Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Eugenie Scott defeats Ed Brayton


[photo of Eugenie Scott from www.ExpelledTheMovie.com serving as one of the Class Officers of The Big Science Academy. She will have a starring role in the best pro-ID movie yet.]

ID is a lineal descendent of William Paley’s Argument from Design (Paley 1803,)

Eugenie Scott


intelligent Design has perplexed me beyond measure

Charles Darwin, 1861

but Matzke didn’t get the memo:

“intelligent design” as such originated in the 1989 ID textbook Of Pandas and People

Nick Matzke

Matzke’s claim symbolizes the common misconception that goes something like this: “ID was primarily a ruse to get biblical creation taught in public schools after the creationists lost Edwards vs Aguillard 1987“.

This misconception is also articulated by Ed Brayton in The Anti-Evolution Movement: Phase 4. It shows how Darwinists myopically define the ID debate as merely being a war over what’s taught in public schools:

[at a talk] I began by describing what I characterized as the first three phases of an anti-evolution movement that began about 30 seconds after Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Those phases represented the evolving legal and political strategies used to oppose evolution and to diminish its acceptance and influence. Phase one, which lasted until 1968, was simply to ban the teaching of evolution; Epperson v Arkansas brought that phase to an end by overturning such laws as unconstitutional. Phase two was the “dual model” approach, laws requiring equal time for “creation science” and “evolution science”; Edwards v Aguillard brought that phase to an end in 1987 by overturning such laws. Phase three, of course, was to relabel creation science as “intelligent design” and try to sneak it past the courts; Kitzmiller v Dover, though only a district court ruling, may well have brought phrase three to an end.

Ed Brayton

[note: the original essay I was going to pick on was Crowther’s Lies on Origin of Intelligent Design, but this essay was a better target.]

I will show that Brayton is wrong to think the ID debate was about public schools, and of all things I will show he is wrong because of a superbly researched peer-reviewed paper by Eugenie Scott, published in the Annual Reviews of Anthropology, 1997.

But first, it is only fair to concede that biblical creationism and ID do indeed arrive on at least one common conclusion, namely, that there is design in life. But does arriving at the same conclusion imply there is only one means of reasoning to arrive at the same end? Is there only one road that leads to Rome?

If two roads lead to the same destination, does that mean the two roads must be the same road? Darwinists think that because ID and biblical creationism arrive at comparable conclusions with respect to the question of intelligent agency in the design of life, that ID must therefore be identical to biblical creation. But this line of reasoning by the Darwinists is as illogical as saying that any road that leads to Rome must be the same road, that if one arrives in Rome, he can only have gotten there through one route. So if Brayton insinuates ID = creationism because they have comparable conclusions, or that ID = creationism because the evidence leads to inferring design, he is being illogical.

But even granting (only for the sake of argument) that ID = creationism, the claim that ID was created primarily to inject creationism into public schools is indefensible because ID was not aimed at the public schools, but rather the UNIVERSITIES. No critic I’ve debated has been able to get around that difficulty, and it will be more difficult in light of Eugenie Scott’s superb peer-reviewed research on the matter.

But before examining Scott’s work, what have ID proponents themselves said?

I feel that the essential argument has to be carried on at the higher level, at the university level, and it’s interesting you see that the people that come from the NCSE side are always trying to say this is just an issue in the high schools

Phil Johnson
NCSE Special Interview

Now, regarding the naming of the intelligent design movement: Ask yourself whether the following line of reasoning is logical:

the adoption of the name “intelligent design” implies the ideas are primarily developed for getting creationism into public schools

Of course such a line of reasoning is illogical (such is life with Darwinism). Darwinists might object by saying, “but the naming of ID literature coincided with Edward vs. Aguillard”. But even if the name were adopted to help creationism get into public schools, it still cannot be argued that the original and subsequent development of ID literature was primarily for the public schools, especially in light of other evidence.

I will argue that even if nefarious motives are assumed, the claim that this body of literature was developed to be injected into public schools will fail for this simple reason: ID literature was primarily developed and aimed at the universities, not public schools.

