What the Intelligent Design Movement really says

[Vance]

AiG, a leading Creationist organization, seems to have a very schizophrenic view of the Intelligent Design movement (IDM). On the one hand, they gush over books by Behe and Denton, but then get skittish when it comes to what these guys actually believe. Here are some excerpts from an AiG article on the subject. It is well worth the read:

"The informal leadership of the IDM has more or less come to rest on Phillip Johnson, a distinguished retired (emeritus) Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley who is a Presbyterian. Philosophically and theologically, the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group. For example, Dr Jonathan Wells is not only a scientist but also an ordained cleric in the Unification Church (the ‘Moonie’ sect) and Dr Michael Denton is a former agnostic anti-evolutionist (with respect to biological transformism), who now professes a vague form of theism. However, he now seems to have embraced evolutionary (though somehow ‘guided’) transformism. Dr Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, is a Roman Catholic who says he has no problem with the idea that all organisms, including man, descended from a common ancestor.
The IDM’s general approach

Among the IDM’s leading proponents, there are some commonly shared beliefs and stances:

• The major focus of their attacks is not evolution as such, but ‘chance’ evolution, i.e., the naturalistic philosophy (there is no supernatural; matter is all there is) behind it.
• Anyone opposed to naturalism could potentially qualify as an ally. This includes believers in evolution from microbe to man, so long as this belief were to involve some intelligent, planned interference sometime during the billions of years.
• They generally believe in, or are publicly neutral on, the millions and billions of years that evolutionists teach and accept.
• They either are comfortable with, or express no public view on, the corollary implication of long-age belief, namely that millions of years of death, disease and suffering took place before mankind appeared.
• Though the movement incorporates some believers in Genesis, including recent creation in six days and Noah’s global Flood, its approach would preclude public expression of support or concern for the Bible’s authority in such matters.
• They often go to great lengths to ensure that they are not seen as ‘coming at it from the Bible’.

. . .

• Ironically, despite already drawing the fire aimed at Genesis, the Bible and Christianity, many other prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of the recent creation of a good world, ruined by man’s Fall into sin. For tactical reasons, they have been urged (especially by their coolest and wisest head, Phil Johnson, who does not himself share that hostility) not to publicly condemn their Genesis-believing fellow travelers, although this simmering opposition has burst forth from time to time. Were the IDM to partially succeed in its initial aims, some of the strongest opponents of literal Genesis may well arise from its recently-victorious ranks. For instance, Dr Michael Denton, though an amiable fellow, was nevertheless part of a broadcast forum in Australia which recently told a largely Christian audience that belief in literal Genesis was foolish and unscientific."

Emphasis added.

Makes me kinda warm up to this ID movment . . .

 

[grmorton]

For instance, Dr Michael Denton, though an amiable fellow, was nevertheless part of a broadcast forum in Australia which recently told a largely Christian audience that belief in literal Genesis was foolish and unscientific."
Emphasis added.

Makes me kinda warm up to this ID movment . . .

I bet AIG feels foolish now. They had Denton on a video several years ago from when Denton was more freindly to AIG. Denton at that time said:

"I tend to think that perhaps the evidence suggests a transcendant sort of
Hebraic God in the Judeo Christian tradition. An external creator made the
world and gave it its order, its pattern, its ends." Michael Denton, The
Biological Evidence of Creation, Keziah Productions, 1998.

Apparently, AIG doesn't vet whom they have on their videos as long as they say the right thing or gives the proper soundbite

 

[Vance]

Oh, I agree that they tend to take all comers who agree on the right points. But it may be that Denton still believes what he said in 1998. I actually see nothing inconsistent between the quote you gave and what he said about a belief in a literal Genesis being foolish.

But you are right. If you do a search of Denton or Behe on the AiG site, they are full of praise for their books which question standard evolutionary development, even though these same writers DISBELIEVE Creationism entirely. I wonder if they really understood Behe and Denton's hostility toward Creationism itself when they so profusely praised their books.

 

[grmorton]

Oh, I agree that they tend to take all comers who agree on the right points. But it may be that Denton still believes what he said in 1998. I actually see nothing inconsistent between the quote you gave and what he said about a belief in a literal Genesis being foolish.

But you are right. If you do a search of Denton or Behe on the AiG site, they are full of praise for their books which question standard evolutionary development, even though these same writers DISBELIEVE Creationism entirely. I wonder if they really understood Behe and Denton's hostility toward Creationism itself when they so profusely praised their books.

And they miss Behe's position.

For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism--natural selection working on variation--might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." ~ Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 7

In other words, he thinks we all have a common ancestor and God drove the evolutionary process.

 

[Vance]

It is just amazing that this book is plastered all over AiG and ICR and is often cited by YEC's in support of their position. I think many of the "YEC's on the street" have never read it and just know that he "opposes evolution". Little do they know that he agrees with the evolutionists dramatically more than he agrees with them! With the YEC "ministries", who I assume have read the book (and Denton's new one), I just think they are so desparate to point to someone who opposes evolution that they will just ignore the rest of what he says. In reality, though, these ID scientists don't really even oppose evolutionary development at all, they just oppose certain aspects of the mechanics and they oppose any concept that it happened without Divine guidance of some type.

