Intelligent Design Tries To Distant Itself From Creationism

Intelligent Design proponents spend a great deal of time trying to separate itself from religion, and creationism in particular…Dave Scott who frequently writes  blogs in Uncomon Decent writes…

“ID doesn’t try to find material evidence for and explanations of things like a global flood, a young earth, the parting of the Red Sea, people turning into pillars of salt, or any of that stuff.”

I like to know which creation scientist does Dave think is looking for scientific evidence for people turning into “pillars of salt.” As far as I know, there are none in the mainstream who are trying to find such a discovery using science. Dave Scott is trying so hard to separate ID from creationism, that he goes out of his way, to insult them which is just as bad as militant Darwinists who do the same thing.

It’s true that ID doesn’t try to find material evidence for a flood, and how old the earth is, generally they get their information from ones who they fight with in other areas, evolutionists. IDers for the most part agree with evolutionists on these issues.

Now Casey Luskin who is one of the leading proponents of ID, and I have of course written about him before in a previous post, states in his podcast on 12/29/2008…

“ID theorists argue design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arises by intelligent cause.”

What we find  in this particular podcast is basically making a case for ID as being a valid non-religious scientific proposal. Casey Luskin goes on to discuss about how ID scientists compare “intelligent agents” and the study of their behavior when they design things whose origin is unknown.

This might be a little confusing for some Christians who believe in just one Creator, and it’s a huge distinction between creationism and ID. Instead of natural selection which an unthinking process that supposedly chooses a wide range of possibilities of favorable traits, an “intelligent agent” supposedly accomplishes this task. In creationism, God doesn’t select favorable traits with such options of possibilities presented to Him.

Macro evolution is viewed as having an intelligent cause. ID says naturalism cannot create new information which is correct. So then they claim “intelligent agents” are able to create new and specified information in order to create such things as different species.

Macro evolution in any form, intelligent or not, is rejected by biblical creationism. Only small changes within the species kind which we see is an acceptable  conclusion which confirms the Bible.

Many from the evolutionist side have attacked intelligent design for being creationism. This is because creationism was ruled against the law to teach in public schools so they try and discredit it that way…

But they are right about one thing, ID has it’s own problems with origins because it has no history neither does it look for any explanation regarding the origin of it’s so called “design agents.” This is why they rather not go that far because it’s goes outside the limitations of science. There is no way they can prove or disprove the intelligent cause, similar to that of a multi-universe hypothesis which is not testable either.

In conclusion, their fight with Darwinists some IDers like Dave Scott go out of their way to distant intelligent design from creationism as a way to try and prove it’s scientific. It’s not a good way to go about it. But he is right, ID doesn’t come from creationism, it resembles more of evolution than creationism except for the cause being intelligent, but still what they believe as an intelligent agent is not God.

5 thoughts on “Intelligent Design Tries To Distant Itself From Creationism

  1. Hi,

    So does Intelligent Design recognize that humans have been on earth for millions of years and evolved from Chimps,Bonobos,Apes, etc. :-)

  2. Intelligent Design proponents advocate ID is compatible with common ancestry as Casey Luskin points out…

    “Intelligent design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry, but it must be noted that intelligent agents commonly re-use parts that work in different designs. Thus, similarities in such genetic sequences may also be generated as a result of functional requirements and common design rather than by common descent.”

    Does ID believe man came from Apes? Some might, but in the mainstream ID proponents dispute what evolutionary scientists believe are transitional forms in the fossil record. So the answer would be “no” they do not. Do they believe man has been around a very long time, more than thousands of years, the answer is, “yes.”

  3. Hi Michael, thanks for your reply.

    Could you point me to a source of what IDers’ thoughts are on different matters concerning the Bible and religion.

    I seem to have heard that they do not believe that mankind has been on earth for a million+ years, or that modern humans have been around for 150,000+ years. Do they recognize Neanderthal’s as an extinct species/precursor of modern humans?

    I hear bits and pieces for the different arguments, but nothing that lays out the whole thing.

  4. YW, glad to be of help to you anyway I can…

    William A.Dembski, Ph.D. is one of the leading proponents of intelligent design, he’s the one who came up with a filter to detect intelligent design. Most likely you have heard of him. Here is what he said about those in the ID movement…

    “Although acceptance of intelligent design has now gone international and includes scholars of many different religious faiths and philosophical worldviews, among Christian proponents of intelligent design, the majority hold to a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1. I’m one of them.”

    As far as the old earth…He states…

    “In our view, the evidence of cosmology and geology strongly confirms a universe that is not thousands but rather billions of years old. Granted, this raises problems of theodicy: how, for instance, does one explain death, disease, and suffering among animals prior to the emergence of humans, whose sin, according to Romans 5, appears responsible for these evils. Yet, in our view, such problems are answerable whereas the scientific evidence for an old Earth and old universe seems unanswerable.”

    You can find other things he said in the article at;

    As far as narrowing down what IDers believe how old humans were, if they believe in the old earth as billions, the most likely they have accepted the evolutionary science on dating methods. Since IDers believe “intelligent agents” using the same parts for different designs, that includes Neanderthal man. I don’t believe it’s meant that Neanderthal man was a different species in the ID movement.

    ID doesn’t go into all sciences, so there are gaps in what the movement advocates.

    Generally a good source for learning about ID is

  5. Pingback: Nick Matzke Makes Common Accusation Against ID « New Discoveries & Comments About Creationism

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s