Let us also, for the sake of argument, suppose that creationists were eager to join forces with non-creationists under the big tent of opposition to Darwinism. Let us suppose that for this alliance of anti-Darwinists to unite together, it was desirable to adopt the ancient phrase “intelligent design” (which even Darwin used) and shed any supposed identity with the idea of “biblical creation”. Let us even for the sake of argument suppose the adoption of the ancient phrase “intelligent design” was hastened by the events of Edwards vs Aguillard. Can it then be claimed that the body of arguments that constitute “intelligent design” was merely a fabrication to get “biblical creation” into the public schools as opposed to the design argument into universities? Absolutely not.

The failure of the claim is evidenced by the writings of Eugenie Scott in a peer-reviewed journal, Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1997. 26:263-89. Scott understood the nuances better than most ID proponents in the blogsphere today. In a candid moment, long before Dover, Eugenie Scott tells it like it is (with some qualifications).

Antievolutionism and Creationism in the United States (1997)


In 1989, shortly after the Edwards Supreme Court decision, Of Pandas and People, a supplemental textbook for high school biology, was published (Davis and Kenyon 1989). Its publication signified the increasing OEC [old earth creationist] influence in the neocreationist antievolution movement, and introduced the term Intelligent Design (ID). ID is promoted primarily by university-based antievolutionists who tend to be PCs [progressive creationists] rather than YECs. Dean Kenyon, for example, a tenured professor of biology at San Francisco State University, and Percival Davis, who teaches at a public college, Hillsborough Community College, in Tampa, Florida, advocate ID.

ID is a lineal descendent of William Paley’s Argument from Design (Paley 1803,)….

ID literature is more sophisticated than creation science literature, perhaps because it is (except for Of Pandas and People) usually directed more toward a university audience….

Antievolution at the University One of the leading exponents of ID is a University of California law professor, Phillip Johnson, who holds an endowed chair at Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley. Johnson appeared on the antievolutionist scene in 1991 with the publication of his book, Darwin on Trial (Johnson 1993). Because of Johnson’s academic credentials, and because he ignored arguments about the age of the earth and was even faintly contemptuous of YEC,….

Although Johnson is an evolution basher, his main concern is not really with whether scientific data do or do not support evolution, but with broader questions of purpose and meaning.
In the mid to late 1990s, university-based antievolutionism is a small but growing movement. For now, participants are dwarfed in both number and effectiveness by the more public efforts of organizations like the ICR, with its Back to Genesis road shows and media programs. YEC is still the most frequently-encountered antievolutionism that K-12 teachers have to cope with, but more and more it is being augmented by “arguments against evolution,” ID or other neocreationist positions. However, because a university-based antievolution movement has great potential to reach future decision-makers (who are being educated in universities today), this component of the movement may be highly influential in the future, even if it is small today. Future generations of college graduates may think that books like those of Johnson or Behe represent modern scientific scholarship on science and evolution.

Eugenie Scott, 1997

I’ll highlight key points:

1. ID was originally university-based and oriented

2. ID is a lineal descendent of William Paley’s Argument from Design (Paley 1803,) therefore Matzke is in a tough position arguing ID was somehow originated in 1989

3. the Edwards decision is only passingly mentioned

4. ID literature is more sophisticated than creation science literature (therefore it cannot be the same by definition!)

5. University-based anti-Darwinism was distinguished from the public school anti-Darwinism

6. ID literature was not constrained to Pandas and People, and in fact is a notable exception, contrary to what Matzke tries to insinuate!

7. The report was in 1997, when ID was a small movement! [but now it’s huge] 🙂

ID was originated and aimed at the university level from day one, not the public schools. If Ed wants to say creationisim was labeled ID to fool college students and faculty into thinking ID is science, let him say so (even though I would disagree). By that standard we “fooled” some of those that constitute the large numbers of pro-ID students in universities today, and even some faculty to boot. For that matter we got Yale Law School’s #1 alum (class of 1970), Ben Stein, to make a movie about them.

But for sure he is wrong to argue ID was primarily for public school consumption. It’s quite apparent that Pandas was a much diluted rendering of university-oriented ID literature, as evidenced even by Eugenie’s analysis.

