The Discovery Institute and the Theory of Intelligent Deception
by Wayne Adkins
Each time an article appears somewhere that carries the words “intelligent design” and “creationism” in the same sentence the Discovery Institute feels compelled to respond. They desperately want to distance themselves from biblical creationists because they know it will hurt their chances of slipping intelligent design into classrooms in our public schools. The latest attempt by Bruce Gordon to disassociate intelligent design with creationism is over the top. He actually claims that “most current ID theorists of consequence not only are not creationists, some of them aren’t even theists”. Most are not creationists?
Well let’s take a look at what the definition for a creationist is. Merriam-Webster’s says a creationist is a proponent of “a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis”. So a creationist is someone who believes everything was created by God, usually, but not always as described in Genesis. Do most current ID theorists of consequence fit that bill? You bet they do. Let’s look at what the Discovery Institute, the organization that bills itself as the “nation’s leading think researching intelligent design” has said about it.
In the now infamous “Wedge Document” authored by the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, now called the Center for Science and Culture, goals of the organization were defined. One of their two “governing goals” was “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God”. (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349) That certainly fits the definition for creationism. But that’s not all they reveal about their intentions.
Under the “spiritual and cultural” heading their goals include “major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation and repudiate(s) Darwinism”.
Notice here that they don’t cite any theory they want to advance, but the “doctrine of creation” is what they want to defend. And what do we call people whose stated goal is to defend the traditional doctrine of creation? We call them creationists and rightfully so. Included under the same heading is the goal of “positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God”.
How can this be reconciled with what Bruce Gordon is claiming? He says “Young earth creationists are biblical literalists who circumscribe their approach to science by deduction from Holy Writ. Intelligent design theorists are scientists or philosophers of science who derive their conclusions inductively from the empirical study of nature, following the evidence where it leads without regard to antecedent constraints artificially imposed by theodical desiderata or philosophical naturalism.” First off, ID proponents like to use the qualifiers “young earth creationists” and “biblical literalists” when trying to distance themselves from creationism as Dr. Gordon does here. But one can be a creationist without being a young earth advocate or a biblical literalist. Creationism, as stated earlier, is just a belief that everything was created by God. As Dr. Gordon put it in his article, “being cheddar is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for being cheese.”
Second, Dr. Gordon says that ID theorists follow the evidence where it leads “without regard to antecedent constraints artificially imposed by theodical desiderata” (theologically desired things). So how can one follow the evidence regardless of ones theological desires and still pursue the stated goal of replacing “materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God”? Those two goals are mutually exclusive.
In the Discovery Institute’s “So What” response to the Wedge Document (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349), they say “Even so, our critics insist that the “Wedge Document” shows that the case for intelligent design is unscientific because it is based on religious belief. But here again they fail to grasp an obvious distinction — the distinction between the implications of a theory and the basis of a theory”. It is the Discovery Institute that repeatedly fails to make that distinction. An implication is “a logical relationship between two propositions in which if the first is true the second is true” (Merriam-Webster’s). ID proponents have assumed the second proposition (creation by God) is true and their stated goal for advancing the first proposition (intelligent design) is to support the second proposition. That makes creationism the basis for their “theory”, not an implication of it.
The reason the Discovery Institute has to constantly battle the idea that intelligent design and creationism are inexorably linked is that creationism is the basis for, not an implication of, intelligent design. Those with any inclination towards honesty will continue to make that connection. But undoubtedly the Discovery Institute will not. Honesty is not one of their stated goals. Defending the traditional doctrine of creation is.
The Discovery Institute claims to be the nation’s leading think tank researching intelligent design. One would have to assume that to make that claim they feel that their fellows are among the “current ID theorists of consequence”. So who among them are not creationists? Bruce Gordon says “most current ID theorists of consequence … are not creationists”. I doubt that is true. He would certainly struggle to name a few who are not creationists and could not back up his assertion that most are not creationists without limiting his definition of creationism to young earth, biblical literalists creationism. Why would someone who is not a creationist conduct research for an organization whose stated goal is to defend the doctrine of creation in the first place? It would certainly not be for career enhancement.
