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

[LogicWings]

there are few if any credible transitional forms and that "chance" and "mutation" are both failed attempts at explaining Evolution's fundamental mechanism.

That they fail is just your opinion.

These are facts, not religion, and this mode of argument that cites the evidence is in accord with the rules of science.

They are not facts, just your opinion. Since arguing evolution on this board I went back and researched the current views. There is plenty of evidence, the horse simply will not drink the water before it.

Yet there is a small but growing segment of the Evolutionists here on FR that asserts, out of the chute, that I am (1) a "liar" and (2) a "Creationist", the latter of which charges is intended to be pejorative. These are ad hominem attacks intended to discredit me personally. I am neither. Well, if this is the "mode of argument" chosen, those employing it will find that I do not turn the other cheek.

And I, at the opposite poll, have been just as unjustly treated, to the point that i rarely post here anymore. Seems to be the way of things here. That someone would resort to ad hominem attacks is to their fault, not yours. Although i find that many people misunderstand that term and complain about such attacks when the content in fact is a criticism of the argument, not the person, and they just take it as such.

Western Science, which enshrines objectivity, grew to fullness in the womb of Christianity. This is fact, not supposition.

And I would counter that objectivity was in spite of Christianity, not because of it. I have posted countless examples from Copernicus and Galileo to anesthesia to stem cell research where Christianity has fought every advance in science and technology. "if man had been meant to fly, God would have given him wings" From my point of view the credit goes to logic and reason, and not religion.

In my experience, everyone has a theory.

I agree, but I would term it differently. I would say that everyone has a 'world view' by which they explain the universe.

The essential point is that human beings can be rational and objective in spite of the fact that their life is influenced or governed by a structure of belief.

And I would respond that just as people can be rational they 'can be' influenced by a belief but just as it is possible to not be rational, one can also not be 'governed by a structure of belief.' One can rely simply upon experience.

My "theory", if you will, is that God, among many other "things", is Truth.

Gee, how original.
This is called 'Reifying' truth. 'Truth' is not a 'thing.' Truth is a concept and does not 'exist' as God or anything else.

But I have one final point about accusing others of lying before I stop. Some on my side of the debate do this. I don't like it.

I understand. Without knowing which posts you refer to I can't comment. But let me say this. On this thread I have pointed out that asserting that - adhering to the theory of evolution - is a 'faith' is not equivalent to religious 'faith' and that saying so is not accurate. Now, somebody may accuse such a person of being a 'liar' by insisting that considering evolution valid is the same as religious 'faith' in Creationism.

The problem, as I see it, is in the definition of words, and in logic. To insist in a definition that goes against reason and contravenes logic infuriates those of us who understand the importance of reason and logic. I have given up hoping that people will reason logically, rationally. I have seen far too many examples of refusals to reason logically, for whatever reason, to hold any hope otherwise. And in light of this, let me say that many of the frustrated may attack you presonally when you hold irrational views. I understand their frustration.

You either rise above it, or, like me, you leave.

[Phaedrus]

I have said what I meant to say and don't have much to add. While pleased that we are discussing and not shouting, I do have one comment.

Phaedrus: "My "theory", if you will, is that God, among many other "things", is Truth."

LogicWings: "... This is called 'Reifying' truth. 'Truth' is not a 'thing.' Truth is a concept and does not 'exist' as God or anything else."

No, it's not (reifying truth). There was a reason for the quote marks around the word "things". At the heart of these controversies, these heated debates, is the lack of acknowledgement on the part of the Materialists of the reality of the intangible. Yet at the heart of reality itself, as described by quantum mechanics, is the intangible. This will never be understood in material terms. Never. That lack of understanding or acknowledgement, however, does not and will not ever threaten its existence for that lack is simply a measure of our incapacity.

[LogicWings]

I responded a couple days ago and my computer crashed in the post, here I go again.

No, it's not (reifying truth). There was a reason for the quote marks around the word "things".

Truth is a concept, it is not a 'thing', therefore you are 'reifying' truth by saying God is truth. Words have specific meaning, whether you abide by that 'truth' or not.

At the heart of these controversies, these heated debates, is the lack of acknowledgement on the part of the Materialists of the reality of the intangible.

There is no 'intangible' that can be demonstrated to be 'of reality' which is the part you won't acknowledge. Now, you, like most people, will object at this point and point to minds, emotions, thoughts, and all the rest that you will call 'intangible' and I will ask you reasons why you think these things exist and you will give me manifestations in 'reality' that give evidence for their existence, thus proving we aren't talking about the same things. Then I will ask you for evidence of 'angels' 'demons' 'god' 'the supernatural' of which you will have to resort to 'belief' and 'faith' and will this prove there is no evidence.