Universities are where the ID action really is, and that’s why I’m in it. I’m in it for what’s happening in the universities (and really, the free markeplace of ideas), much less about the public schools. Genie realized that the ID movement in the universities was a distinct movement from the biblical creationist movement which supposedly besieges public schools.

ID has gained a foothold in the universities both among faculty, students, and even limited courses. It has done so fair and square without needing an act of congress or a supreme court decision. How does Genie feel about these developments? The readers may be surprised about Genie’s position on these matters (and the irony is not lost on Genie either):

Ironically, from the standpoint of evolution education, it is far preferable to have anti-evolutionary ideas expressed and debated at the university than in the local school board meeting

Eugenie Scott
Anti-evolutionists Form, Fund Think Tank

Finally, the fact that Genie recognizes that “biblical creation” is not the same as ID is also underscored by the talk she will give to the Atheist Alliance, September 29, 2007, Who Pulled the Stake Out? The Resurgence of Young Earth Creationism:

In the last few years, the “intelligent design” creationists have been in the spotlight of the press and media, somewhat eclipsing the traditional “young earth” creationists. But the YECs have neither gone away nor diminished in influence: at NCSE, we are acutely aware that the larger and actually more influential creationist movement remains the one founded by Henry M. Morris. The opening of the new multi-million dollar Answers in Genesis museum only underscores this fact. A talk at the annual meeting of American Atheists International.

Eugenie correctly perceives that there are two distinct movements. But contrast her excellent understanding with Brayton’s simplistic views and his disdain regarding people who perceive things differently than he does:

Crowther’s Lies on Origin of Intelligent Design

the DI wants you to believe that there’s no connection at all between ID and creation science, that they are entirely different movements. Only someone truly deluded … would believe them.

