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

[Heartlander]

For more information:

Intelligent Design Creationism

Now, sure there are those who will apply ID to a Christian perspective but neo-Darwinism is applied to an atheist perspective:

“It is a fact that God is continuously being publicly discussed by very well-known scientists- just read Gould, Dawkins, Hull, Provine, Wilson, Simpson, Futyama, Sagan, Hawking, and others. From a nineteenth century perspective, books like The Blind Watchmaker (Dawkins, 1986) and Wonderful Life (Gould, 1989) are simply Bridgewater treatises such as Paley, Owens, and Roget wrote, works in which up-to-date science is used for the task of world-view apologetics.”

In context:
Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker, p 6, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1987
Paley knew that it needed a special explanation; Darwin knew it, and I suspect that in his heart of hearts my philosopher companion knew it too. In any case it will be my business to show it here. As for David Hume himself, it is sometimes said that that great Scottish philosopher disposed of the Argument from Design a century before Darwin. But what Hume did was criticize the logic of using apparent design in nature as positive evidence for the existence of a God. He did not offer any alternative explanation for apparent design, but left the question open. An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. like to think that Hume would agree, but some of his writings suggest that he underestimated the complexity and beauty of biological design. The boy naturalist Charles Darwin could have shown him a thing or two about that, but Hume had been dead 40 years when Darwin enrolled in Hume's university of Edinburgh.

And Stephen Jay Gould’s greatest hits:
Track 1 "Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God. . . ."
Track 2 "Before Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us."
Track 3 "Why do humans exist? . . . I do not think that any 'higher' answer can be given. . . . We are the offspring of history, and must establish our own paths in this most diverse and interesting of conceivable universes-one indifferent to our suffering, and therefore offering us maximal freedom to thrive, or to fail, in our own chosen way."
Track 4

It comes down to:,
Intelligent Design vs. stupid design

And for those who say ID is a political movement, I submit:

Darwin and the ‘X’ Club

Let’s not forget the problems with textbooks.

…and beware of those who debate using Evolutionary Logic.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Bump for later

[balrog666]

Is cow dung different than bull dung?

[dd5339]

Ping for later reading...

Semper Fi

[Aric2000]

Give me a break, ID has to have god, or an intelligent designer. Therefore it is the same as creationism, it is religious.

Creationism and ID are religious, Evolution is scientific.

Just as you say, a pile of excrement by any other name.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[ClaireSolt]

The scientific method is objective, by definition. Science that proceeds for the purpose of proving any theory has closed its mind to the search for truth. It is the job of ethicists to add morality to the possible applications of scientific disovery.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Creationism and Intelligent Design exhibit the same differences as do a puma and a cougar.

[Junior]

So, dearheart, how did the "Intelligent Designer" come into being? Was he designed? If so, who designed him and was that person designed? Or, did the "Intelligent Designer" evolve naturally? If so, why would it be possible for him to naturally evolve and not the rest of us?

For all intents and purposes, ID is creationism. Just follow the above questions to their logical conclusions.

[Heartlander]

So, dearheart, how did the "Intelligent Designer" come into being?

You tell me ‘snookems’ – you profess to be a Roman Catholic. Got any theories?

[f.Christian]

natural excretion . . . evodelusion ! ! !


Main Entry: ex·cre·tion
Pronunciation: ik-'skrE-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 1603
1 : the act or process of excreting
2 : something excreted; especially : metabolic waste products (as urea and carbon dioxide) that are eliminated from the body and differ from a secretion in not being produced to perform a useful function

[Tony Niar Brain]

Intelligent Design and Creationism, if there really is a difference, both make a fundamental misjudgement about science. Science begins with the evidence and data from observations, and from that draws conclusions. ID and creationsism work the other way; they start with the conclusion first, and then find the evidence to support it.

Now, many scientists refer to God or even intelligent design; Newton said that he was discovering God's blueprint to the universe with his work. But his never started from that premise. Intelligent design is a nice idea, and it sure would explain a lot, just don't call it science.

[DWar]

The evolutionist CHOOSES to believe in the superiority of empiricism to explain reality. He accepts the world-view of naturalism and uses an inductive argument based on individual, scientifically demonstrated, "immutable" laws of nature and makes them to collectively become an idea he calls "Natural Law." It is his BELIEF that this "Natural Law" is the impersonal, governing agent, which brings order to the universe and makes the knowledge of reality possible.

The creationist CHOOSES to believe in the sovereignty of God to explain reality. He uses a deductive argument that begins with the God Who had the ability, desire and purpose for creating the physical universe. He believes in the necessity for universal order, but understands it as existing within the will and purpose of the Creator. Because all of reality exists within the will and purpose of God, it is His will and purpose that brings order to the universe and makes the knowledge of reality possible. He may cause events to occur that ordinarily do not do so, without this occurrence abrogating the concept of universal order.

The creationist accepts the teaching of Scripture and the world-view arising from it, by faith. The evolutionist believes that he has a world-view built on irrefutable scientific evidence, WHEN IN ACTUALLITY HIS IS A FAITH BASED PHILOSOPHY, TOO. Both attempt to organize their observations to fit their pre-existing belief systems and both will continue to do so.

In the Gospel According To Luke (16:19-31) Jesus tells a story, the culmination of which includes a rich man in hell begging that his relatives be warned of their impending judgment. He says to Abraham, "but if one went to them from the dead, they will repent." Abraham responds, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead."

When Christ returns His opponents will continue to vainly rage and argue with God.

[Karsus]

What I do not understand is why every one thinks a day is 24 hours. The length of the day depends on where you are. It is only on Earth that the day is 24 hours long.

[Aric2000]

I keep hearing about this return thing, fanatics continue to spout that the end is nigh.

I have yet to see it, your credibility is getting lost in all the noise.

[Junior]

Maybe God set the whole thing in motion 15 billion years ago, and His creation is so perfect He's not had to come in and tamper with any organism's genes. In other words, what happened would be indistiguishable from natural processes, as they are natural processes programmed into the system before the Run button was pushed.

[PatrickHenry]

Is cow dung different than bull dung?

Both creationism and ID (creationism's little sister) claim that evolution didn't happen. They differ only in the alleged identity of the creator. They are both totally dedicated to an irrational dismissal of the accumulated evidence. Both are anti-science and anti-rational. ID is creationism wearing a fig-leaf.

[PatrickHenry]

ID is creationism wearing a fig leaf. Ping.

[This ping list for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be added (or dropped), let me know via freepmail.]