Thinking Christian

Glenn Branch and Eugenie C. Scott write in a Scientific American article dated today,

Creationists who want religious ideas taught as scientific fact in public schools continue to adapt to courtroom defeats by hiding their true aims under ever changing guises

Such is the expected stance from leaders of the National Center for Science Education, which would be more aptly named the National Center for Serving up Evolution. The burden of their message is this: Creationism hasn’t changed in any way since the 1920s. It has only “thinly disguised” itself “with a fake mustache.” Intelligent Design is creationism; creationism (today) is Intelligent Design.

Conspiracies can be so scintillating, and a conspiracy is what Branch and Scott see here. They see conspiracy behind the recent Louisiana legislation on science education, which was designed to

“create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied,” which includes providing “support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied.”

First asking “what’s not to like” about that, Branch and Scott go on to see dark things in it indeed:

[L]urking in the background of the law is creationism, the rejection of a scientific explanation of the history of life in favor of a supernatural account involving a personal creator. Indeed, to mutate Dobzhansky’s dictum, nothing about the Louisiana law makes sense except in the light of creationism.

Most of the rest of the article is about creationism lurking everywhere.

Rhetoric is a blunt weapon, and in many cases, the blunter the better. A clear, sharp definition of the terms used here would not have served Branch and Scott’s purpose at all. What is creationism? They don’t say (but it’s lurking everywhere!). What is it about creationism that’s so awful? They’re more clear on that: it disputes evolution, and it proposes the possibility of a Creator. (Watch out! It’s after you!) In the end it’s going to get you:

Moreover, it is a dangerous lie…. Students who are not given the chance to acquire a proper understanding of evolution will not achieve a basic level of scientific literacy. And scientific literacy will be indispensable for workers, consumers and policymakers in a future dominated by medical, biotechnological and environmental concerns. (Emphasis added.)

Let me note in passing the lie (shall I call it a dangerous lie?) contained there. There are no responsible spokespersons or leaders in the Intelligent Design movement who want to deny anyone a chance to acquire a proper understanding of evolution. I’ve been urging my own son and daughter to learn it better than their classmates. But oh! there’s an awful risk–the risk that some might not believe! It cannot be worth taking, can it? There may be advantages, yes, in students learning “critical thinking skills” and “logical analysis,” and the ability to “understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories.” But stand that up against the possibility that they might not believe everything about evolution, and those advantages begin to look pretty small. Critical thinking and analytical understanding are okay in their own way, but belief in evolution (not just knowledge, but unquestioning, unblinking, unchallenged belief) is more important by far. Yes, sir, that’s how we keep science advancing! Make sure everybody believes everything the prior generation believed, and make sure they never hear about any dissent!

After all, as Branch and Scott assure us, “Allowing teachers to instill scientifically unwarranted doubts about evolution is clearly beyond the pale.” Really, now. It’s bad, sick, immoral, and unconscionable! Well, my, my! It certainly wouldn’t do to reveal that where textbooks say such-and-such “could have” or “might have” happened to bring about the first life, what they really mean is “nobody in the whole world has the vaguest trace of an idea how the first life originated, or could even possibly have done so just by natural means.” That would be instilling “unwarranted doubts,” wouldn’t it?

But I’m letting myself get sidetracked here. What I really want to know is how Branch and Scott define “creationism.” If we’re going to drive a whole world’s education policy by reference to such a dangerous concept, we ought to know what the concept is and what’s dangerous about it. Creationism was once a pretty useful word, a word that actually had a reliable and useful definition. It stood for a full constellation of ideas, including:

1. Adherence to the Judeo-Christian scriptures, especially Genesis
2. A relatively young earth (thousands or at most tens of thousands of years old)
3. Catastrophism (the Noahic flood) as an explanation for fossils
4. Reliance on a certain literal reading of Genesis as source and guide for research and conclusions about the natural world
5. Rejection of common ancestry of species; all species were created separately

Now if Intelligent Design is creationism in disguise, it is quite an effective disguise indeed. But then a good conspiracy theorist can always see through these things. See how perceptive they are: they’re wise enough to see that Intelligent Design is really creationism, even though ID specifically rejects or at least sets to the side every one of these five creationist tenets.

I’m a Christian; I believe in the truth of Genesis. I hold to Item 1 on the above list, yet I know that some ID proponents do not. I do not hold to a young-earth interpretation of Genesis or of nature, however. I think the fossils are best explained by gradual processes. My interpretation of Genesis, tentatively and non-dogmatically, is more along the lines of the Framework theory, which takes some of Genesis 1 and 2 to have a figurative rather than a plain literal intent. And with regard to #5, my mind is open; I don’t claim to know. I believe in Creation: does that make me a creationist? Not by its usual definition.

