The "Intelligent Design" Version of Creationism

The IDiots are at it again. Over the past few months there's been an noticeable increase in the number of whining complaints about the way Intelligent Design Creationism is being treated in the popular press and on science blogs.

Here's the latest from David Klinghoffer on the Discovery Institute website: Here There Be Dragons: The Journalists' War on Science. Kinghoffer thinks that his movement is being treated unfairly by journalists. Let's see why.

If there's one thing we've learned from repeated uniform experience it is that on one scientific issue, the most contentious there is -- evolution -- it's treated as taboo for writers to inform themselves properly, to know the facts and evidence behind the scientific challenge to Darwinian theory.

Hmmm ... here's an Intelligent Design Creationist complaining that his critics haven't taken the time to "inform themselves properly" about a 100-year old version of evolutionary theory that's been modified and extended so that modern evolutionary theory no longer qualifies as "Darwinian theory." I don't know a single IDiot who has the gumption to refer to modern evolutionary theory by its proper description. I'm not even sure there's a single IDiot who understands modern evolutionary theory. That includes David Klinghoffer [see, The IDiots Respond].

Can you say "hypocrisy"?

Setting aside the typical IDiot confusion about the meaning of evolutionary theory, let's concede that there are many interesting, genuine, scientific controversies in the field of evolutionary biology. Klinghoffer would have you believe that these controversies challenge the existence of evolution and therefore support Intelligent Design Creationism. This is nonsense. We'll return to this bait-and-switch later on.

Never mind whether, having adequately informed themselves, they were to find the argument for intelligent design convincing or totally unconvincing. Either way, fine! In reality, most don't even know the difference between ID and creationism. Say what you like about Young Earth Creationists, they at least could tell you that accurately enough.

There are various forms of creationism but all of them postulate the existence of a "creator" who plays a role in the development of life on Earth and in the "creation" of the universe. What Klinghoffer is doing is reserving the word "creationism" (lowercase "c" and all) for "Young Earth Creationism." It's true that there are people who do this but he seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that others (I am one) don't accept Klinghoffer's definition.

He should, at the very least, acknowledge that there's another point of view and admit that some journalists know the difference between Intelligent Design Creationism and Young Earth Creationism. Unfortunately, creationists of all sorts seem to be very poor at recognizing other points of view.

Klinghoffer now focuses his attention on a journalist who thinks all Intelligent Design Creationists are also Young Earth Creationists.

I will never forget my personal experience with a journalist who often writes for The New Republic. In an email exchange he chastised me for thinking the universe was created a mere 6,000 years ago. He assumed that was the main issue for intelligent design advocates. I explained to him that wasn't the case and that I'm not a YEC, that intelligent design assumes a universe more than 13 billion years old and a history of life going back more than 3 billion.

That journalist was wrong to assume that all Intelligent Design Creationists are also Young Earth Creationists. Many of the prominent leaders of the IDC movement believe in common ancestry and an Earth that's billions of years old.

On the other hand, there are also many IDiots who are Young Earth Creationists. The IDC movement has deliberately avoided taking a stance on Young Earth Creationism in spite of what Klinghoffer implies. It is simply not true (i.e. a lie) that, "... intelligent design assumes a universe more than 13 billion years old and a history of life going back more than 3 billion [years]." (Unless I've missed some change in position.)

It is true that the popularity of the term "intelligent design" began when it replaced "creationism" in the 1987 version of Of Pandas and People. The version of creationism it replaced was defined as "origin through abrupt appearance in complex form" [Wikipedia: Of Pandas and People]. It is true that many American school board members are Young Earth Creationists who advocate the teaching of Intelligent Design Creationism in schools. It is true that more than 40% of American are Young Earth Creationists who believe in the literal truth of the Bible so it's very likely that a majority of IDiots are YECs—especially the ones that most jounralists will encounter in their daily lives.

That's not to excuse journalists who don't do their homework but I think the Intelligent Design Creationist movement has to accept some of the blame for the confusion. The IDiots could easily clear up the situation by making a public announcement outlining the basic claims of Intelligent Design Creationism. They could, if they wished, make it very clear that believers in intelligent design have to accept the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that commmon descent is a fact.

That way, they would create two non-overlapping sets: Young Earth Creationists and Intelligent Design Creationists. Nobody would be confused and the biggest loss would be a few Senior Fellows at the Discovery Institute.¹

A statement of core IDC beliefs would also help clear up other kinds of confusion about what IDC actually stands for. To many of us, it seems like 99% of the activities of the movement are devoted to attacking science and evolution. Many of us have searched in vain for a single explanation of how, and when, God the intelligent designer made bacteria flagella or two homologous enzymes. We still don't know how he/she/it handled the Cambrian explosion or why she had such a fondness for beetles. (Have I missed it?)

Klinghoffer seems to be unaware of this problem with his movement ...

Everyone knows the phrase "intelligent design" and they know it's a vital idea in the wider culture but very, very few in journalism, including on the science beat, could tell you what evidence ID theorists actually offer for their views. Just glance at the headlines here at ENV, the new arguments and information offered every day, from cutting-edge science.

Excellent! A testable statement! Let's look at posts in the last 48 hours to see all the evidence for intelligent design.

• Stylus's Evolutionary Simulation Aims to Bridge Gap Between Real World and Artificial: A computer program fails to simulate evolution.
• Here There Be Dragons: The Journalists' War on Science: Whining and complaining about the way Intelligent Design Creationist is treated.
• Can Darwinists Condemn Hitler and Remain Consistent with Their Darwinism?: Darwinists are evil and stupid.
• Junk-of-the-Gaps Argument Shrinks Again: Evolutionary biologists are wrong about junk DNA.
• National Center for Science Education Heavily Promotes Darwinist Bullying in New Documentary: NCSE is racist.
• On Protein Evolution, PZ Myers Is Way Off the Mark: How dare PZ Myers criticize my science!
• A New Voice in the Debate Over Evolution and Intelligent Design: A new IDiot joins the herd.

That's it. I don't see a single article presenting the case for intelligent design. Maybe I should have looked at earlier postings? Here's the list of posting for the entire month of October. There are 53 articles and not one of them makes a scientific case for the existence of an intelligent designer.

It sort of makes you wonder what David Klinghoffer meant when he said, "... very few in journalism, including on the science beat, could tell you what evidence ID theorists actually offer for their views. Just glance at the headlines here at ENV, the new arguments and information offered every day, from cutting-edge science." I've been listening to the IDiots for 20 years and I can assure you that they've offered very little evidence for their views.² And what little evidence they've offered has been thoroughly discredited. No wonder the journalists can't find it!

---

1. And possibly some donations since some major backers of the Center for Science and Culture are YECs (Howard Ahmanson, Jr.). That's not important since it's not about money, it's about integrity.

2. They're very good at trashing Darwinism and Darwinists but that's not evidence for IDC.