Distinctions Come Into Focus
by MikeGeneIn his recent blog, Bipod makes a very astute observation:
In my view, the authors of Pandas and People were probably constrained to creationist concepts because that is all that was available to them. But the conceptual revolution that took place, and thus the distinctions that are made by ID proponents today, is progress, not deception. Today we are able to distinguish between creationism and intelligent design. Any reasonable person without an agenda or a victory to acheive, should agree that there is a conceptual distinction to be made here. That progress has been made in that last 20 years and rather than ridicule it as conspiracy, perhaps those who are open minded and actually seeking enlightenment (acquisition of fine-grained truth rather than acquisition of victory) can be thankful for the distinction. It can enable us to think more clearly about the issues at hand. Maybe intelligent design is false, but at least now we have the conceptual precision to investigate the question.
Not only is this a very plausible explanation, I think as we look back at the short history of Intelligent Design, we can see the appreciation for this distinction emerge.
Let's take the NCSE's Nick Matzke's conspiracy theory at face value and assume he has found the Trojan Horse's smoking gun. The question to pose here is "˜so what?' Those who explore and think about ID today are under no obligation to embrace ID as an expression of creationism. Consider some developments that have occurred since Pandas and People.
In 1996, Michael Behe publishes Darwin's Black Box and adds two important distinctions to the mix. He makes it clear in his book that he accepts evolution, writing:
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.
With this comment, a leading voice among the ID crowd shows us that ID and evolution can indeed co-exist. His skeptical eye is not cast toward evolution itself, but the Darwinian mechanism as it applies to the molecular world.
Secondly, Behe also makes it clear elsewhere in his book that his inference to design does not merit a conclusion that the designer is God. Whether he personally believes the designer is God is completely irrelevant, as nothing in his argument compels the reader of his book to share in this opinion.
Next, comes William Dembski, who takes ID many more steps away from creationism. Dembski focuses on detecting the acts of mind in the natural world and does so in a manner that can be considered independent of evolution and biology. For Dembski, it is about finding patterns that signal design. There is nothing in this approach that assumes evolution must be false or mandates that we conclude God as the designer/creator.
So what do we have? Even if the authors of Pandas and People were being as sneaky as Matzke would have us believe, it doesn't matter. By shifting focus from creationism to intelligent design, the authors were tapping in to a stream of thought that has existed for thousands of years prior, a stream of thought that is more than capable of being maintained independently of any allegiance to creationism. What effectively happened is that by shifting focus, it simply got people to reconsider teleological explanations with or without creationism. And the two leading voices of the ID movement facilitated this shift; Behe cut off ID from anti-evolutionism and religious apologetics and Dembski raised questions and methods that allow ID to grow independently. Thus, when the PT people quote the older edition of Pandas and People as saying, "Intelligent theory is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands," many of us ID evolutionists can note this statement is simply inaccurate "“ ID does not predict feathers would appear abruptly nor do abrupt feathers, in of themselves, signal ID.
Finally, we might note that even the creationists are showing a level of intellectual sophistication that is apparently lacking among so many critics. This is because the creationists have begun to appreciate the distinctions and are finding themselves increasingly in disagreement with ID precisely because it fails to carry their core message.
Bipod is entirely correct "“ conceptual development is progress, not deception. In contrast, consider the thinking of the Enlightened Critic. Their argument goes something like this:
1. The authors of Pandas and People substituted "˜intelligent design' for "˜creation' at several keys points.
2. Thus, anyone who subscribes to some version of ID must be a creationist.
November 11th, 2005 at 8:50 pm
It does amaze me how the folks at PT feel unable or unwilling to admit a distinction between creationism and ID. What drove it home for me was a blog on uncommondescent where Dr D pointed out the *lack* of ID Literature in YEC and OEC 'bookshops'!
They clearly appear to be distancing themsevles from ID. ID is not making a strong enough statement for them to embrace.
