Intelligent Design is NOT Creation[ism]

This is a topic that has to be addressed and then put to bed. ID was never intenended to take the place of Creation. Creation can stand or fall on its own merits. As can ID. As will be shown IDists understand the difference between the two and Creationists understand the difference. Even some or even most critics understand the difference. The question must then be asked, "why do some critics insist on conflating the two?".

quote:

---

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT CREATIONISM
RESPONSE TO "NOT (JUST) IN KANSAS ANYMORE" BY EUGENIE C. SCOTT, SCIENCE (MAY 2000)
By: Michael J. Behe
Science online
July 7, 2000

​

Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism | Discovery Institute

​

Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier's in the journal Cell: "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human" (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct? (emphasis added)

​

Scott blames "frontier," "nonhierarchical" religions for the controversy in biology education in the United States. As a member of the decidedly hierarchical, mainstream Roman Catholic Church, I think a better candidate for blame is the policing of orthodoxy by the NCSE and others--abetting lawsuits to suppress discussion of truly open questions and decrying academic advocates of intelligent design for "organiz[ing] conferences" and "writ[ing] op-ed pieces and books." Among a lot of religious citizens, who aren't quite the yahoos evolutionists often seem to think they are, such activities raise doubts that the issues are being fairly presented, which might then cause some people to doubt the veracity of scientists in other areas too. Ironically, the activity of Scott and the NCSE might itself be promoting the mistrust of science they deplore.

---

The logic would be that IF ID = Creation then all IDists would be Creationists.
1) Dr. Behe makes it clear he is not a Creationist.
2) Creationist very much doubt common descent.
3) He also makes it clear that he is an IDist.
4) Therefore one can be an IDist without being a Creationist.
5) Conclusion is that ID is not Creation.

quote:

---

INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND CREATIONISM JUST AREN'T THE SAME
By: John G. West
Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology
December 1, 2002

​

Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren’t the Same | Discovery Institute

​

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. (emphasis added)

​

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 evolutionhas, 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.

---

---------------------------------------------------------------------AIG on ID:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.aspYoung* Earth Creation:
1) There was a sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from God.
2) Mutations and natural selection are insufficient to bring about the development of all living things from a single organism.
3) Changes in the originally created kinds of plants and animals occur within fixed limits.
4) There is a separate ancestry for humans and apes.
5) The earth’s geology can be explained via catastrophism, primarily by the occurrence of a worldwide flood.
6) The earth and all living kinds had a relatively recent origin (on the order of 10,000 years ago).(* There are creationists who believe in an old earth. They argue over the length of a day in Genesis. Are the first few days in Genesis actually eras?)ID: pg. 92
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of past intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanation for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.Do the two have similarities? Yes they do. Both also have similarities with parts of the theory of evolution as both agree with parts 1-3 and 4 with additional mechanisms, below. Some IDists don’t have an issue with #5 but say the mechanism is more than NS acting on RM. #6 is out and is only the belief of a small minority anyway. So what label is next IDC evolutionism?Principal meanings of evolution: pg. 136/7
1) Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature.
2) Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.
3) Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
4) The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
5) Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6) Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.All parts with page numbers were taken from Darwinism, Design and Public Education.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

No one is confusing ID with young earth Creationism. But ID has always been a part of Creationism. It's the form of Creationism Behe has in mind when he describes those who think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." This is theistic evolution.IDists have little credibility within science because they are copying the previous dishonesty of young earth Creationists who removed mention of God from Genesis and claimed it was science. IDists are merely removing God from theistic evolution. It isn't fooling anyone.Dembski has provided theistic evolution a mathematical facade and called it intelligent design, but this can't hide the fact that they have no mechanism, no method, no observed event, and worst of all, no candidate for the intelligent designer.The best example of how fatal missing just one of these components can be is Wegener's continental drift theory. He had evidence that the continents of North America, South America, Europe and Africa had once been joined, but he had no mechanism. Scientists just couldn't imagine continents plowing through sea floor. There was no mechanism that could make this happen, and no evidence that it had happened. It took the discovery of subduction and production of sea floor for Wegener's ideas to suddenly seem reasonable and become accepted.IDists need to find evidence of what they claim has happened. That biological processes are insufficient to produce the variety and complexity of life is an unsupported assertion, yet it is the very foundation of ID. All the Dembski terminology of specified complexity, contingency, information and so forth is just so much mumbo-jumbo, for he defines them without any reference to the experimental studies that would have been necessary to develop them. Until this work is done, IDists are just building castles in the air.--Percy