Yet at the heart of reality itself, as described by quantum mechanics, is the intangible.

This is not true. All evidence for QM is derived from real world experiments, cloud chambers and all the rest of the investigatory mix that is firmly rooted in scientific method verification. One cannot, by definition, give proof of scientific method verification of the existence of the supernatural, the miraculous or any of the other things you mean when you say 'intangible'.

This will never be understood in material terms. Never.

Then why do you try? Give it up. Admit that it is merely a matter of faith and go believe. Stop trying to scientifically prove what you admit can never be proven. Creationism and ID is not science, since science is only concerned with what can be verified by the senses, and you admit the intangible never can be. Give it up.

That lack of understanding or acknowledgement, however, does not and will not ever threaten its existence for that lack is simply a measure of our incapacity.

This is your opinion. Fine. But to say that it can never, ever be proven, and then to assert that it 'exists' is a contra-diction in terms. At this point I must relent. There is no 'rational' conversation with a person who contra-dicts himself and won't acknowledge the contradiction. This isn't a 'lie' (your original complaint) as much as it is irrationality. But those who understand that the position is without reason will say it is a lie. What they mean is what you say cannot be true, since it contra-dicts itself. It is for you to see the contra-diction.

[Aric2000]

Yes, I am, because I cannot give you the pertinent documents that I have read and seen and looked at. Because they are NOT on the web, nor are they available to the general public.

I wish it were otherwise. So, it is truly my word against the public documents that you can access. Therefore I must give up this argument for now.

In another few years, those facts above will change, then we can have the debate on equal terms. But then again, after that, there will be no need for this debate.

[Aric2000]

Why is it then that when I go to ANY developmental biology page on the net, there is always a study going on of Evolutionary developmental biology, as in this example

http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/science/areas/gdb/priorities/areas.html

Or here Developmental Biology & Evolution of Development

http://www.hawaii.edu/zoology/research/developbiol.htm

or perhaps here, describing a course titled, Developmental biology & evolution

http://www.hawaii.edu/zoology/research/developbiol.htm

Why do you lie when the truth is so easy to find?

As far as your claim that ID is science.

Go here: http://old.jccc.net/~pdecell/essays/intelldes.html

There are numerous others, but I am not going to waste any more time on you.

You toss out these ridiculous statements, and claim that they are irrefutable, then I show you that NOT only are they refutable, but have been refuted, you will not stop making the ridiculous statements, you will just ignore the fact that they have been refuted.

You're done G3K, quit it, your silly statements are too easy to show as false.

[Aric2000]

Whoops, screwed up on that 3rd developmental biology link, must have forgotten to hit the copy button on that other link.

Oh well, I think I made my point.

See ya G3K.

Thanks for playing.

Now, would you like to try again, with a little truth, or am I going to have ignore you because you are lying again?

[rmmcdaniell]

Intelligent design will never be taken seriously as a science until they do more than just attempting to refute evolution. They must produce evidence for the existence and the identity of the designer (fat chance of that happening). ID’ers are very similar to Bigfoot believers and other crypto-zoologists. They will remain outcasts of the scientific community unless they capture a specimen. Bigfooters will point out all the hair samples and supposed footprints. Then you hear from them how some of the videos of bigfoot couldn’t have been men in gorilla suits because its physically impossible for men to do the type of movements seen on the tape (their opinion.) No matter how much they try to prove that all the supposed evidence aren’t hoaxes they will be ignored until they produce a body. So you ID’ers, where is your body? Where is/are the designer(s)? Going around saying that certain aspects of living things couldn’t have evolved (your opinion) just doesn’t cut it.

[rmmcdaniell]

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."

This passage in the bible has got to be the biggest cop-out for not being able produce evidence for the existence of the christian god.

If I came up to you and told you I could run a mile in five seconds flat you would first think I was crazy. Then If I kept insisting you would probably get annoyed and demand that I prove it. Then I would respond "If you don't believe me saying it, you wouldn't believe me if showed you right now." If you had any sense you would turn around and never speak to me ever again.

