[Taxacom] "intelligent" design

[David Campbell]

A major problem is that it is far from clear what "intelligent design" is.
Behe argues for gaps in evolution, but seems to accept quite a lot of it,
ironically often fairly closely matching the 6th edition of the Origin of
Species in suggesting that, once cells are created, it can all evolve from
there.  As the Dover trial showed, some people try using intelligent design
as another name for creation science.  Some "intelligent design" advocates
are antievolution but don't care about the age of the earth.  Denton's more
recent work accepts all of evolution as an example of intelligent design
but argues that factors besides the cumulative effect of population
genetics (standard neo-Darwinism) are more important, thus claiming that
his view of evolution is not "Darwinian", another term that isn't
consistently defined.  There's also quite a variety of groups tied to the
ID movement.  The Raelian cult, for example, claims that aliens made humans
by cloning technology.  The Raelians also market their "free love" position
through clothing-deficient parades, which should not go over well with the
typical conservative ID supporter.  Overall, the ID movement
characteristically presents itself to appeal to the perceived audience at
hand, rather than being consistent or giving an honest message like "I
think this and he thinks that, but we can get along and work together."
Thus, in trying to claim legitimacy for public schools, it's claimed to be
all science; in marketing to conservative Christians, it's billed as
Christian apologetics (even if Jonathan Wells claims that Jesus failed and
Rev. Moon is the true messiah); to young-earth audiences the openness to an
old earth is played down; when weaknesses in the scientific argument are
pointed out, the reply is that we shouldn't a priori rule out the
possibility (which is true enough but does not justify claims made to their
fans that their views are scientifically proven).

Most religions would affirm that the universe and living things are
designed by an intelligent agent, but the ID movement makes specific claims
about how this design was implemented and how you should detect design.  It
thus falls into the god of the gaps error, also popular among the militant
atheist crowd which largely uses the same sorts of arguments but promoting
different predetermined "conclusions".  If, as the Bible asserts, God is at
work both through miraculous and ordinary events, then having a natural law
explanation of something tells us nothing one way or the other about God's
involvement; one must look elsewhere for evidence on that question.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
Associate Professor, Geology
Department of Natural Sciences
Box 7270
Gardner-Webb University
Boiling Springs NC 28017