>Could creationism’s definition be broadened to include people like me? Certainly! You could say a creationist is any person who believes that God created, without respect to the methods, timelines, or processes involved. But then, if we’re going to be honest with it, we also need to be honest with how we employ the term rhetorically. You see, there’s a reason, other than conspiracy theorizing, that Branch and Scott (and Pennock and Gross and others) keep harping on that “creationism” term. It’s because the scientific evidence lines up so strongly against young earth theories, catastrophism, and so on. Creationism (as in the 5-point definition above) has been discredited; its reputation is poor.

ID and creationism have two things in common, conceptually: they both challenge evolutionism, and they both challenge scientific materialism. In both senses they challenge the reigning dogma. How convenient it is for these defenders of dogma to attach ID to an old, discredited idea; even though the new idea shares little if anything in common with the specific areas in which the old one has been found wanting.

Never mind that a few facts get distorted along the way; never mind that the whole of Intelligent Design is being misrepresented and distorted in the process.

Conspiracy hunters who distort reality to that extent usually get labeled as kooks. They’re in the majority this time, so that protects them from disreputable branding. Being in the majority doesn’t make them right, though. Creationism in its rhetorically useful (for evolutionists) form, the form in which they want you to think of it, is not Intelligent Design; and ID is not creationism of that sort.

A final note as I close. I’ve said this often, and I’ll repeat it yet one more time. I’m probably undercutting ID’s own best strategy by pointing any of this out. As long as ID opponents fight a form of ID that doesn’t exist in reality, they’re not even in touch with the real battle. Branch and Scott are off fighting a war of their own imagining. Maybe I shouldn’t point that out to them; but then, if they ever did come over and address what ID really is, things might actually get a lot more interesting, and a lot more productive besides.

Share This

Yesterday I tried to set aside a question about the relation between creationism and intelligent design, but bobxxx commented,

I have a few things to say about creationism and intelligent design. I think people who pretend these are different ideas are being dishonest. Invoking creationism is the same as invoking supernatural magic. Invoking intelligent design is the same as invoking supernatural magic.

… and it really does call for a thoughtful response. I have already answered him on the use of the word “magic,” so I will focus on the general question of creationism and ID.

D1. Self-Described Creationists‘ Definitions of Creationism
Let’s consider the definitions as they are put forward by different groups. First, those who use the term “creationist” describe themselves. There are two broad categories: old-earth creationists and young-earth creationists. Both agree on the following:

1. God is eternal, immaterial, all-powerful, omniscient
2. God created the universe ex nihilo, out of nothing. Matter, space, and time are not eternal but were created by his own word.
3. Life was originated on earth by God’s direct action, and God was directly involved in the formation of each new kind of organism. “Kind” is defined more loosely than species by most creationists, allowing for the possibility that closely related species (like dogs and wolves, for one very obvious example) resulted from a single creative intervention.
4. Humans were not only specially created in the sense of (3), but were also imbued with God’s image, meaning that God gave us, in a special creative act, the ability to reason, to communicate, to relate to others and to God as persons, to make choices with moral significance, to create, and so on.
5. Most crucial of all: the first three chapters of Genesis, understood literally, are a reliable guide to the science and the proper understanding of the history of life, the universe and (pardon the allusion) everything. It is from this conviction that (1) through (4) flow.

Young-earth creationists hold that all of this happened recently, in the past 10,000 years or so, and that scientific evidences for an older universe are based on various misinterpretations that I will not go into here, except to note that they consider the form of the fossil record to be the result of a universal Noahic flood. Old-earth creationists disagree: they accept the plain (in my opinion) evidence showing that the universe is about 14-15 billion years old, the earth is 3.5 billion years old, and so on. Old-earthers differ among themselves in their views on the Flood and its influence on geology and paleontology. They generally agree with (5) the validity of the first three chapters of Genesis, but they hold that its original intent was that some of the language be taken in some figurative sense, allowing for the passage of more than six 24-hour days in the process.

D2. Intelligent Design Proponents’ Definition of ID
Proponents of Intelligent Design define ID quite simply in these terms: there are features of life and natural history that are best explained by inference to an intelligent source in their origination. This is an uniformitarian argument: we see wherever the origin of complex information and certain other types of complexity can be identified, it always comes from an intelligence. We see complex information and those certain types of complexity in nature, and we can rationally infer intelligence also as the source of that. (I do not intend to go into the details of what constitutes such information and complexity; that’s not my purpose here and others are more qualified to discuss it.)