[...] Eugenie Scott Eugenie Scott defeats Ed Brayton [...] God's iPod - Uncommon Descent - Intelligent Design
[...] Eugenie Scott Eugenie Scott defeats Ed Brayton [...] ID’s influence on the next generation Creation/Evolution debate | Uncommon Descent
[...] also amused that one of the links in the article is to a 2007 post by Sal Cordova at Uncommon Descent (aka William Dembski’s Home for Wayward Sycophants) that [...] My Conservapedia Article: Updated » Dispatches from the Culture Wars
I'd like to thank Ed Brayton for expending quite a bit of bandwidth to advertise UD and the ID movement and this topic for the 5th time! See: Cordova Tries Again. I posted this at his website: ========= comment #11 He offered more illogical and simplistic thinking which I chose not to deal with at this time. I thank him however for doing his part at keeping the controversy over Design alive and well. scordova
I posted the following in Cordova Continues to Spin =========
Ed wrote: It should be clear to any honest person that Matzke was referring to the same thing Dembski was, to the present use of that phrase as a label for a (still non-existent) theory, research program, or movement. That Sal continues to make absurd arguments to prove otherwise only shows his lack of intellectual honesty.
A rose is a rose by any other name, and it appears the movement merely adopted a name suitable to it's rightful heritage. It was ID all along, and any mis-naming it along the lines of "creation science" was a mistake, and Edward's vs. Aguillard only hastened the fixing of this mistake. With respect to what ID is, and where it descended from:
ID is a lineal descendent of William Paley's Argument from Design (Paley 1803,) Eugenie Scott
Ed's analysis is clumsy and simplistic as I pointed out in Eugenie Scott defeats Ed Brayton and in subsequent comments. To say ID was created to influence the public schools is about as lame as saying Darwinism was created to influence the public schools. The ID movement is about defeating Darwinism and sending it to the ash heap of failed ideas where it belongs. The public school system is only one minor battle ground in a larger cultural war. To define the culture war in terms of one battlefield is pretty shallow. The ID movement is winning in the court of public opinion and it will eventually win in the scientific arena as the Darwinist Dogmatists simply retire from the battle front having been wearied from defending Darwinist falsehoods in the face of undeniable empirical evidence. And unfortunately for Darwinism, even it Darwinism were right, 30 Dennett gives scientific reasons ID will prevail. So it appears like the last Samurai, the Darwinists will be brandishing their swords against howtizers and gatling guns. A Valiant defense, but doomed. The fact the Ed characterizes the ID movement as a public school issue is at variance with the highly accurate assessment by Eugenie Scott that ID was a university-based movement with the aim of influencing the culture in the free market place of ideas, and only secondarily the public schools if at all. Ed may accuse me of being intellectually dishonest, well, I will not return the gesture. I'll merely suggest Ed is being intellectually shallow. But he's an honest guy, and thus his clumsy thinking is forgivable. scordova
scordova said (comment #14) --
Ed’s assessesment of things is shallow, unscholarly, simplistic, unintellectual, illogical, clumsy. It’s the product of his own stereotypes and cloudly thinking.
That is typical of Ed Brayton -- and he has no qualms about censoring comments and commenters for the sole reason that they disagree with him. He kicked me off his blog permanently because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule. I made the perfectly reasonable claim that when a plaintiff refuses to accept an out-of-court settlement offer that would provide relief equal to or greater than the maximum relief that could possibly be provided by the court, the judge may dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds of "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," FRCP Rule 12(b)(6). It is obvious that the court cannot grant any relief if all the relief that the court could grant has already been offered! Duh. Also, under FRCP Rule 12(h)(2), Rule 12(b)(6) may be invoked at any time during a trial even if there was originally a claim upon which relief could be granted. See -- http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/03/comments-censored-elsewhere-new-feature.html#c2753919959400074362 In another case, Ed condemned StoptheACLU's Glib Fortuna for making a particular criticism of the ACLU and later praised a Wall Street Journal article for making the same criticism. Ed's explanation of the difference: Glib's criticism was "batshit wingnuttery." My blog has nearly forty articles that criticize Ed. It is high time for Fatheaded Ed to be exposed as the big phony that he is.
Though the FLEs were not explicitly mentioned as FLEs, the pioneer of FLE (Michael Behe) was.
Is Behe known for "front-loaded evolution"? I thought that Behe was mainly known just for popularizing the term "irreducible complexity." StephenB said (comment #4) --
That is why they keep hearkening back to that kangaroo court at Dover. They found a stupid judge to initutionalize their lie, so they resort to it each time they begin to lose the debate.
This is true. The Darwinists' reliance on the opinion of a single judge is beyond all reason. Also, Judge Jones' Dickinson College commencement speech gave strong evidence that he was biased against the defendants -- he said that his Dover decision was influenced by his belief that the Founders believed that organized religions are not "true" religions. Larry Fafarman