This passage from the bible is why I believe that Christianity is nothing more than a human fabrication invented by a con artist who knew he couldn't prove his wild outrageous claims. How could you ever love a god that made his faith one of many religions on the earth and didn’t prove to everyone that his particular faith was the one true religion? Refusing to lift a finger to help everyone distinguish between truth and non-truth, he then sends those unfortunate enough to choose the wrong religion to a place of un-ending torture. Yours is truly the god of love and goodness (sarcasm)

[rmmcdaniell]

So I suppose you reject the scientific achievements of those from Galileo to Newton to Faraday, not to mention the many, many thousands of scientists today who believe in God? You are very, very narrowminded.

Galileo and Newton lived long before Darwin's time, you can't call him a creationist since evolution had not been considered. Faraday died less than ten years after Darwin's work was published and before the gathering of the overwhelming evidence after the discovery of DNA as the molecule of inheritance. The fact that you can't name any well-respect scientists from this century shows how ridiculous your argument is.

Before the invention of the microscope and the discovery of bacteria and viruses you had many intelligent, rational people incorrectly believing that disease was caused by an imbalance in body fluids. Had they lived later in the 19th century and beyond, I doubt they would have held the same opinions on sickness.

Besides I consider Galileo a coward for refusing to stand up for the truth and refuting his own work to the ignorant gorillas in the church.

[rmmcdaniell]

There is no struggle for life. There is an abundance of plants and animals which could serve as nutrition for other species and examples of large natural deaths of populations is virtually unheard of.

So I'm going to assume that you believe that all the animals in the fossil record that are no longer among us were killed off by humans and not natural processes?

[f.Christian]

Evolution is the . . . dark // DARK ages (( link )) - - -

rising tyranny . . . via . . .

faux conservatives // FR evolutionists // LIBERALS ! ! !

[Phaedrus]

Truth is a concept, it is not a 'thing', therefore you are 'reifying' truth by saying God is truth.

If truth is intangible and God is intangible, how does "reifying" enter in? I think we may be talking past each other.

There is no 'intangible' that can be demonstrated to be 'of reality' which is the part you won't acknowledge. Now, you, like most people, will object at this point and point to minds, emotions, thoughts, and all the rest that you will call 'intangible' and I will ask you reasons why you think these things exist and you will give me manifestations in 'reality' that give evidence for their existence, thus proving we aren't talking about the same things. Then I will ask you for evidence of 'angels' 'demons' 'god' 'the supernatural' of which you will have to resort to 'belief' and 'faith' and will this prove there is no evidence.

Now I think these are very fair questions but you are making assumptions about my position. I do believe that mind is wholly intangible and that the brain in the interface between the intangible realm of mind and physical reality. But you will find in my posts no recourse to authority save that of the demonstrable and supportable. You will find no mention of angels or demons.

Materialist science can deal only with the tangible and, pushed to the limit, materialist scientists will admit that there are places they cannot go. Materialist science demands material evidence, replicability and so on. These are reasonable requirements but they are reflective of the limitations of materialist science. Materialist scientists will also sometimes ignore, deny and ridicule evidence of intangibility, which is not reasonable.

The best example of the blindness of materialist science is found, I believe, in quantum mechanics, discovered in the early 20th Century. At its most minute level, which covers all of physical reality, the best that science can do is to give is a probability distribution of likely events. Yet it is extremely successful science -- in terms of its productivity, the most successful in the history of Man. The physicists have wrestled with an explanation of quantum mechanical indeterminacy for almost a century and have found, based upon elegant experiment, that non-locality is a reality, that cause-and-effect in the Einsteinian sense, does not reign at quantum levels. Which, again, covers all of reality. This intangible at the heart of reality is called, euphemistically, the "observer". It strongly implies consciousness. I would call it consciousness.

Add to this numinous experience. There are many examples in science of the scientist, after diligent pursuit of the answer to some intractable, deep problem, experiences a flash of insight such that the whole of the conceptual answer is somehow grasped or given or felt and the task that remains is to untangle it, which may take years. This has happened over an over again. Both Poincare and Einstein are examples. In music, Mozart is an example. It is not a logical, linear process.

Add to this many, many examples of quite similar Near Death Experience, which are wholly unexplainable by material science. Attempts have been made to explain in terms of brain chemistry but they are defeated by the fact that brain activity is completely absent during these periods.

My conclusion is that it is not so much that the intangible is not real but that the Western Mind has not developed the conceptual tools to deal with it. The Western Mind is prejudiced. I hope my position is now a bit clearer.

This is not true. All evidence for QM is derived from real world experiments, cloud chambers and all the rest of the investigatory mix that is firmly rooted in scientific method verification. One cannot, by definition, give proof of scientific method verification of the existence of the supernatural, the miraculous or any of the other things you mean when you say 'intangible'.