D3. ID/Creationism Opponents’ Definition of Creationism
Jerry Coyne helpfully provided one definition of creationism, from the perspective of an opponent to the view. I’ll quote it again in full:

But regardless of their views, all creationists share four traits. First, they devoutly believe in God. No surprise there, except to those who think that ID has a secular basis. Second, they claim that God miraculously intervened in the development of life, either creating every species from scratch or intruding from time to time in an otherwise Darwinian process. Third, they agree that one of these interventions was the creation of humans, who could not have evolved from apelike ancestors. This, of course, reflects the Judeo-Christian view that humans were created in God’s image. Fourth, they all adhere to a particular argument called “irreducible complexity.” This is the idea that some species, or some features of some species, are too complex to have evolved in a Darwinian manner, and must therefore have been designed by God.

That’s not a bad description of creationism as accepted by those who call themselves creationists, except that (4) irreducible complexity is optional; “scientific creationism” preceded any discussion of irreducible complexity by several decades.

D4. ID/Creationism Opponents‘ Definition of Intelligent Design
I think the most common definition of ID I’ve seen spoken among its opponents “is creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” The general sense is that it’s the same as creationism defined in D1, except ID people try to hide the religious aspect.

Analysis
So how do we sort out all of these definitions? Let us first note that ID (D3) makes no reference to the Bible as a research source. Therefore D1(5), the most crucial methodological component of D1 creationism, is completely out of the picture. If Genesis is of utmost importance to D1 creationists, and of no particular relevance to D2 Intelligent Design, can ID be the same as creationism? Frankly, this is possible only if the D2 Intelligent Design definition is an IDer’s lie. That’s where the D4 accusation of hiding comes from, and the belief that ID is dishonest is widely held. This is in spite of the fact that none of the arguments for ID depend on the Bible, or even make reference to it.

D1 creationism and D2 Intelligent Design share two crucial point of agreement: that it’s okay to consider the possibility that the world is not a closed system of natural cause and effect. This above all else is what raises ire among people like Jerry Coyne, who, as we have seen, will lump a committed evolutionist like Kenneth MIller in with a creationist like Ken Ham, because Miller believes in a God who has intervened in history—not the development of life, to be sure, but at least the original creation of the universe and the life of Christ.

D1 creationism and D2 Intelligent Design also share the opinion that neo-Darwinism and its variants are inadequate to explain the origin and development of life on earth.

Rhetorical Ploys
ID opponents consider Intelligent Design to be playing a rhetorical game: disguising and hiding their real agenda, which is religious (reports like this make put that in doubt, of course, and there are indeed many non-religious ID proponents). I think there is another rhetorical game going on. Opponents of Intelligent Design have a reason for equating it with creationism. Creationism (D1, young-earth variety) has a terrible scientific reputation, and it has a clear religious agenda that has been ruled out of school by U.S. courts. Though ID (D2) is quite clearly distinct from creationism (D1), it serves opponents’ rhetorical purpose to associate it with a long-standing poor science record and with religious motivations.

What About Dover?
Judge Jones ruled in Dover that ID really is creationism, and it really is religious. On this I think he was simply wrong. D2 is not equal to D1. Of course the local body, the Dover School Board, was not so clear on this, and they did have a religious motivation for introducing the topic of ID into the schools. On this they erred, but ID leaders know the difference more clearly than that.

One reason Jones ruled as he did is because of clear evidence that the library book in question, Of Pandas and People, used the term “creationism” rather than “Intelligent Design” in its early drafts. “Aha!” shouted the opponents, “Here’s proof that the two are the same, and they’re just hiding it!” No, that’s only proof if the term was used in the D1 sense in the original drafts, which according to my information was not the case.

There was a time when there was only one term in general usage for the view that evolution is an inadequate theory; and there was a time when that term “creationism,” was not as clearly defined as it can be now. There is nothing unusual about vocabulary evolving in that way, and every writer knows there’s nothing unusual about realizing your first draft is wrong and needs correcting. The time came when it was clear that creationism was the wrong word. ID opponents say this was because proponents saw the political disadvantage in it. Frankly, that too smacks as a rhetorical move on their part. Do they have evidence from the writers that this was their motive?. What about the possibility that the writers realized they were using the wrong word, because what they were talking about wasn’t D1 creationism at all, but D2 Intelligent Design?

What About Intelligent Design Proponents Who Are Religious?
Finally, what about people like me and many others who support ID and are at the same time openly believers in God? I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and that he was directly involved in the development of the various kinds of organisms. I hold to an old-earth version of D1 creationism, and I support ID. There are many others who would say the same. Does that make ID equivalent to creationism? Well, I believe that squirrels eat birdseed, while at the same time being convinced that birds eat birdseed. Does that mean I think squirrels are birds? Of course not.

