require randomness in mutation, formation of genetic code or natural selection.

However, the very strict definition of the term evolution as it applies to biological systems, i.e. the theory of evolution requires that the process never be directed and that it have no purpose.

That attitude portends a tsunami.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I haven't found much. Perhaps when I retire, I'll have time to write up something.

There are differences among the concepts of determinism, randomness, perdictablilty, and chaos. A deterministic systems may exhibit chaos and be unpredictable; on the other hand, a randomly driven system will follow statistical laws. I'll try a couple of (off the cuff) examples.

We can consider a simple deterministic system where particle's position at a given time step is given by 4*X*(1-X). The particle is confined between -1 and 1. However, if two particles start near each other, after several steps, the particles can be arbitrarily far apart (well, 2 units anyway.) Any error in measurement of a particle's initial position means that its later positions are completely unknown.

Another example is to consider a string of "fair coin" flips (where heads=1 and tails=0). After a large number of flips (say 6*10**23, close to Avagadro's number), the mean will be 3*10**23 and the standard deviation Sqrt(1/4*8*10**23) or about 1.2**10^12. The relative error in such an experiment is roughly the standard deviation divided by the mean or about 2**10^(-12). This is why statistical mechanics works so well.

[Doctor Stochastic]

At the cellular level (and actually even on a larger scale), one cannot eliminate the effects of Brownian motion on particles. One consequence of this is that measuring instruments, too, are subject to Brownian motion. This sets a lower limit on the ability to make measurements. Even taking averages doesn't help at these scales because Brownian motion has no instantaneously defined velocity (a fact first noted by Einstein and Smoluchowski.) The best we can do is average over all allowed dynamics at smaller scales. This introduces a random component into such measurements.

It should be noted that the above is only a limit on measurements. The randomness engendered by quantum mechanics is of a different nature altogether.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Evolutionary theory does not require that either mutation nor selection be undirected. Selective breeding of plants (and animals) attempts to direct evolutionary processes. However, evolutionary theory operates whether selection is directed or not.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the additional information!

For lurkers looking for more insight, here is a bit more on the issues: Discussion

By "entropy" as it relates to information theory, the Foundation adopts Hubert P. Yockey's distinction between Maxwell-Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy, Shannon probability-distribution entropy, and Kolmogorov-Chaitin-Yockey sequence/algorithmic complexity. (See Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, 1992, sections 2.2.2 and 2.4.1 - 2.4.6). (See also, Yockey, H.P., (1974) "An application of information theory to the Central Dogma and the sequence hypothesis." Journal of Theoretical Biology, 46, 369-406, and Yockey, H.P.(1981) Self Organization, Origin of Life Scenarios, and Information Theory, J. Theor. Biology, 91, 13-31, and Yockey, H.P. (2000) Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication, Comput Chem, 24, 1, pp 105-123) Yockey argues that there is no "balancing act" between algorithmic informational entropy and Maxwell-Boltzmann-Gibbs-type entropy. The two are not on the same see-saw. Kolmogorov-Chaitin-Yockey complexity does not reside in the domain of stochastic ensembles of statistical mechanics. "Highly ordered" is paradoxically opposite from "complex" in algorithmic-based information theory. The emergent property of "instructions," "organization," and the "message" of "messenger biomolecules" is simply not addressed in Maxwell-Boltzmann-Gibbs equations of heat equilibration and energy flux between compartments. Surprisingly, the essence of genetic "prescriptive information" and "instructions" is not addressed by current "information theory" either. Shannon information theory concerns itself primarily with data transmission, reception, and noise-reduction processing without regard for the essence of the "message" itself.

The Foundation questions whether "order," physical "complexity," or "shared entropy" are synonymous with "prescriptive information," "instructions," or "organization." Christoph Adami emphasizes that information is always "about something, and cannot be defined without reference to what it is information about." It is "correlation entropy" that is "shared" or "mutual." Thus, says Adami, "Entropy can never be a measure of complexity. Measuring correlations within a sequence, like Kolmogorov and Chaitin (and Lempel-Ziv, and many others) is not going to reveal how that sequence is correlated to the environment within which it is to be interpreted. Information is entropy "shared with the world," and the amount of information a sequence shares with its world represents its complexity." (Personal communication; see also PNAS, April 25, 2000, _97_, #9, 4463-4468).

Differences of perspective among information theorists are often definitional. "Complexity" and "shared entropy" (shared uncertainty between sender and receiver) has unfortunately often been used synonymously with "prescriptive information (instruction)." But is it? Mere complexity and shared entropy seem to lack the specification and orchestrational functionality inherent in the genetic "instruction" system of translation.

The confusion between algorithmic instruction and Maxwell-Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy may have been introduced through the thought experiment imagining Maxwell's Demon - a being exercising intelligent choice over the opening and closing of a trap door between compartments. Statistical mechanics has no empirical justification for the introduction of purposeful control over the trap door.

Solar energy itself has never been observed to produce prescriptive information (instruction/organization). Photons are used by existing instructional mechanisms which capture, transduce, store, and utilize energy for work. Fiber optics is used by human intelligence to transmit meaningful prescriptive information (instruction) and message. But raw energy itself must not be confused with functional prescriptive information/instructions. The latter is a form of algorithmic programming. Successions of certain decision-node switch settings determine whether a genetic "program" will "work" to accomplish its task.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your posts!

Evolutionary theory does not require that either mutation nor selection be undirected.

Then there is no substantive dispute between the theory of evolution and intelligent design. That statement in K-12 textbooks would make all the difference!

[Lev]

Then there is no substantive dispute between the theory of evolution and intelligent design.

Here's the dispute: ID says that evolution can't work with random variations.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for your post!

Here's the dispute: ID says that evolution can't work with random variations.

Where does it say that?

[Aric2000]

If life formed by chance (which is wondrous) and suddenly invoked a purpose for survival, isn’t it amazing that it did not eliminate itself?

Just give us a little more time Heartlander, just a little more time. I am almost positive that we can commit mass suicide and kill off every lifeform on the planet.

That's what crazy tyrants are for.

;)

[Aric2000]

ROFLMAO!!

Did you actually just say that?

Phonies talking to other phonies?

Ohhh, could I have fun with that.

Not today though, I don't give my time to psychos.

Now to DallasMike, I'll give time, he's a lot more fun, you're just weird.