The better question is-why would someone like Bruce Gordon make the claim that most ID theorists of consequence are not creationists? The answer is because the courts have ruled that teaching creationism in public schools is unconstitutional and the only way creationists can see around that is to dress creationism up as a scientific theory. But they know that the flaw in their disguise is that virtually all of the people promoting this “scientific theory” are creationists. So they replace creation with design and God with intelligent designer and label themselves scientists or theorists instead of creationists. Well you can be a scientist and a creationist. You can be a theorist and a creationist. But apparently you can’t be honest and be a creationist. If you contradict yourself and say on the one hand that your goal is to defend the doctrine of creation and promote belief in God and say on the other hand that you are not a creationist and you have no regard to antecedent constraints artificially imposed by theodical desiderata or philosophical naturalism, then you are dishonest, both with yourself and others.
Posted with the author's permission.
Each time an article appears somewhere that carries the words “intelligent design” and “creationism” in the same sentence the Discovery Institute feels compelled to respond. They desperately want to distance themselves from biblical creationists because they know it will hurt their chances of slipping intelligent design into classrooms in our public schools. The latest attempt by Bruce Gordon to disassociate intelligent design with creationism is over the top. He actually claims that “most current ID theorists of consequence not only are not creationists, some of them aren’t even theists”. Most are not creationists?
Well let’s take a look at what the definition for a creationist is. Merriam-Webster’s says a creationist is a proponent of “a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis”. So a creationist is someone who believes everything was created by God, usually, but not always as described in Genesis. Do most current ID theorists of consequence fit that bill? You bet they do. Let’s look at what the Discovery Institute, the organization that bills itself as the “nation’s leading think researching intelligent design” has said about it.
In the now infamous “Wedge Document” authored by the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, now called the Center for Science and Culture, goals of the organization were defined. One of their two “governing goals” was “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God”. (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349) That certainly fits the definition for creationism. But that’s not all they reveal about their intentions.
Under the “spiritual and cultural” heading their goals include “major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation and repudiate(s) Darwinism”.
Notice here that they don’t cite any theory they want to advance, but the “doctrine of creation” is what they want to defend. And what do we call people whose stated goal is to defend the traditional doctrine of creation? We call them creationists and rightfully so. Included under the same heading is the goal of “positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God”.
How can this be reconciled with what Bruce Gordon is claiming? He says “Young earth creationists are biblical literalists who circumscribe their approach to science by deduction from Holy Writ. Intelligent design theorists are scientists or philosophers of science who derive their conclusions inductively from the empirical study of nature, following the evidence where it leads without regard to antecedent constraints artificially imposed by theodical desiderata or philosophical naturalism.” First off, ID proponents like to use the qualifiers “young earth creationists” and “biblical literalists” when trying to distance themselves from creationism as Dr. Gordon does here. But one can be a creationist without being a young earth advocate or a biblical literalist. Creationism, as stated earlier, is just a belief that everything was created by God. As Dr. Gordon put it in his article, “being cheddar is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for being cheese.”
Second, Dr. Gordon says that ID theorists follow the evidence where it leads “without regard to antecedent constraints artificially imposed by theodical desiderata” (theologically desired things). So how can one follow the evidence regardless of ones theological desires and still pursue the stated goal of replacing “materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God”? Those two goals are mutually exclusive.
In the Discovery Institute’s “So What” response to the Wedge Document (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349), they say “Even so, our critics insist that the “Wedge Document” shows that the case for intelligent design is unscientific because it is based on religious belief. But here again they fail to grasp an obvious distinction — the distinction between the implications of a theory and the basis of a theory”. It is the Discovery Institute that repeatedly fails to make that distinction. An implication is “a logical relationship between two propositions in which if the first is true the second is true” (Merriam-Webster’s). ID proponents have assumed the second proposition (creation by God) is true and their stated goal for advancing the first proposition (intelligent design) is to support the second proposition. That makes creationism the basis for their “theory”, not an implication of it.
The reason the Discovery Institute has to constantly battle the idea that intelligent design and creationism are inexorably linked is that creationism is the basis for, not an implication of, intelligent design. Those with any inclination towards honesty will continue to make that connection. But undoubtedly the Discovery Institute will not. Honesty is not one of their stated goals. Defending the traditional doctrine of creation is.
The Discovery Institute claims to be the nation’s leading think tank researching intelligent design. One would have to assume that to make that claim they feel that their fellows are among the “current ID theorists of consequence”. So who among them are not creationists? Bruce Gordon says “most current ID theorists of consequence … are not creationists”. I doubt that is true. He would certainly struggle to name a few who are not creationists and could not back up his assertion that most are not creationists without limiting his definition of creationism to young earth, biblical literalists creationism. Why would someone who is not a creationist conduct research for an organization whose stated goal is to defend the doctrine of creation in the first place? It would certainly not be for career enhancement.