I can support a program that seeks natural evidences for design, and at the same time hold the Bible teaches design, and at the same time recognize that those two attitudes are not identical to each other. That’s not so hard to see, is it?

Recent Related Posts:
A Man of Great Faith
Jerry Coyne’s Line in the Sand

Share This

Several times in the last few days the term “Intelligent Design Creationism” has crossed my line of sight. It’s a misnomer, a duct-taped concatenation of concepts that overlap somewhat, but not enough to merit being stuck together the way ID opponents have done. Robert Pennock is perhaps the worst, but Barbara Forrest, Richard Dawkins, and P.Z. Myers are also frequent offenders.

The difference between the two terms is straightforward. Creationism begins in Genesis and argues for certain conclusions based on a certain understanding of the Scriptures. It is known for its persistence in seeking scientific data that fits that interpretation of Genesis, and for finding creative but irregular interpretations to help in that search. As such it has gained an unsavory scientific reputation.

Intelligent Design has a completely different starting point in observations of nature, and in both empirical and philosophical interpretations of scientific data. It sees phenomena like the high information content in biological organisms, instances of apparent irreducible complexity, or fine-tuning of the cosmos for life, and argues that the best explanation for them is to be found in a designing intelligence.

The two overlap in rejecting any a priori insistence that nature is a closed system of physical cause and effect, acting strictly according to natural law or unguided chance. There is also an overlap among their supporters, in that virtually all creationists are theists (Christian, Jewish, or Islamic), and most (not all) ID supporters are too. Still, many creationists are uncomfortable with ID methods and conclusions, and many ID supporters similarly disagree with creationist approaches and conclusions.

In a word, the two are not the same. But opponents insist on blurring the distinction.

I have theorized in the past that their reason for doing so was simply to manipulate the rhetoric of the discussion, to tar ID with the same unscientific reputation held by creationism. This weekend another possibility occurred to me: maybe they really can’t tell the difference.

I don’t mean that quite as negatively as it might seem, or I should say, not in the way it might seem. I don’t mean to imply that they are too unintelligent to make a distinction. What I’m wondering about is whether they are handicapped by worldview blindness. I’m not drawing a conclusion; I’m just wondering.

Worldview blindness, if it exists in the form I’m thinking of, would go like this: There is the scientific, rational way of viewing the world, and there is everything else; and everything else is superstition or religion. The scientific rational way is the intelligent way, the way that comports with reality, the refined and educated way of looking at things. The religious way, on the other hand, is undifferentiated; it’s all of one irrational sort. Distinctions within the religious way are therefore just semantical, since it’s all really just one thing.

If this analysis is true for some ID antagonists, it is an ironic one. They consider themselves to be the careful, rational, empirical thinkers, but there is a whole landscape they cannot even see.

It’s not only ironic, though. We have a term for people who say, “Everyone like me is good, and as for those who aren’t like me, well, I can’t tell any difference between them anyway.” It’s not a very favorable term, either.

I wish I could think of some other explanation than the two I’ve suggested here. I would welcome other ideas. For now, it seems to me that the failure to distinguish ID from creationism stems either from intentional rhetorical manipulation, which is dishonest, or from worldview blindness, which is a different kind of fault but not much better.

Share This

Yesterday in the thread on ID and creationism, a commenter using the handle “Wheels” pointed out,

The starting point [for both ID and creationism] is with religion, namely Christianity in this case. The arguments used in Pandas were all Scientific Creationism arguments. The terminology used in Pandas‘ early drafts were all old-hat Creationism. When ID was substituted, the arguments and substance of Pandas did not change.

Then he asks why I say the current question is not about Of Pandas and People, the Discovery Institute, or the historic roots of ID. That’s a reasonable question, and to answer it I’m going to set up some background and then ask a few questions of my own.

The meanings of terms are certainly influenced by their history, and Intelligent Design does have a strong historic link to creationism. Of course that is true for both creationism and ID; and I believe for most people, creationism still means what it did for most scientists back in the 1960s and in the decades following. It would go something like this:

Creationism begins in Genesis and argues for certain conclusions based on a certain understanding of the Scriptures. It is known for its persistence in seeking scientific data that fits that interpretation of Genesis, and for finding creative but irregular interpretations to help in that search. It is committed to a young-earth view of origins, opposes common descent, and violates scientific thinking by supposing that God can and does intervene in the regular workings of nature. As such it has gained an unsavory scientific reputation.

That’s creationism as it is commonly understood. Now, are there other ways to understand creationism? Of course there. This is a “Thinking Christian” blog, and I believe in God as creator. I believe God has performed acts of creation; thus in a sense I am most certainly a creationist. But I am not a creationist in the sense stated in that prior definition.