{deleted double post}This message has been edited by RAZD, 09-17-2004 08:43 AM

As I have said before there are fundamental contradictions between what ID claims and the faith based hypothesis of strict literal biblical intrepretation christian creationism as well as with other forms of creationism. Anyone who thinks otherwise has not looked at the full implications of IDism.This still does not answer whether or not IDism is a faith. There are several threads where I have argued this, and you have yet to show a valid response to the arguments. As an example you have yet to state whether or not the definition of supernatural is correct. The list of unanswered posts on where you have been asked this subtopic alone is:
http://EvC Forum: ID as Religion
http://EvC Forum: ID as Religion
http://EvC Forum: ID as Religion
http://EvC Forum: ID as ReligionI expect to see a followup on that topic (not here, heaven forfend that I would take your thread off topic the way you continually do mine)Enjoy.ps -- you still have not asked Mr Hambre what he considers to be creationism. I think he has a valid point that you are missing. If that is so, then this post amounts to a hissyfit.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I think you are getting caught up with definitions.I think everyone here has been admitting that if one uses a strict definition of creationism, which traditionally is YEC, then ID would not be creationism.The problem is that "creationism" does not have to be JUST YEC. You should realize this since you are a Buddhist and would not have to agree to any tenet of YEC and yet if you were pushing that your religious beliefs about how the earth was created should be taught in schools it would still count as "creationism".Thus the criticism is from a broad sense. And RAZD has gone further to define this in the form of involving faith, or specifically faith in the supernatural.But that I'll leave that for them... You have said that you doubt common descent. That makes you a creationist. You also call yourself IDman.Doesn't your argument that ID has nothing to do with Creationism seem particularly strained from that position?This message has been edited by holmes, 09-17-2004 11:49 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I agree holmes that the problem is within the definitions of the words.If you look at the Wikipedia article
Creationism - WikipediaYou will see reference to several forms of creationism, ID and Deism. I think it is important enough that when a specific form of creationism is discussed that it be modified to make your statements more accurate: YE Creationism or literal biblical creationism, for instance.Wonder if he will be back, though ...

An analogy that makes clear why ID is not science just occurred to me. Astrology is a very popular pseudo-science. It is pseudo-science, and not science, because they have never been able to experimentally verify any of their assertions. For the sake of discussion let's say that astrology asserts that Mars rising in someone's horoscope means that they will have a nasty temper. But where is the experimental data establishing this? There isn't any!It's the same for ID. ID asserts that biological organisms possess specified complexity in a contingent manner that could only be the product of an intelligence. But where is the experimental data establishing this? There isn't any!And that's why ID is a pseudo-science. Its purpose isn't to convince scientists. Without evidence it hasn't a prayer of doing that. Its purpose is to convince the faithful, but most of the faithful are evangelicals who will reject ID once they discover it denies Genesis, and Dembski himself is quite explicit that ID rejects the Genesis account.Yet the IDists and the young earth Creationists represented by organizations like ICR and CRS are in bed anyway, because they need each other. If it weren't for evangelicals latching onto ID as their only hope after the failure to move young earth Creationism into public schools, ID would be receiving extremely little attention.--Percy

Not precisely on topic, but not far off either: Dr Dembski is leaving Baylor for a position at the Southern Baptist theological Seminary.
Domain Names, Web Hosting and Online Marketing Services | Network SolutionsIn fact, "Dembski and other evangelical scholars such as Phillip E. Johnson have used arguments of intelligent design to loosen the stranglehold that Darwinian naturalism has held over contemporary science and academic thought."Isn't that special?

RAZD,

quote:

---

the problem is within the definitions of the words.