The better question is-why would someone like Bruce Gordon make the claim that most ID theorists of consequence are not creationists? The answer is because the courts have ruled that teaching creationism in public schools is unconstitutional and the only way creationists can see around that is to dress creationism up as a scientific theory. But they know that the flaw in their disguise is that virtually all of the people promoting this “scientific theory” are creationists. So they replace creation with design and God with intelligent designer and label themselves scientists or theorists instead of creationists. Well you can be a scientist and a creationist. You can be a theorist and a creationist. But apparently you can’t be honest and be a creationist. If you contradict yourself and say on the one hand that your goal is to defend the doctrine of creation and promote belief in God and say on the other hand that you are not a creationist and you have no regard to antecedent constraints artificially imposed by theodical desiderata or philosophical naturalism, then you are dishonest, both with yourself and others.
Posted with the author's permission.
Comments
My dad, an 85 year old retired physician, always taught me that you could believe in evolution and creation.He helped me leave the literalists thru this
opened minded thought.I don't think I would have escaped the fundementalist trap I was in with-out the idea that both could exist side by side.
I don't know about anyone else, but I've done a significant amount of research on evolution. Granted, I'm no scientist, but I can analyze data and read up on what scientists have discovered and the idea of evolution works quite well. In fact, there is SO much evidence that points to evolution, that it is as close to fact as is the idea that the earth revolves around the sun (which is also a scientific theory, not a fact). Every argument that creationists have put up against evolution has been shot down and burned, often times revealing the inherent dishonesty in those that challenge evolution (case in point, Kent Hovind). Just out of curiosity, what is it about evolution that doesn't work well enough so that you choose intelligent design over it?
Alex
Science, though, is not about what is possible, but what is most probable. Possibilities take you nowhere because anything is possible. It isn't until you begin to eliminate what is improbable, unreasonable and illogical that you begin to find useful and advantageous ideas.
Creationism (or Intelligent Design is you prefer) is not science. It does not try to determine what is most probable. It leaps to an assumed possibility (god did it) and denies and/or denigrates all evidence and theories that contradict it.
This "god did it" theory is the same reason people used to use to explain things like "why do apples fall down", "what causes lightning", "what makes the sun and moon move across the sky", and "how come people who don't bathe get sick". And time and time again science has proven that there are more useful and pragmatic answers.
Creationism (ID) has about as much right to be taught in schools as pig-latin or the finger-counting method of higher mathematics!
If an Intelligent Designer is part of reality then it would have had to create itself at the same time...
"Oh. That's very different. Never mind."
Just a thought.
Smedley
Intelligent design is an atheistic idea that has been so adopted by theists, especially christians, that it is now viewed as a theistic agenda. I believe in Intelligent design, but not god. Intelligent Design is simply the idea that life on earth has been designed by intelligence. It does not imply god-like intelligence, in fact adding god to the equation is wholely unnecessary. It's very simple, intelligence creates, entropy takes apart. Until I see a detailed explaination of how DNA (or RNA) could be formed before it existed in state allowing itself to perpetuate itself through multiple growth cycles, I'll remain unconvinced of the claims of evolutionists. This remains the basis for the entire theory, and it is rediculous.
There have been lots of scientific theories that sounded ridiculous before they were fully understood.
(Relativity, aerodynamics, heliocentricity, etc...)
To invoke an intelligent designer is to settle for ignorance.
Actually there are currently a number of competing hypothesis about how life on Earth got it's start some 4 billion years ago. Clearly the mechanisms of evolution cannot be invoked to explain the process because evolution is a theory about the origin of species and was never intended to be a theory about the origin of life on Earth. I happen to subscibe to the lipid world senario but there are others, DNA/RNA first proponents, protein first proponents, etc. But in my opinion none of the serious efforts to understand the event invoke an intelligent designer.
Seeing that you claim to be an atheist and also an advocate of Intelligent Design, then I have to ask, who was behind the intelligence that first established life on Earth? And who designed them?
I agree with tigg13, to invoke an intelligent designer is to lapse into absurdity.