And I think that prior definition is the relevant one for the sake of this discussion. I’ll come back in a moment to explain why. First, we need to look at the other term under discussion, Intelligent Design. Its proponents would define it something like this (I’ve added a couple of clarifying phrases):

A scientific and philosophical research program, not committed to any source Scripture or to young-earth theories, not necessarily opposing common descent, and open on the question of God and his potential involvement in the regularities of nature; which explores the proposition that certain features of life and nature are best explained by reference to a designing intelligence.

Is there some creationist agenda hidden there? Certainly it has an anti-philosophical materialism intent, and most ID proponents would love to see that philosophy overthrown. That’s an agenda, but it’s not specifically a religious or creationist one. Certainly ID has historical roots in common with creationism, and some ID advocates would be happy to call themselves creationists.

But agendas and overlapping group membership were not the topics of the past blog entry. The question was, “why do some people insist on saying ID is creationism?” That issue is clearly distinct from agendas or group membership. Unitarian-Universalist ministers overwhelmingly vote Democratic; does that mean Unitarian-Universalism is the same thing as the Democratic Party? Of course not. There is more to both of them than their agendas; so even if Intelligent Design had a politico-religious agenda just like that of the most religious creationist, that would not make ID equivalent to creationism. In order form them to be the same (as I said yesterday afternoon), ID would have to fulfill the definition of creationism along with its own definition, like this:

Intelligent Design is a scientific and philosophical research program investigating the proposition that there are certain features of the natural world that are best explained by reference to a designing intelligence, which is not committed to any particular religious view of origins, is not committed to opposing common descent, is not committed to a Young Earth view of origins, and which is open on the question of God’s interventions in nature; which is unscientific, committed to the book of Genesis, is opposed to common descent, holds to a Young Earth view of origins, and insists on the importance of God’s interventions in nature.

So here is my first question for you who believe ID is equivalent to creationism: Do you see now why I say they are not the same? Do you see why that is true regardless of ID’s history?

I said I would come back to address whether it was right to define creationism the way I did above. It has a rich and varied set of potential meanings, after all. I’m going to handle that by asking my second question, which gets to the heart of the matter as it comes up in actual practice. When ID opponents say “ID is just creationism” or when they refuse to refer to it as anything other than “Intelligent Design Creationism,” what are they intending to communicate? What sense of “creationism” do they have in mind? What impression are they trying to convey?

If the answer is anything similar to the definition I gave above, then that’s the meaning that matters for this discussion. I contend that that definition is so predominant, if anyone wants to use the term to mean something else they must carefully explain what they have in mind. Otherwise listeners/readers will assume the default definition, the one given here, is what is intended.

And then I have one last pair of questions: If the default meaning of “creationism” is anything like what I’ve suggested here, does it advance productive dialogue to equate ID and creationism? Do they even care about productive dialogue?

Some of you will no doubt answer, “No, why should they care? ID is just creationism, after all!” I suggest you re-read this post.

Note to commenters: I intend to keep discussion here focused on the questions I’ve asked. If your answer is not relevant to those questions, don’t be surprised if it disappears without warning. The prior thread is still open for other topics, provided they relate to that blog post and discussion.

Share This

A few days I posed a tentative question, wondering whether some of those who do not distinguish Intelligent Design from creationism may be exhibiting a kind of worldview blindness, one that causes them to see everyone different themselves as being all the same. That led to one of the highest-velocity discussions I can remember having on this blog, continuing also here.

I posed it as a question, not a dogmatic statement, and I am committed to remaining a learner in this blogging business. Anyone can suffer from worldview blindness; in fact, I’m sure to some extent all of us do. The best antidote I know of is to listen to and learn from people with different perspectives. Having had this discussion, I would not pose the question the same way I did on Sunday.

I’m still in the process, but this is how I would summarize my views following this discussion (so far). Can Intelligent Design be distinguished from creationism? Several commenters said no, for historical reasons. Its roots are intertwined with scientific creationism of the mid-twentieth century. Early writers on ID used the term interchangeably with creationism for a period of time in the 1990s. Some ID proponents are or have been believers in special creation, some of them even believing in young-earth creation. And ID’s most likely and most common interpretation is that the Designer was God, who is believed to have actually created the world ex nihilo.

So there are multiple ways to define creationism. One commenter said creationism was anti-evolutionism, and if so then ID is creationism. I challenged that person’s view: not that it was necessarily wrong, but that it was an essentially private view that most people would not think of when they hear or read “creationism.” Still it demonstrates that there is not just one way of looking at things.

