Why All the Fuss About ID's Roots?

Eugenie Scott and Nick Matzke co-authored a recently published paper, "Biological design in science classrooms", contending the Intelligent Design is just papered-over Creationism, both in its history and its content. Whether this is true or not has been debated endlessly, and I do not propose to take that question up again this time. I want instead to ask a "so what" kind of question, centered on their summary:

"In conclusion, examination of both the history and content of ID shows that it is a form of creationism, despite the persistent efforts of proponents to obscure this connection. Creation science was struck down because teaching it would be a form of religious advocacy. ID was invented as a way to circumvent the constitutional barrier to creation science..."

Let's grant for the sake of argument, without yielding the larger point, that ID is a mere stepchild of creationism. Scott and Matzke devote several pages not only to the similarities between ID and creationism but also to the differences. They acknowledge that ID makes no reference to the identity of a designer. By their scientific disagreements with ID, they also acknowledge that ID centers on an empirical research program.

Thus, while they have energetically tried to show that ID is all about religion in schools, they also acknowledge that ID makes no religious claims, and that it centers on empirical matters. Did they not notice this?

If the historical background of a science determines whether it is welcome in the schools, then astronomy and chemistry have to apologize for astrology and alchemy, and then bow out of public education. That's obviously ridiculous. The point is illustrated there, however: it is the current content of a body of scientific endeavor that determines its value, not its provenance.

We're still granting, ex hypothesi, that Intelligent Design is a morph of creationism. Certainly there is some shared history. Suppose it were 100% shared, which it is not, but let's suppose it for now anyway. What difference would that have to make? Is there some scientific evil attached to changing one's opinions? Wouldn't it be possible that ID has emerged from creationism the same way chemistry emerged from alchemy--by learning more about the science involved? Why all this fuss about where ID came from?

Posted: Mon - May 21, 2007 at 05:03 PM |

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson getCategoryName("<$CategoryUUID$>");

Why All the Fuss About ID's Roots?

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson