|
||||||||||
|
|
Intelligent Design 101 - Is ID religious
Creationism in disguise? August 26, 12:19 PM
"Is intelligent design a cleverly disguised
form of scientific creationism?" This is perhaps the most common objection to Intelligent Design
that one encounters among its critics. Indeed, this was the precise
reason given by Judge Jones in order to justify his ruling in the famous Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District case in Pennsylvania
a few years ago that ID could not be taught in public school classrooms. But while some (including myself) would agree that ID should not
be taught yet in public science classes, the reason it shouldn't be
taught which was given by Jones, and which is a common talking point among
those who oppose ID in general is quite flawed. ID theorist William Dembski seeks to expose this fallacy in the
opening chapters of what is perhaps the best philosophical defense of the
validity of the ID approach in print, "The Design Revolution": Intelligent design needs to be distinguished
from creation science, or scientific creationism. The most obvious difference
is that scientific creationism has prior religious commitments whereas
intelligent design does not. Scientific creationism is committed to two
religious presuppositions and interprets the data of science to fit those
presuppositions. Intelligent design, by contrast, has no prior religious
commitments and interprets the data of science on generally accepted scientific
principles. In particular, intelligent design does not depend on the biblical
account of creation. The two presuppositions of scientific creationism are as
follows: • There exists a supernatural agent who
creates and orders the world. • The biblical account of creation recorded in
Genesis is scientifically accurate. The supernatural agent presupposed by
scientific creationism is usually understood as the transcendent, personal God
of the well-known monotheistic religions, specifically Christianity. This God
is said to create the world out of nothing (i.e., without the use of
preexisting materials). Moreover, the sequence of events by which this God
creates is said to parallel the biblical record. By contrast, intelligent design nowhere
attempts to identify the intelligent cause responsible for the design in
nature, nor does it prescribe in advance the sequence of events by which this
intelligent cause had to act. Besides differing in their presuppositions,
intelligent design and scientific creationism differ in their propositional
content and method of inquiry. Intelligent design begins with data that
scientists observe in the laboratory and nature, identifies in them patterns
known to signal intelligent causes and thereby ascertains whether a phenomenon
was designed. For design theorists, the conclusion of design constitutes an
inference from data, not a deduction from religious authority. In addition, the propositional content of
intelligent design differs significantly from that of scientific creationism.
Scientific creationism is committed to the following propositions: SC1: There was a sudden creation of the
universe, energy and life from nothing. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is
committed to the following propositions: ID1: Specified complexity and irreducible
complexity are reliable indicators or hallmarks of design. A comparison of these two lists shows that
intelligent design and scientific creationism differ markedly in content. Intelligent design is modest in what it
attributes to the designing intelligence responsible for the specified
complexity in nature. For instance, design theorists recognize that the nature,
moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of
science and must be left to religion and philosophy. Intelligent design, as a
scientific theory, is distinct from a theological doctrine of creation.
Creation presupposes a creator who originates the world and all its materials.
Intelligent design only attempts to explain the arrangement of materials within
an already given world. Design theorists argue that certain arrangements of
matter, especially in biological systems, clearly signal a designing
intelligence. Besides presupposing a supernatural agent,
scientific creationism also presupposes the scientific accuracy of the biblical
account of creation. Proponents of scientific creationism treat the opening
chapters of Genesis as a scientific text and thus argue for a literal six-day
creation, the existence of a historical Adam and Eve, a literal Garden of Eden,
a catastrophic worldwide flood and so on. Scientific creationism takes the
biblical account of creation in Genesis as its starting point and then attempts
to match the data of nature to the biblical account. Intelligent design, by contrast, starts with
the data of nature and from there argues that an intelligent cause is
responsible for the specified complexity in nature. Moreover, in making such
an argument, intelligent design relies not on narrowly held prior assumptions
but on reliable methods developed within the scientific community for
discriminating designed from undesigned structures. Scientific creationism’s
reliance on narrowly held prior assumptions undercuts its status as a
scientific theory. Intelligent design’s reliance on widely accepted scientific
principles, on the other hand, ensures its legitimacy as a scientific theory. These differences between intelligent design
and scientific creationism have significant legal implications for advancing
intelligent design in the public square. In formulating its position on
scientific creationism in Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court cited the
District Court in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. According to the
Supreme Court, scientific creationism is not just similar to the Genesis
account of creation but is in fact identical to it and is parallel to no other
creation story. Because scientific creationism corresponds point for point with
the creation and flood narratives in Genesis, the Supreme Court found
scientific creationism to be a religious doctrine and not a scientific theory. Intelligent design, by contrast, is free from
such charges of religious entanglement. Intelligent design is not scientific
creationism cloaked in newer and more sophisticated terminology. Intelligent
design shares none of scientific creationism’s religious commitments.