Well, I guess its all about strategy. For my part, an ounce of public acceptance is worth a pound of debate. And public acceptance comes from a public relations campaign which tells the public who we are(empirically based) and countering the Darwinist lies about who we are not (faith based). That was the point of my first post. I don't think that problem takes care of itself. Also, I think that our strategy should be aimed more at recruiting new ID scientists (serious mission territory) and less at gaining Darwinist converts (very little bang for the buck). Hence, the importance of public acceptance. We have to remember who our audience is and who among them is most likely to come our way. At this point in the game, moving hearts and minds is almost as important as the science itself. StephenB
joe: ID is NOT anti-evolution. And until people realize that there will be a need to refute the stupidity that spreads such drivel.
Thanks Joe for your comments. There were indeed a few things I did not agree with in Scott's article. But of anything written by a critic about the ID movement, this was the most accurate I've read so far. Surprisingly, this was in 1997, and it was probably researched for a couple of years before publication when ID was obscure and almost unknown [even in creationist cricles, the name "ID" wasn't hardly recognized until about 3 years ago]. Thus Genie wrote the article to warn her peers as to what was happening. The audience for her article wasn't the mainstream media. It wasn't a public relations screed. It was an investigative report, and the accuracy was astonishing! How many people today actually realize ID was oriented toward the market place of ideas and especially the university audience (both faculty and students)? It's unfortunate the movement got defined in the eyes of the public by those bone-heads in Dover and the Thomas Moore law center who couldn't even articulate what ID thoery was. Ed's assessesment of things is shallow, unscholarly, simplistic, unintellectual, illogical, clumsy. It's the product of his own stereotypes and cloudly thinking. Genie's analysis was astonishingly accurate and caught so many nuances. Not many would see the link between the PCs and OECs and FLEs (Front-Loading Evolutionists) in relation to the formulation of ID. Though the FLEs were not explicitly mentioned as FLEs, the pioneer of FLE (Michael Behe) was. scordova
Larry, The DI is obviously lying. ;) To StephenB, ID needs a tent big enough to hold all the people who are interested in the reality behind our existence. You do realize there is only one reality... Joseph
If -- as Ed "all-sane-people-always-agree-with-me-and-so-I-don't-need-a-policy-against-arbitrary-censorship-of-comments" Brayton claims -- the term "intelligent design" is just a ruse to get old-fashioned creationism into the K-12 public schools, then how does he explain the fact that the Discovery Institute -- the leading organizational proponent of ID -- opposes requiring that ID per se be taught in the K-12 public schools? Here is what the DI website says:
1. Does Discovery Institute favor including the Bible or creationism in science classes or textbooks? No. Discovery Institute is not a creationist organization, and it does not favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes. - - - - - - - 3. Should public schools require the teaching of intelligent design? No. Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned. We believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students, teachers, and parents.
Also, what about non-ID criticisms of evolution, e.g., criticisms concerning co-evolution, the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction, and chromosome counts? Larry Fafarman
How big of a tent does the ID movement want,
Big enough to host the debate. If you look at the book Debating Design which had an all star cast of both Darwinists, IDists, Self-Organizationalists, .....That symbolizes the real Big Tent. The ID movement merely wishes the issues are debated and the evidence put on the table. The problem is the debate has been institutionally shut down. Let the Big Tent be for everyone with an open mind. We'll even let closed minded skeptics in, if they are willing to engage in debate. [of course, spammers are unwelcome, let them elect their best to debate ID's best. These swarm attacks like what's happening at Ben Stein's blog are not my idea of a big tent, that's a bee hive.] scordova
For Brayton to claim that ID was created to get creationism into public schools is about as lame as claiming Darwin wrote Origin of Species to get atheism into public schools. Both movements (ID and Darwinism) were aimed at explaining origins, the rest is a sideshow, even the public schools. The arguments about what's taught in public schools or what former liquor control board director John Jones decide to cut and paste into his rulings pale in significance to the possibility that life and the universe were intelligently designed. Brayton simply doesn't get it. He fails to realize that some of us are genuinely curious to know if life was intelligently designed, and whether that is where the evidence is leading us. Ed would prefer to spend time finding reasons to paint ID as a bunch of scoundrels. Well, in that case, I thank him for helping Ben Stein's "Bad to the Bone" marketing campaign on behalf of ID. I hope that rebel image really takes hold. scordova
How big of a tent does the ID movement want, and what are the consequences of having a tent that is too big or too small? StephenB
Here is a simple test: Creation Science is against universal common descent Intelligent Design accepts universal common descent The theory of evolution also accepts universal common descent Therefore Intelligent Design is connected to the theory of evolution. The ONLY difference is the mechansim- designed to evolve vs. evolved via culled genetic accidents. Joseph