David
http://richardsrussell.livejournal.com/55319.html
First things first, I never claimed to believe in an intelligent designer (i.e. one entity,) saying that may as well be saying god, even though that's not necessarily true either. I am an atheist (I don't need to claim it, I am, period), and as such, no god ever enters my reasoning.
I believe life on this planet was engineered by many, if not hundreds or more intelligent entities. I don't know where they came from (they may very well have been terrestrial themselves) or how they came to be themselves, but I don't need to know that. I infer their design work from the evidence they left behind.
The fossil record is very clear evidence for this. If we look at the process of engineering we see many parallels. But firstly is DNA, the ground rules, they would have been initially written with basic survival operations for replication and energy production. That is essentially all we are, reproductive machines that have ability to process materials to create energy and perpetuate ourselves. If we look at the fossil record we see "advances in technology." I won't go into a detailed explanation, because I've probably written too much already, but engineered life goes very far to explain the Cambrian explosion, the size of dinosaurs, variance in bird design (i.e. flightless or non), etc.
What I'm essentially getting at is that nature doesn't evolve, because nature on it's own is entropy, and entropy does not move up. There's no force of will behind nature that would be a driving force behind "creating" more complex organisms. If it were left to nature, bacterium would still only be bacterium, replicating and feeding, without any need of multi-cellular functions. On the contrary, intelligence as a driving force in technology, "evolves" machines in functionality and complexity. Intelligence is anti-entropic.
Mr. Russell, please find my comments regarding your essay under the comments on that page entitled, " Your vs. is lacking."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
David
Since you feel so strongly that way, what are some key points from your studies of the subject that stand out and keep you convinced that evolution through natural selection is the process at work here? I have to say, from looking over many technical journals and texts involving the evolution of components in a system (the underlying systems that contributed to the overall change in macroscopic systems) the authors typically offer little more than "then a mutation occurs" to explain how the system acquired the necessary amino acids, etc. Seems a bit far fetched that a mutation would occur in that specific area, just at the right time, and would actually work in an as yet unrealized end scheme. If "nature" is unintelligent, as you maintain, how does it see a beginning and end product? How would the first steps toward adaptation or macro-mutation survive the rigorous "survival of the fittest" scheme if the organism is laden with mutations that have no purpose yet? Take wings for instance. If Dinosaurs evolved into birds, one of the major step mutations necessary for flight is lighter, less dense bones. Before the dino-bird actually had the ability to fly, it would have these bones that make it vary vulnerable compared to dinos with normal density bones. If the change were to occur in one leap, as some scientists have recently suggested, the dino would be ill-equipped as the density would alter equilibrium, posture, balance, and tactile resonating. It may be able to adapt to the change, but only on a small level, as most of it's survival skills are learned behavior from parental nurturing. Would the young dino even survive long enough to mate? Nature would remove it as an aberration, not preserve it for an as yet unrealized body scheme.
Also, still waiting to see transitional forms in the fossil record. (Shouldn't we have found them along side everything else?) And I didn't pull that "scenario" out of my ass, I've been studying this topic for a long time, and that is the best way to describe what I've observed. You mentioned that you find life from non life plausible, I wonder if Occam would agree. What's more plausible? That a highly specified blueprint, for life that reproduces and adapts, arose on it's own from a mash of random chemicals and clay pockets, in a prehistoric wasteland of volcanoes and asteroids. Or that DNA (or RNA if you prefer) was designed to do what it does by an intelligence? Perhaps you don't realize just how complex even the simplest strand of this stuff is.
' Same ol' song and dance. Instead putting forth one drop of evidence to support Creationism/Intelligent design, the I.D.ers spend all their time trying to bash holes in the theory, AND fact, of evolution---erroneously thinking that Creationism, which is essentially "magic", MUST be true by default. Forget about it.
DNA (or RNA if you want) are ordered by similar, yet more dynamic methods.
'Couple of questions come to mind: Did the "Intelligence" that you speak of "Design" an afterlife for humans? Also, if this "Intelligence" isn't classified as a "deity", or "God", then why the upper case "I" in the word "intelligent"? Lastly, is this "Intelligence" physical?..or metaphysical? If it is "physical"..i.e...OF the universe, then where does it reside? Thanks in advance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker
Richard Dawkins steps through a series of understandable and compelling arguments that support his effective thesis "not just that the Darwinian world-view happens to be true, but that it is the only known theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence."
Post a Comment