---

I disagree. You're free to amuse yourself with semantics, and no one's saying there aren't subtle or not-so-subtle differences in the way creationist ideology describes itself. However, as Percy pointed out here, the common denominator in all the creationisms we see is their insistence that natural law is not inviolable, that the universe is not self sufficient. By asserting that intelligent intervention was not only possible but necessary, ID creationism is being just as anti-scientific as YEC. The IDC camp can't define exactly what the weakness of naturalism is (and why it doesn't invalidate all other scientific inquiry), but they say it's an outmoded paradigm.Empirical evidential inquiry is predicated on the assumption that the universe is self-sufficient. Regardless of your personal philosophy, the philosophy of science disqualifies miracles and divine fiddling as valid answers to scientific mysteries. The reason ID is a form of creationism, and that creationism is faith and not science, is because both denigrate methodological naturalism as some sort of atheistic loophole instead of recognizing that it's the very basis of scientific endeavor itself.reagrds,
Esteban Hambre

But even more significantly, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. is quoted saying: No surprise there. I wonder if Dembski would agree? Anyway, it's his own fault for deciding to get in bed with these people and let them use ID toward their own ends without objection.And Dembski himself is quoted saying: No surprise there either.Though Dembski was at Baylor, a respected scientific institution, he wasn't in a scientific part of Baylor. They apparently had him squirreled away in Baylor University's Institute for Faith and Learning.--Percy

so you are saying that the original post that purports to draw a line between IDism and YECreationism is too narrow and is not taking into account the broader spectrum of creationism, but that discussion of the semantics involved is just amusing?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

RAZD,Don't be snide. Where did I bring up the "broader spectrum of creationism"? If you want to debate these angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin niceties with your buddy ID man, knock yourself out. Whether ID is a kind of creationism or creationism is a subset of ID is neither here nor there in my estimation. The funding sources and media outlets enjoyed by IDC are the same as mainstream creationism. The target audience for both is the same. Their tactics involve the same sort of misrepresentation and appeals to "fairness" instead of objectivity. And they both deny the legitimacy of the basis of scientific endeavor.regards,
Esteban Hambre

I don't understand what your position is. Or I should say I don't understand why you think RAZD or I are saying something different than you.We are both telling IDman that HE is not understanding the discussion because he keeps believing that creationism means just YEC. This is not true since there are many creation stories out there. The consistent denominator is "creation" as an explanation of how things happened.I don't think RAZD or myself are denying, nor does are argument take away from your point. I am way onboard with the criticism that they are trying to move us back centuries in science and rational thought, through undermining methodological naturalism.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Percy:
No one is confusing ID with young earth Creationism. But ID has always been a part of Creationism. It's the form of Creationism Behe has in mind when he describes those who think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." This is theistic evolution.

---

The reality shows that if anything Creation is a part of ID. IOW it may be shown that Creation is a subset of ID at the most. Are you saying that Ken Miller and Joe Meert (and others) are actually Creationists?

quote:

---

Percy:
IDists have little credibility within science because they are copying the previous dishonesty of young earth Creationists who removed mention of God from Genesis and claimed it was science. IDists are merely removing God from theistic evolution. It isn't fooling anyone.

---

As if materialistic naturalists have any credibility. ID is based on observation. What is materialistic naturalism based on?

quote:

---

Percy:
Dembski has provided theistic evolution a mathematical facade and called it intelligent design, but this can't hide the fact that they have no mechanism, no method, no observed event, and worst of all, no candidate for the intelligent designer.

---

Dembski is not the only IDist. Design is a mechanism, however it is not important to know how something was designed in order to detect and understand that design. IOW you have set up a strawman. No method- see previous. No observed event? And you observed nature acting alone bringing forth life from non-life? Have you observed nature acting alone bringing forth the bacterial flagellum? We don't need a candidate for the designer. I don't have to know who designed the jet-airliners to know they were designed.Percy's second paragraph is nothing more than one starwman after another.

quote:

---

Percy:
IDists need to find evidence of what they claim has happened.

---

We have and it has been presented:

quote:

---

Percy:
That biological processes are insufficient to produce the variety and complexity of life is an unsupported assertion, yet it is the very foundation of ID.

---

The unsupported assertion is that biological processes are sufficient. Where did those processes come from?Where is your positive evidence Percy? The double-standards are obvious.This message has been edited by ID man, 09-18-2004 09:10 AM

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"