On another note Project ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) has found even more evidence for Intelligent Design: Nature article redefining a gene in light of ENCODE (what is a gene?) BBC article on the ENCODE project The Washington Post weighs in Joseph
Ah yes, one can imagine how warmed over scientists would be to sign the join the DI's DissentFromDarwin list had their been association with the name "creation science". The list managed to get some key names like Salthe, Sternberg, Tipler, Mae Wan Ho, etc. probably because there was no association with "creation science" scordova
This post was not about trying to persuade anyone that the ID movement is "honest". I have pointed out, one can presume we're scoundrels, and the question of design will still be here at the end of day. See: “Scoundrel? Scoundrel…I like the sound of that”. I must admit, it rather puts a smile on my face when I see them describe me as scoundrel. Playing the role of a good guy is so boring...."bad to the bone" to quote the Ben Stein theme, is much better.... :=) My intent was to show how shallow Brayton's perception of the movement is. Brayton seems to be under the impression a court case here and there will be the end of it, that ID (the lineal descendant of Paley) has no substance, that it was fabricated by guys who really believe Darwinism is true but just put up a charade for money, power, and the love of women. But Eugenie Scott correctly perecieved what was going on. And if there were readers that had doubts about why the name "intelligent design" was adopted, I wanted them to consider that had the body of ideas gone under the banner of "creation science" for much longer, the movement might not have been very inviting to some of it's key scholars: 1. Michael Behe 2. William Dembski 3. David Berlinski 4. "Mike Gene" 5. Michale Denton (briefly) 6. Hubert Yockey (briefly) there are probably more, but hopefully that paints the picture. Further, Scott rightly points out the OEC (old earth creationist) and PC (progressive creationist) influence. One way to real sour feelings under the big tent is to associate OEC's and PCs and OE-ID (old earth ID) with AiG and ICR who repeatedly label OEC's and PC's as compromisers. Names would be: Guillermo Gonzalez Stephen Meyer Jay Richards Walter Bradeley Roger Olsen Charles Thaxton Henry Schaeffer JP Moreland William Lane Craig ..... etc. Brayton's reasoning is simplistic. Any association with "creation science" was long over due to be reliquished, and I'd speculate that Edwards vs. Aguillard was a wake up call to fix something that needed to be fixed. If any formal association with "creation sience" persisted, I have to wonder if the ID movement would have gotten off the ground. I know for a fact it really ruffles some feathers in ID circles if you look like a YEC and go up to some of them and ask them their opinion of the age of the Earth. Such a line of questioning is perceived as "are you one of those Old Earth ID compromisers"? Notice how Scott characterized Johnson's attitude toward YEC. One can probably guess how enamored Phil might be with the name "creation science" attached to the movement. When we had a huge apologetics conference last fall, several YECs refused to attend because Michael Behe was speaking. Brayton doesn't grasp that association with "creation science" had probably less to do with the public school issue than being able to organize and sustain the "Big Tent" of scholars. His assessment was simplistic because he doesn't think the ID movement is anything but a charade. He's a victim of his own mental fabrications. If there are no scholars in the movement, there is no movement. If there were no Michael Behe, William Dembski, Guillermo Gonzoalez, Walter Bradley, .... you get the picture. scordova
The extent to which CS differs from ID is a story that hasn’t really been told. Mankind has always been interested in investigating the relationship between God and nature. At times, philosophy defined the debate; at other times, science seemed to have the upper hand. What has always mattered in this discussion is in which DIRECTION the investigation proceeds. Does it move forward, that is, does it assume something about God and then interpret nature in that context; or does it move backward, that is, does it observe something interesting in nature and then speculate about how that might have come to be? If the investigation moves forward, as does CD, it is faith based; if it moves backward, as does ID, it is empirically based. Each approach has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years. We notice the forward approach, in Tertullian, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Anselm. Augustine described it best with the phrase, “faith seeking understanding.” In each case, the investigation is faith based. By contrast, we discover the “backward” orientation in Aristotle, Aquinas, Paley, and others. Aristotle’s argument, which begins with “motion in nature” and reasons BACK to a “prime mover,” is obviously empirically based. Aquinas' famous "five proofs" using unaided reason fall into the same category. Clearly, anyone who would claim that these two traditions are identical, that forward=backward, would be making a ridiculous assertion. How, then, do they get away with it? I suspect there may be two reasons. First, Materialists are normally not capable of grasping the big picture, otherwise they would not be materialists. Part of that picture consists of a historal perspective which is of no interest to them. The study of science isolated from the tempering influence of liberal arts can create a severely isolated mind. They simply don't know enough about the subject to be embarrassed by their isolation. Also, since the earlier manifestations of ID did not constitute what some would call rigorous science, some might mistakenly believe that the association is not relevant. My view is that the point needs to be raised. Darwinists should to be exposed for the dishonest practice of conflating CS with ID. This is the big lie that supports their entire disinformation campaign. That is why they keep hearkening back to that kangaroo court at Dover. They found a stupid judge to initutionalize their lie, so they resort to it each time they begin to lose the debate. When you think about it, this big lie is all they have. Knock over this one domino, and the rest will come falling down. StephenB
