Recently, while browsing the “A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence” thread, I came across a post by Bio-molecularTony, who apparently associates himself with the Intelligent Design movement. In his post, he frequently made reference to the designer in question being God – and, with this assumption, went on to discuss the possible abilities, motivations, etc. of God.
In response to Tony, Coyote asked why someone would post so much about religious belief in a thread relating to Intelligent Design. I suggested that Tony didn’t correctly understand what Intelligent Design was about. Coyote then went on to argue that Intelligent Design is fundamentally an evolution of “scientific creationism,” thus implying (apparently) that Tony was correct to assume that Intelligent Design is a religious idea.
Since this topic is fundamentally different from the original intent of that thread, I think a new topic is order.
Continuing the discussion:
The reason I cited Of Pandas and People is the following (this is the textbook going through editions and revisions):
Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”
Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”
Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”
Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”
Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”
Note that these last two versions span the Edwards v. Aguillard decision of the U.S. Supreme Court banning creation "science" in schools. That is what led to the invention of "intelligent design." This is a clear case of a creationist text being cut-and-pasted, changing "creationists" to "design proponents" -- except for the one place they missed and ended up with "cdesign proponentsists." So yes, I believe that intelligent design was invented to masquerade its religious background, and to replace creation "science" after it was banned by the court.
As I was saying, I could perhaps agree that the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, who wrote the textbook, changed from being a creationist organization to being an organization advocating Intelligent Design. If I recall correctly, one of the writers of the textbook testified at Dover that “creationists” was a placeholder term until a new term was thought up. This seems unlikely to me, however, since a lot of traditional creation science was apparently in early versions of the textbook. (global flood, “kinds,” etc.) Thus, it would seem that the FTE changed from being a creationist organization to an organization supporting Intelligent Design during the time period you mentioned.
While I agree that Intelligent Design draws some of its support from creationists and former creationists such as the FTE, I disagree with your statement that “intelligent design was invented to masquerade its religious background, and replace creation ‘science’ after it was banned by the court.” I disagree because I think its clear that many of the advocates and supporters of Intelligent Design come from very anti-creationist backgrounds. As I mentioned in my second post, Michael Behe was a Christian both before and after rejecting evolution in favor of ID. David Berlinski was an agnostic both before and after he started supporting ID. Demsbki, Rana, and Ross are all examples of old earth creationists who have weighed in to support Intelligent Design. All of these people hold and advocate beliefs that are extremely offensive to YECs. Yet, they are among the founders of the Intelligent Design movement.
As a result, I think Intelligent Design draws its support from many groups, including creationists. Frankly, this shouldn’t be surprising, considering that many groups advocate a world that is intelligently designed.