I acknowledge now that there is a sense in which ID is (usually) a form of creationism, broadly construed as the belief that there has or have been some creation event or events outside the course of law- and chance-driven natural processes. In that broad sense of the term I proudly stand up and proclaim myself a creationist. I was wrong in my first post to define it exclusively in the terms that I used then:

Creationism begins in Genesis and argues for certain conclusions based on a certain understanding of the Scriptures. It is known for its persistence in seeking scientific data that fits that interpretation of Genesis, and for finding creative but irregular interpretations to help in that search. As such it has gained an unsavory scientific reputation.

On the other hand, Plato and Aristotle both made inferences to a First Cause or a designer of some sort, so it is obviously possible to draw a design inference without being a theistic creationist. In the first twenty or so comments on the first post it became apparent that we were dealing with an issue of multiple definitions. That issue was still at the forefront early this morning. For without dispute there are different ways of viewing creationism. On Monday morning I began asking the question a different way: given that there are varying meanings attached to the term, which one is relevant? I content that the relevant meaning of the word is whatever springs to most readers’ or hearer’s minds when they encounter the word, and secondarily it is whatever the person who uses the word intends when they speak or write it.

If every person who said “Intelligent Design is creationism” or insisted always on calling it “Intelligent Design Creationism,” had the broad definition in mind; and if every listener understood it that way, then there would be no strong reason to quibble over it. (There would still be technical problems with it, but I wouldn’t argue them myself.) I don’t think that’s the way the world is, though. It’s certainly not the sense conveyed by my chief interlocutor in these two posts, when he famously said, “Intelligent Design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo. If there was a court case, it would not be found constitutional.” It’s not the sense conveyed in a comment like,

Intelligent Design as a term has quite simply been hijacked for the political purposes of sidestepping the First Amendment in education when Creation Science finally failed its constitutional test.

Charlie reminded us of one ID leader’s take on the topic:

Is [Phillip] Johnson a creationist? The trial lawyer answers the question cautiously, demanding to define the term. “In what sense?,” he asks. “The word ‘creationist’ has been turned by the media into a very specialized word: it means a young-earth, six-day, Biblical literalist.”

If he is right (and I think he is), then that is the relevant definition for purposes of the discussion we have been having.

So for now this is where I land:

1. There are multiple ways of understanding “creationism.” According to one of them, I am a creationist, the vast majority of ID proponents are creationists, and it would be generally fair to describe ID as creationist (with some exceptions I don’t need to worry about here). I say so with no qualms or reservations, provided the appropriate sense of “creationism” is in view.
2. Most of the time when “creationism” is used in popular media and especially by ID detractors, however, it is intended to communicate something else: young-earth, Genesis-based beliefs, accompanied by irregular scientific interpretations. It also entails rejection of common descent.
3. Intelligent Design does not entail rejection of common descent, a young earth, or belief in Genesis.
4. Intelligent Design therefore is not creationism in the sense stated in (2).
5. Therefore, from (2) and (4), when “creationism” is used in popular media, and especially by ID detractors, most of the time its effect is to communicate something that does not accurately apply to ID.
6. Nevertheless ID detractors imply or explicitly affirm that ID is creationism, understood as stated in (2).
7. When ID detractors communicate this way, they are affirming a false proposition.
8. When ID detractors affirm this false proposition, they do so either knowingly or unknowingly, aware or unaware.
9. If they do so knowingly, it seems to me the most likely purpose for their doing so is rhetorical manipulation (see here, here, and here), which is essentially dishonest.
10. If they do so unawares, then one possible explanation for their doing so is worldview blindness. I continue to hold this as a tentative theory, but I am open to other explanations.

I would be interested to hear if anyone else who has been involved in these discussions could point to anything they learned from them.

Share This

Cameron said this morning, in the thread, “Maybe They Really Can’t Tell the Difference,”

The relevant purpose here, per the OP, is to determine if ID shares enough similarities with creationism to justify using the term “ID creationism.”

That’s an excellent clarifying point, so thank you, Cameron. The answer is quite simple. The point of putting words in sentences is to communicate through them. It is a communication issue. From a communication perspective, what does “creationism” contribute to the term, “intelligent design”? Does it promote understanding or confusion?

