Is Intelligent Design creationism?
But there is a connection.
Intelligent Design (ID), being essentially anti-evolutionism, is half of an argument for creationism.
Basic scientific arguments go something like this:
- You are wrong.
- I am right.
Or, in more detail:
- Your model does a poor job at explaining the data.
- My model does a better job at explaining the data.
So one might argue for creationism as follows:
- Your model of evolution (by random mutation and natural selection) does a poor job at explaining the data (life in all its complexity).
- My model of creationism (old-earth, young-earth, whatever) does a better job at explaining the data.
Anti-evolutionism is the first half of that argument.
So ID is not creationism. But it is half an argument for creationism, which is why creationists tend to like ID.
Incidentally, as long as ID remains as just half an argument, I don't think it will get very far. People will always believe something rather than nothing. If you tell people that the thing they believe is wrong, they will continue to believe it regardless, until you provide a solid alternative. If you decide you want to leave your current town, you don't just pack up and get in the car, but you find somewhere else to live and then you pack up and leave. ID says you should leave your current town, but it doesn't show you somewhere better to live, so I don't think many people will listen.
|Print article||This entry was posted by Anthony on 23 Nov 2010 at 2.09 pm, and is filed under Science & Faith. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.|
about 11 months ago - 7 comments
I've been pondering the issue of creation and evolution for years, and I thought it was about time to set out my current thinking on the area. This is all provisional and subject to change, but the points below are things that I'm fairly sure about. If you desperately want to label me with one…
about 11 months ago - 2 comments
It's not clear precisely what role scientific evidence plays when someone chooses between young-age creationism and evolution over billions of years. Certainly no one can approach the issue dispassionately; we would all have to declare an interest if we were called upon to examine the evidence objectively. But still, we can try to think about…
about 1 year ago - 4 comments
I posted this elsewhere a few months ago, but I thought it was worth posting it here too. The Christian church is still a long way from resolving the creation/evolution issue, but maybe this points in the right direction. The Colossian Forum is some new thing trying to promote discussion on issues of science, culture…
about 1 year ago - 10 comments
Dear BHA, After re-loading your website home page a few times, I found on it the following quote by Ariane Sherine: "All children should be free to grow up in a world where they are allowed to question, doubt, think freely, and reach their own conclusions about what they believe." As an evangelical Christian, I wholeheartedly…
about 2 years ago - 5 comments
This post concludes my recent splurge on Intelligent Design (ID). I have been trying to argue: That ID is basically anti-evolutionism That, as anti-evolutionism, ID is half an argument for creationism That the question of whether ID is science is actually quite dull That ID proponents are right to point out the speculative nature of…
about 2 years ago - 12 comments
I don't see why not. Many people in the UK believe in Intelligent Design (that is, they don't believe in modern evolutionary theory), 51% according to one report. This in itself is a good reason to expect children at least to be familiar with the term and what it means. They should learn about some…
about 2 years ago - 19 comments
The basic argument of anti-evolutionism (Intelligent Design, ID) is that chance processes cannot account for the complexity that we see in living things. The probabilities are simply vanishingly small. That may be true, but I'm nervous about that kind of argument. The reason is that I'm not sure we properly understand complexity. There are examples…
about 2 years ago - No comments
I find myself in full agreement with the basic presupposition of Intelligent Design (ID): that a world in which an intelligent agent has acted might be expected to be different to a world in which no such intelligent agent has acted, and that the methods of science (i.e., empirical enquiry) might be a useful tool…
about 2 years ago - 7 comments
One of the quotes Michael Behe showed at Monday's Darwin or Design? evening was the following: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity, but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system,…
about 2 years ago - No comments
Countless hours have been wasted poring over this most uninteresting, pedantic and pointless of questions. Rather than seeking to answer the questions raised by Intelligent Design (ID), certain people seem to think it is much more pressing to determine once and for all in which drawer of the filing cabinet the question should reside. Enough!…