ID and Creationism
I have heard many comments in some blogs I read about the relationship and nature of Intelligent Design (ID) and creationism. Unfortunately, most of them are very wrong. They confuse the goals of the two movements, they misunderstand the nature of both systems, and get their facts wrong. So here is some of the basic information on the subject.
Creationism is usually where everyone ends up, so I will begin with it. Creationism is a term with at least two distinct meanings. One meaning refers to those who believe that the earth was created in six days, humans were created specially by God, and historical science must be understood in the framework of the book of Genesis. We could call these people Biblical Creationists. Another broader meaning refers to those who are Christians and believe that God intervened in the world. Most of the people who take this label believe in an old earth, and believe that there was no common descent. So this group of people is called Old Earth Creationists in some quarters, or creationists in others.
It should be obvious that one cannot be a creationist without being a monotheist. Both varieties of creationism appear in all three monotheistic religions. Being concise, I am going to focus on Christian versions of these claims. So there are two major versions of creationism within the Christian community. Biblical creationism is defined and represented by three major organizations. These are the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the Creation Research Society (CRS) and Answers in Genesis (AiG). CRS publishes a journal called Creation Research Society Quarterly, while Answers in Genesis publishes two journals. Creation is intended for popular consumption, while TJ publishes their specialized information. Old Earth Creationism is represented by the organization Reasons to Believe, run by Hugh Ross as well as some other individuals also within the ID community.
ID is both a general banner and an approach to the creation-evolution debate. As a general banner, it includes all of the creationists and some who are not creationists. This unifying banner are these ideas:
1) We can empirically detect some instances of design in the world, if they did occur
and
2) We have detected some instances of design in the world of biology or astronomy
However, ID is not just a unifying banner. It is also an approach. As an approach, their method is to assert that we should start by leaving all religious documents out of the conflict. We should work from the empirical evidence alone, and what we can discover from that evidence. There is also the unstated assumption, shared with secular scientists, that this method will give accurate and fully informed conclusions. It is represented by the Discovery Institute, the Access Research Network and some individuals such as Michael Behe, Philip Johnson, and Dembski.
So now a bit of advice is in order. Before you start jumping to conclusions with the latest press release, and accusing "the intelligent design creationists" of something as one blogger unwisely did, CHECK YOUR FACTS. No creationist or intelligent design organization is pushing for the teaching of creationism or intelligent design as mandatory alongside evolution. If you disagree, then pull up a statement supporting your position from the major people in that stream of thought. But remember that Answers in Genesis states that creationism should NOT be mandanted, and the Discovery Institute says the same thing about ID. And before you comment again about ID, read this.
Creationism is usually where everyone ends up, so I will begin with it. Creationism is a term with at least two distinct meanings. One meaning refers to those who believe that the earth was created in six days, humans were created specially by God, and historical science must be understood in the framework of the book of Genesis. We could call these people Biblical Creationists. Another broader meaning refers to those who are Christians and believe that God intervened in the world. Most of the people who take this label believe in an old earth, and believe that there was no common descent. So this group of people is called Old Earth Creationists in some quarters, or creationists in others.
It should be obvious that one cannot be a creationist without being a monotheist. Both varieties of creationism appear in all three monotheistic religions. Being concise, I am going to focus on Christian versions of these claims. So there are two major versions of creationism within the Christian community. Biblical creationism is defined and represented by three major organizations. These are the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the Creation Research Society (CRS) and Answers in Genesis (AiG). CRS publishes a journal called Creation Research Society Quarterly, while Answers in Genesis publishes two journals. Creation is intended for popular consumption, while TJ publishes their specialized information. Old Earth Creationism is represented by the organization Reasons to Believe, run by Hugh Ross as well as some other individuals also within the ID community.
ID is both a general banner and an approach to the creation-evolution debate. As a general banner, it includes all of the creationists and some who are not creationists. This unifying banner are these ideas:
1) We can empirically detect some instances of design in the world, if they did occur
and
2) We have detected some instances of design in the world of biology or astronomy
However, ID is not just a unifying banner. It is also an approach. As an approach, their method is to assert that we should start by leaving all religious documents out of the conflict. We should work from the empirical evidence alone, and what we can discover from that evidence. There is also the unstated assumption, shared with secular scientists, that this method will give accurate and fully informed conclusions. It is represented by the Discovery Institute, the Access Research Network and some individuals such as Michael Behe, Philip Johnson, and Dembski.
So now a bit of advice is in order. Before you start jumping to conclusions with the latest press release, and accusing "the intelligent design creationists" of something as one blogger unwisely did, CHECK YOUR FACTS. No creationist or intelligent design organization is pushing for the teaching of creationism or intelligent design as mandatory alongside evolution. If you disagree, then pull up a statement supporting your position from the major people in that stream of thought. But remember that Answers in Genesis states that creationism should NOT be mandanted, and the Discovery Institute says the same thing about ID. And before you comment again about ID, read this.
posted by Matthew at 3:10 PM
2 Comments:
If one is interested in the subjects, your articles are interesting.
I may be mistaken (I am neither a philosopher nor a scientist) but it seems to me that the issue for both camps should be "origins." In that arena science is disqualified. It cannot engage the subject without using the tools of its foe. On the other hand, ID (and any form of creationism) simply shifts the focus of the problem from the where & why of our closed system to the where, why & who/what of the proposed open system: i.e. what is the origin of the IDer or Creator. Both are faced with a "faith" conclusion.
Dave
Sorry, didn't mean to be anonymous.
Post a Comment
<< Home