Versions of Creationism

That’s a helpful question worthy of exploring. Adding “creationism” to ID indicates that it’s a subspecies of creationism. That means it is a subspecies of one or more of these beliefs, all of which could be called creationist:

1. That something or someone unknown, outside the natural order, has intervened through a creative act sometime in natural history (a bare, minimal denial of philosophical materialism as a way of viewing origins)

2. That some god or gods created the initial conditions of the universe and has let it unfold uninterrupted since then, without intervention and without teleological design of any sort. Life happened, but not because of any divine intent (Deism; bare, minimal denial of philosophical materialism, with the addition of some deity)

3. That God created the universe billions of years ago and “front-loaded” the initial conditions so that unfolding natural processes would inevitably lead to life as it now exists (“front-loading”)

3.1 And signs or hints of his work in doing so aredetectable scientifically now, looking backward (FL with God’s fingerprints)

3.2 And signs of his work in doing so are not detectable (FL undetectable)

4.That God created the universe billions of years ago, starting with a Big Bang, and has let it unfold without interruption except by seeding the earth with its first life. Subsequent life evolved from that point with some intervention from God, but none that would be detectable by the tools of observation even as it was happening, much less looking back eons in time (Theistic Evolution)

4.1 And humans were no exception: we evolved by unguided chance and selection just like every other organism (TE non-exceptionalism)

4.2 Humans are the one exception; God intended and directed us to evolve the way we did, but his intervention then is not subject to being detected by science today (TE exceptionalism)

5. That God created the universe billions of years ago starting with a Big Bang and intervened on earth to produce the first life and subsequent life in ways that leave recognizable signs or hints of his intervention at various points along the way (Fingerprints on Creation)

6. That God created the universe some 10,000 to 20,000 years ago, all scientific indicators of an older universe are either misinterpreted data or some other form of confusion, and that each kind or species was a distinct separate act of creation (Genesis interpreted literally)

6.1 And signs of his creative acts are detectable by science today (Scientific Creationism)

6.2 And signs of his creative acts are not detectable by science today (Creationism without scientific support)

I’m sure this is not a complete list, but it serves the purpose. (I made up the “Fingerprints on Creation” label; if anyone knows a better or more standard label, please let me know.) What these have in common is that something outside the natural order did something at some point in natural history. Otherwise they are quite different and in many aspects mutually contradictory.

Confusion and Contradiction

Of these, ID’s hypotheses are fully consistent only with 3.1 and 5 (Front-loading with God’s Fingerprints; Fingerprints on Creation). It shares with Scientific Creationism the expectation that signs or hints of some of God’s creative acts in history may be detectable scientifically, but it does not share Scientific Creationism’s biblical assumptions, its insistence on a young earth, or its a priori denial of common descent. Intelligent Design’s hypotheses are generally in contradiction to the other versions I’ve listed here.

Evolution, on the other hand, is quite consistent with 2, 3.2, 4.1, and 4.2 (Deism, Front-loading Undetectable, Theistic Evolution), unless one insists on philosophical materialism as part of the evolution package.

So what additional understanding are we adding, what confusion are we removing, by adding “creationism” to “Intelligent Design,” without specifying what creationism we’re talking about? None. From a communication perspective the additional word serves no positive purpose; it adds contradiction and confusion.

Does Context Help?

But maybe I’ve rushed too quickly to that conclusion. Lots of words have multiple meanings, and we use words like that in almost every sentence without stopping to define which meaning we have in mind. Why not allow using “creationism” without stopping to explain?

The reason we can use words with multiple meanings that way is because context tells us clearly what meaning is intended. If context fails to do that, then we have what our English teachers called a “mistake.” Some of them are called “crash blossoms or “Garden path sentences” (these are mostly for fun, but also to demonstrate the point):

• McDonald’s Fries the Holy Grail for Potato Farmers
• Violinist linked to JAL crash blossoms
• The old man the boat.
• The man returned to his house was happy.
• The author wrote the novel was likely to be a best seller.
• Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Even in these odd sentences, context determines the meaning of the words (eventually). But what context determines the meaning of “creationism” in “Intelligent Design Creationism”?

Typical Contexts for “Intelligent Design Creationism”

Usually the relevant context is one or both of the following:

A. The immediate surrounding context of communication, which is typically that of an ID antagonist. Usually that context points toward something very much like 6.1 Scientific Creationism; which is contradictory to ID’s hypotheses. Adding “creationism” in that sense seriously confuses the meaning of Intelligent Design by introducing a contradictory concept.

B. The larger social context, which of course includes the historical aspect that commenters have incorrectly but repeatedly accused me of ignoring in the prior three posts. This is more ambiguous. More often than not, I think, it tends to point toward something like 6.1 Scientific Creationism, so it is confusing in the same way (A) is. Even if that is not the case, “creationism” adds ambiguity rather than reducing it. It indicates that ID disputes philosophical materialism, but didn’t we all know that already? It’s wasted verbiage at best, like “atheism that denies a knowable God;” but it’s really worse than that because of the wide and ambiguous range of possible meanings it introduces, some of them mutually contradictory.

If speakers and writers were careful to disambiguate “Creationism” when they used it in conjunction with ID, and if they were also careful not to assign it a meaning that contradicts “Intelligent Design,” then the word could be useful for some purposes. But that doesn’t happen very often.