Scientific creationism describes the origin of the universe, its duration, the
mechanisms responsible for geological formations, the limits to evolutionary
change and the beginnings of humanity, all the while conforming its account of
creation to the first chapters of Genesis. In contrast, intelligent design
makes no claims about the origin or duration of the universe, is not committed
to flood geology, can accommodate any degree of evolutionary change, does not
prejudge how human beings arose and does not specify in advance how a designing
intelligence brought the first organisms into being. Consequently, it is mistaken and unfair to
confuse intelligent design with scientific creationism. Intelligent design is a
strictly scientific theory devoid of religious commitments. Whereas the creator
underlying scientific creationism conforms to a strict, literalist
interpretation of the Bible, the designer underlying intelligent design need
not even be a deity. To be sure, the designer is compatible with the creator-God
of the world’s major monotheistic religions, such as Judaism, Christianity and
Islam. But the designer is also compatible with the watchmaker-God of the
deists, the Demiurge of Plato’s Timaeus and the divine reason (i.e., logos
spermatikos) of the ancient Stoics. One can even take an agnostic view about the
designer, treating specified complexity as a brute fact inherently
unexplainable in terms of chance and necessity. Unlike scientific creationism,
intelligent design does not prejudge such questions as Who is the designer? or
How does the designer go about designing and building things? [From: William A. Dembski, The Design
Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 41ff. Emphasis added] Any fair reading of actual ID theory should recognize the
difference between ID and Creationism. Those who refuse to recognize this
clear distinction are either ignorant of what ID actually claims or
intellectually dishonest in attempting to lump it together with
Creationism. Hopefully it is the former. Of course, intellectual dishonesty has been found on both sides
of the debate and any proponent of ID must recognize that many seeking to
promote ID have themselves (including Dembski on occasion!) joined it with
their religious or political agendas. This is unfortunate of course, but
it should not obscure the fact that at the level of actual claims, ID and
Creationism are quite different animals. If
you enjoyed this article, you may also enjoy the following: Can Christians believe in evolution? Intelligent Design 101 - What is 'Specified Complexity'? Intelligent Design - What practical use might it have? (Part
1) Intelligent Design - What practical use might it have? (Part
2) Intelligent Design debunked by 'flaws' in design? Young earth, old earth, creation, evolution...what does
Genesis teach? (Part 1) Young earth, old earth, creation, evolution...what does
Genesis teach? (Part 2) Young earth, old earth, creation, evolution...what does
Genesis teach? (Part 3) Young earth, old earth, creation, evolution...what does
Genesis teach? (Part 4) Young earth, old earth, creation, evolution...what does
Genesis teach? (Part 5) Francis Collins approved as Director of NIH, some atheists
not happy with Obama's choice More About: Book
Reviews · Skeptic
Issues · Church
and Culture · Political/Social
· Philosophical/Worldview
issues · Science
and Faith http://www.examiner.com/x-8276-Methodist-Examiner~y2009m8d26-Intelligent-Design-101--Is-ID-religious-Creationism-in-disguise |
|||||||||