 

[California Tim]

Evidently, if I understand the underlying theme of this entire thread, by using the same arguments as those used against AiG and ID, I may now safely dismiss any theory of evolution provided that theory is embraced by someone who is either agnostic or atheist. Since virtually every athiest and most agnostics must embrace ET as the only possibility for the explanation of all lifeforms, I think it is safe to say they are incapable of deriving a proper conclusion when interpreting evidence and thus ET is debunked by association. Is that about in line with the train of thought here (albeit the alter-ego)?

 

[Vance]

No, you have the irony backwards. YEC's often accuse TE's of "sleeping with the devil" in that we happen to believe something that atheists believe as well. They make it a point that Christians should be a separate people, etc, etc.

The point is NOT that YEC's should disagree with ID because of its leading advocates, but groups like AiG promote their books FOR the proposition that there are scientists who oppose evolution, but do not always mention along with that promotion that those same scientists STILL believe in an earth billions of years old and the transformation of the species, including Man, over that period of time.

This points to the fact that it is not the FACT of evolutionary development that is doubted by these scientists, but only the purely naturalistic flavor of the theory of evolution.

 

[grmorton]

It is just amazing that this book is plastered all over AiG and ICR and is often cited by YEC's in support of their position. I think many of the "YEC's on the street" have never read it and just know that he "opposes evolution". Little do they know that he agrees with the evolutionists dramatically more than he agrees with them! With the YEC "ministries", who I assume have read the book (and Denton's new one), I just think they are so desparate to point to someone who opposes evolution that they will just ignore the rest of what he says. In reality, though, these ID scientists don't really even oppose evolutionary development at all, they just oppose certain aspects of the mechanics and they oppose any concept that it happened without Divine guidance of some type.

I also don't understand the YEC support for Johnson. In the PBS debate several years ago, Phillip Johnson said we should drop the 'biblical issues.' I transcribed the interaction:

Barry Lynn: "Do you believe there were dinosaurs on Noah's ark,
at least baby dinosaurs?"

Philip Johnson: "I don't make any reference to the Bible or
Biblical authority. I don't deal with that at all and I really
don't have an opinion about it for you."
. . .
Of the book D is for Dinosaur Barry Lynn asked: "Do you think
that is good Biology?

Phillip Johnson: "I do not. "In fact I have said on many
occasions and have urged persons in the conservative Christian
community to put aside the Bible issues and let us ask the
question what is actually known from scientific evidence as
opposed to materialistic philosophy."

Barry Lynn:You're a great lawyer but you didn't answer the question. I
want you to know if you can tell us if you think that this is
not so silly and so dangerous the kind of ideas to plant in the
hands of high school students. [next sentence garbled on my
tape]

Phillip Johnson:"The kind of thing you are scouraging
certainly is silly, just almost as silly as the work of Richard
Dawkins. And its damaging. And I mean that."
PBS Debate broadcast Dec 19, 1997

Not only are some of the ID group evolutionists, some are Moonies, and Phil doesn't care about the Biblical issues. Why the YECs support them, I have no earthly idea.

 

[Vance]

Yes, that is amazing, Phillip Johnson calling YEC's as silly as Dawkins (an atheist).

Here is an interesting round table discussion among Johnson, Behe, Dembski and a few other ID guys about Denton's latest book:

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/naturesdestiny192.htm

First they describe Denton's new book:

"In August 1998, Denton’s eagerly-awaited second book arrived: Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe (Free Press, 1998). Readers expecting a continuation of the arguments of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, however, found a line of argument markedly different from the earlier book. Although much of Denton’s skepticism about neo-Darwinism remained, gone were the challenges to the theory of universal common descent--i.e., the common ancestry of all terrestrial organisms--which had made Evolution especially controversial with mainstream biologists. In their place was an unstinting advocacy of common descent, and a notion of “directed evolution” in which the historical unfolding of life on earth was “built into” the universe from the start."

Then they discuss it, during which Behe says:

"Moreover, the night before that meeting, Denton and I had dinner at Tom Bethell’s house. I told him that I had read his manuscript--at that point, the book was called Biology, The Anthropic Perspective, with the subtitle, An Essay in Natural Theology--and that I liked it very much. He was pleased. Then I said, “But there just one thing that bothers me. For a natural theology, it doesn’t mention God.” Denton seemed a bit startled by that, and he said, “Well, I certainly believe in God, and I think God did this. I was just trying to style the arguments in the fashion of the natural theologies of the early nineteenth century.” So it seems pretty clear to me that Denton in fact sees the evidence for design as pointing, ultimately, to a transcendent intelligence."

So, Denton, far from being an agnostic or a "vague theist" is, indeed, someone who believes that God was in charge. In charge of common descent, in particular. And he agrees with Johnson that YEC ideas are just unsupportable.