An Open-and-Shut Case

Much of the argument in the past three posts has been about the scientific status of Intelligent Design and its historic connections to creationism. From a communications perspective, though, appending “creationism” to “Intelligent Design” definitely detracts, and this is true regardless of whether ID is science, and regardless of what its historical background may be. Those objections are irrelevant to the communication issue. It’s an open-and-shut case: “Intelligent Design Creationism” is poor communication. Cameron’s question is answered; there is no good justification for using the term that way.

Except…

One final exception to this much be acknowledged. If the speaker really wants to associate ID with 6.1 Scientific Creationism, without signaling that their assumptions and hypotheses differ in many ways, then “Intelligent Design Creationism” is a useful term. Inaccurate, dishonest, manipulative, but useful.

Added at 10:55 am: this aspect of the question, which I should have included here.

Share This

In my earlier post this morning I covered definitions of creationism quite thoroughly but I didn’t include a definition of Intelligent Design. There was one in the post I wrote last Sunday, but not all readers would know that. I wrote:

ID sees phenomena like the high information content in biological organisms, instances of apparent irreducible complexity, or fine-tuning of the cosmos for life, and argues that the best explanation for them is to be found in a designing intelligence.

That’s fairly close to the definition used by the Discovery Institute. I’ve been amused to see scorn heaped on me at Panda’s Thumb for following the DI line. To them I’m some kind of brainless zombie unable to think for myself about what ID is or what it is worth. I can only parrot what I’ve been instructed to say; I’ve been duped into thinking DI has the goods on what Intelligent Design is all about; I should have realized that others, far more scientific than they, had figured out the real story, and that everything from the DI was a dishonest hoax.

But this is a continuation of a previous post on the communication question, and whether “creationism” appended to “ID” helps us understand what ID really is. I argued that it confuses communication rather than clarifying it, because of ambiguities and contradictions between different versions of creationism (defined in that post) and ID (belatedly defined here). There is no denying those discrepancies, and I closed that last post by saying it’s an open-and-shut case against those who would carelessly tag ID as creationism.

But there is one last piece of business to finish: am I the mindless idiot I am represented to be at Panda’s Thumb, in accepting what the DI says about ID? I would certainly prefer that not be true, but is it?

The problem with the DI and their view of ID seems to be (according to PT and others who think similarly) that ID is all fluff and nonsense, there’s no reality to it, there’s no science to it, and it’s all just posing and PR instead. Let’s suppose that’s true, for argument’s sake. Does that mean ID antagonists, who understand what’s really going on in Intelligent Design, own the definition for ID, and can correct the rest of our opinions as to what it really denotes?

Consider a parallel case, one in which almost everyone would agree that the word means nothing real: voodoo. I don’t think there is any reality to claims of supernatural power through voodoo, and I doubt most people involved in the ID/creationism debate do either. Suppose I go to some voodoo practitioner and ask him to define voodoo for me; and suppose then I go to my blog and say, “This is how voodoo is defined.” Am I being a mindless zombie to say so? (Careful how you answer: if mindless zombies really exist, then maybe voodoo really exists! Let’s take it in the metaphorical sense instead.). No, that would not be foolish for me to do; the practitioner’s definition of voodoo has real authority.

As an outsider I can evaluate voodoo’s reality, but in order to do so, I have to evaluate it according to some definition; I can’t change the definition and then evaluate it, because then I am evaluating something other than the voodoo that the practitioner told me about. The practitioner can define the term.

That’s an extreme case of an obvious fake. Some readers here consider ID an obvious fake, but even for them, the definition of ID rightly comes from its practitioners.

The other charge that flies around this debate is that the DI keeps changing the definition of ID, so that it’s a moving target. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see evidence of this over the past ten to twelve years. This is still a young field, so that’s a relatively long period of stability. My own very direct involvement goes back only about five years, and in that period I am quite sure it has not been a moving target.

That doesn’t mean it has to remain static forever. Bradley Monton in his book Seeking God In Science has proposed a refinement of ID’s definition. He has taken a sensible route to it: Does the DI’s definition really convey what the DI intends it to convey, or can the definition be improved to better communicate what it is intended to communicate? People can learn along the way. But there’s nothing wrong with looking to the chief practitioners of ID to define what they mean by ID.

Here’s another way of looking at it. If some ID antagonist says, “I don’t believe in ID creationism,” the DI could easily say, “I don’t either. Whatever ID creationism is, it’s something we’re not promoting or practicing here. If you try to re-define our terms, you’re going to end up criticizing something we’re not doing. Why would you want to waste your time on that?”

Share This