I’ve heard a lot about “intelligent design” recently. What is the difference between it and “creationism”?

Creationists adhere to the intelligent design theory, but not all intelligent design theorists are biblical creationists. The term “creationist” is typically used to describe those who hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis, which would include God creating the universe and everything in it in six twenty-four hour days. Most (not all) creationists see the earth as being young, dating in the thousands of years rather than billions. Creationists also tend to view much of the geologic strata and the fossils it contains as having been laid down by a world wide flood (the flood of Noah).

The intelligent design theory, made popular by Berkeley Law Professor Phillip Johnson (Darwin On Trial) and Biochemist Michael Behe (Darwin’s Black Box) along with others, is more of a big tent. It’s not a theory that is committed (one way or another) to a literal interpretation of the Bible. It’s not even committed to a biblical view of God. According to William Dembski, “Proponents of intelligent design regard it as a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes.” Those who adhere to intelligent design see the universe being full of design, and if there’s design, there must be a designer.

Which designer? Well, that’s for the theologians and philosophers to debate. This is not a challenge directed against science (many scientists including Isaac Newton believed in the biblical Creator), but it’s a clear attempt to rescue science from the restraints of philosophical naturalism. To ID theorists, scientists should follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if the evidence points them to a creator/designer. Philosophical naturalism, however, dismisses the possibility of a designer before the evidence is even examined. If there is a designer and the scientist’s foundational premise is that there is no designer, then scientists may be drawing some wrong conclusions about the universe. For example, Richard Dawkins begins his book “The Blind Watchmaker” with “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Of course to Dawkins, who is committed to naturalism, biological life only has the “appearance” of design but it is merely a product of blind random chance. To those allowing for intelligent design, the appearance of design may be a good indicator that it really has been designed. They see that the Darwinian mechanism of random chance and natural selection as too reductionistic and does not account for the full diversity and complexity of life.

Intelligent design is a theory that seems to be gaining some ground in the scientific community, but not without much condescension and intellectual posturing by Darwinists. The Discovery Institute published a list a few years ago in response to the PBS special “Evolution”, which claimed that no scientists disagree with Darwinian evolution. The list contains the names of credible scientists who are “skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.” As of this month the list has grown to over 400 scientists (www.discovery.org/scs/). Next week I’ll give examples of what ID theorists point to as strong evidence that life has indeed been intelligently designed.