That is one scary picture to be confronted with on a Saturday morning. But anyway- ID is NOT anti-evolution. And until people realize that there will be a need to refute the stupidity that spreads such drivel. Also it is obvious that Intelligent Design can be traced at least back to Aristotle and his "final cause":
The final cause is that for the sake of which a thing exists or is done, including both purposeful and instrumental actions and activities. The final cause or telos is the purpose or end that something is supposed to serve, or it is that from which and that to which the change is. This also covers modern ideas of mental causation involving such psychological causes as volition, need, motivation, or motives, rational, irrational, ethical, all that gives purpose to behavior. The final cause of the artist might be the statue itself. (teleology)
(bold added) On another note the best way to show that ID is not Creation is to have Creationists testify at the next trial- John Morris, Ken Ham and Sarfati come to mind. Joseph
Notes: 1. There is a rather atrocious collection of disconnected posts by Ed Brayton on the issue: Crowther's Lies on Origin of Intelligent Design, Cordova vs Dembski, Cordova's non Answers, and Cordova Continues to Spin. 2. My disconnected responses can be found in various places here: [quote mine] Charles Darwin: “all has been intelligently designed” 3. By the way, "Who pulled the stake out of YEC?" I hope to one day find out who Genie credits for this. But my candidate would be the MIT PhD, National Science Foundation Fellow, Army Ranger, Vietnam Veteran, West Point Graduate, Airforce Academy Professor, and all around great guy: Walter Brown. 5. If one wishes to compare my writings for the ID movement versus that of the creation science movement, they can visit www.YoungCosmos.com. Hopefully that will help settle any accusation that ID is identical to creation science. 6. Some loose ends: I don't know that any one has denied at least some association between creationists and the theory of ID. For example, A. E. Wilder-Smith (a creationist) is openly acknowledged as a forefather of ID. Also, in order for the body of knowledge that is ID to begin to evolve a distinct identity from "biblical creation" it would only make sense to adopt a label which would make it distinct from "biblical creation", and a label which would be more appropriate to describe ID's intellectual heritage. There could not be a better label than one that has already been used and argues along the lines of what ID really is versus "biblical creation". Thaxton's serendipitous choice of "intelligent design" stuck for good reason, it was the right label. It is evident once the new label was adopted, whatever semblences ID had to Kenyon's (not ICR's) version of creation science, the semblence diverged rapidly. Compare Kenyon's version of ID:
Pandas and People Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appear in the rock record with their distinctive features intact, rather than gradually developing
to Bill Dembski's
Design of Life Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.
to the Discovery Institute, ID Net, and IDEA:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Thus, the adoption and sustained usage of the ID label did not signify a move primarily to try to get "biblical creation" into public schools, it signified the desire to get ID tied to its true intellectual heritage and allow it the freedom to evolve and attract non-creationists like Michael Behe and William Dembski to the movement. scordova
Even Barbara Forrest asserts indirectly that ID was not aimed necessarily at the public schools, but rather the universities. In her rather tabloid characterization she writes:
the Wedge is working its way into the American cultural mainstream.... Under cover....the Wedge's workers have been carving out a habitable and expanding niche within higher education, cultivating cells of followers. .... The Wedge has already acquired two groups of college followers, the Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center (IDURC) and the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club. The IDURC has become a division of Access Research Network and promotes Wedge books and other products through links to ARN’s website and to commercial sites like Amazon.com….. The IDEA Center’s advisory board consists of Wedge members Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Jay Wesley Richards, Mark Hartwig, and Francis Beckwith; Dennis Wagner executive director of Access Research Network …… The Wedge has always had as a goal the insertion of ID courses into the university curriculum Finally the Intelligent Design and Evolution Aawreness Club (IDEA) was formed in May 1999…. they do represent a a vast potential pool of recruits that the Wedge is cultivating Forrest and Gross Creationism's Trojan Horse
A few ID courses have entered the university curriculum fair and square, and legally. May the trend continue. scordova

Leave a Reply