See above.

Phaedrus: This will never be understood in material terms. Never.

LW: Then why do you try?

Because reality has been shown to be not wholly tangible and I have "always" wanted to understand everything. I freely admit I don't understand the origin of this passion to know. The evidence seems to be that it is our conceptual tools that limit our understanding, here in the West.

LW: This is your opinion. Fine. But to say that it can never, ever be proven, and then to assert that it 'exists' is a contradiction in terms. At this point I must relent. There is no 'rational' conversation with a person who contradicts himself and won't acknowledge the contradiction. This isn't a 'lie' (your original complaint) as much as it is irrationality. But those who understand that the position is without reason will say it is a lie. What they mean is what you say cannot be true, since it contradicts itself. It is for you to see the contradiction.

Well, I am certainly not a liar because the intent is wholly absent and I do not see the inconsistency in my position. This may be due to my own limitations, which are real enough, but I have so far found my capacity for understanding to be adequate for lo these many years. I am quite certain I have not learned all there is to know, which is why my mind does and must remain open.

[DallasMike]

Galileo and Newton lived long before Darwin's time, you can't call him a creationist ...

Can't call Galileo and Newton creationists? Bwah-hah-hah-hah! What about Faraday?

You should open your mind a bit more.

[Aric2000]

What he meant is that creationism was it, there were NO other theories at the time, therefore there were no what you would call today, creationists.

That was it, there was no other, therefore calling them creationists would be somewhat redundant, don't you think?

That's right, you didn't want to see what he was saying, you just wanted to attack it. It was pretty obvious from his post that this is indeed what he said.

Words mean things Dallas.

[DallasMike]

Words mean things Dallas.

I think I've noticed that, but have you? If I had never met a non-American in my life, would I be justified in calling myself an American? Of course I would.

Galileo and Newton were creationists because they believed that the earth had a creator. It doesn't matter whether they had ever met a non-creationist.

You're engaging in empty logic by trying to argue the point.

[Aric2000]

Again, I will restate it, since you are having such a hard time with it.

The word creationist did not exist at that time, there were no creationists per se, because there was no need for it, there was NO other theory. Of course they believed in creationism, or said that they did, because there was NOTHING that competed with it at the time.

Is that concept just too much for you Dalls?

[DallasMike]

Is that concept just too much for you Dalls?

Please, don't engage me in any more of your empty logic and insults. Are you an earthling even though (I assume) you have never met a space alien? Of course you are -- to say otherwise would be silly. But you seem to like silly.

What you can't stand is the fact that so many of the greatest scientists throughout history and today have come to the logical conclusion that intelligent design is the best explanation for the origin of life. They may be right or they may be wrong, but until you get past that bit of reality, you're just going to make yourself sound sillier.

[Aric2000]

Let's see, greatest scientists, Intelligent Design. Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Hmm, let's look at this closely, ID is NOT science, and that is NOT my opinion, this is just scientific truth, so a person studying ID is NOT a scientist but a theologian.

Nice try, but you need to do a LOT better then that.

Let's hear these socalled greatest scientists names, shall we, Behe maybe, who has yet to publish anything in ANY real scientific journals to be studied by other scientists?

Please see my post 165 to see an opinion from a real scientist in regards to the "scientific" validity of ID.

What you can't stand is the fact that so many of the greatest scientists throughout history and today have come to the logical conclusion that intelligent design is the best explanation for the origin of life.

As you would say, BWAHAHAHAHAHA, YOU WISH!!

Evolution is Science, ID and creationism are religion, this is NOT my opinion, but the opinion of REAL scientists who know that god CANNOT be used as a causation. When you toss god into the scientific method, it becomes religion.

Sorry dallas, but the premise is faulty, therefore it's conclusions are as well.

Keep trying though, you are bound to find some uneducated people that will agree with you.

[DallasMike]

Please see my post 165 to see an opinion from a real scientist in regards to the "scientific" validity of ID.

After hearing you argue that scientists like Newton, Galileo, and Faraday weren't really creationists, I'm pretty suspect of your ability to recognize a scientist if you ever happened to meet one.

My degrees are in chemistry and chemical engineering. How about yours? (It's safe to assume it's not in logic)

[Aric2000]

Duh, of course they were creationists, I never argued that point, or did you NOT notice that? But creationist as a word and as a particular group DID NOT exist, because there was no reason for it.

THERE WAS NO COMPETING THEORY AT THE TIME.

No wonder you have such a hard time, historical context totally escapes you.