Comment by Plump-DJ — November 11, 2005 @ 8:50 pm
November 11th, 2005 at 8:55 pm
MikeGene, I don't understand you, do you or do you not support ID. Moreover, are you a christian?
Comment by Benjii — November 11, 2005 @ 8:55 pm
November 11th, 2005 at 10:26 pm
DJ,
The PT is largely a political blog that exists as a reaction to the Intelligent Design Movement. As such, they are completely invested in the ID = creationism perspective. Public acknowledgment of the obvious distinctions would be considered politically unproductive. The end justifies the means.
Comment by MikeGene — November 11, 2005 @ 10:26 pm
November 11th, 2005 at 10:28 pm
Benjii,
I'm not the topic of this blog. As for my views about ID, check out my web page.
Comment by MikeGene — November 11, 2005 @ 10:28 pm
November 12th, 2005 at 12:41 am
Missing link: "cdesign proponentsists"
Better than Archaeopteryx
Trackback by The Panda's Thumb — November 12, 2005 @ 12:41 am
November 12th, 2005 at 1:45 am
I wrote on this topic recently, too. I'm amazed that people can be so blinded by their desire to see ID stamped off the face of the earth that they completely ignore IDists who clearly aren't creationists.
Comment by macht — November 12, 2005 @ 1:45 am
November 12th, 2005 at 10:45 am
Matzke's response to this blog is quite confused. He's arguing with a claim that Behe and Dembski are not creationists. Read the blogs "“ no such claim was made here. The point of this blog has nothing to do with the beliefs of Behe and Dembski. It doesn't matter if they are creationists or were creationists or creationist-sympathizers or whatever. That's another topic. What I bipod and I were arguing was the development of a concept and the growing appreciation for distinctions.
For the sake of argument I granted Matzke's theory: "Let's take the NCSE's Nick Matzke's conspiracy theory at face value and assume he has found the Trojan Horse's smoking gun." and "Even if the authors of Pandas and People were being as sneaky as Matzke would have us believe." After granting these points, I then ask "so what?" What I have shown is that both Behe and Dembski have now succeeded in framing ID in such a way that it can conceptually stand independent of creationism. It's the arguments on the table that matter, not people's beliefs. It thus doesn't matter if they planned it or stumbled into unwanted implications. The split now exists and there is no going back. This is why the creationists have begun to split from ID (how does Matzke explain that? Invoke a deeper conspiracy?).
Concerning Behe, the argument was not about his beliefs, but about the fact that he has made it clear that ID can co-exist with evolution and that his method for detecting ID obligates no one to assume or conclude theism. Concerning Dembski, the argument is not about his beliefs, but about the fact that he has shown one way that the concept of ID can be explored without any necessary allegiance to creationism. I spelled this out clearly:
"By shifting focus from creationism to intelligent design, the authors were tapping in to a stream of thought that has existed for thousands of years prior, a stream of thought that is more than capable of being maintained independently of any allegiance to creationism. What effectively happened is that by shifting focus, it simply got people to reconsider teleological explanations with or without creationism. And the two leading voices of the ID movement facilitated this shift; Behe cut off ID from anti-evolutionism and religious apologetics and Dembski raised questions and methods that allow ID to grow independently."
Matzke's mind is further clouded by his political prism when he pounces on trivia and misses the main argument. When I said something about PT people quoting the older edition of Pandas and People, Matzke is quick to point out we're talking the 1993 edition and that several points is really 110 points. Oh my. But, like, who cares? The trivia misses the entire point, where I note that things have developed such that many of us ID evolutionists can note that Pandas' original definition of ID theory is simply inaccurate. Sure, one could argue that the sudden emergence of feathers is consistent with ID, but ID does not entail that feathers should emerge abruptly nor is such an abrupt appearance, all by itself, a sign of ID. Matzke provides a very timely illustration of this.
In the end, we can see that Matzke's mind is conditioned to perceive "˜creationism' whenever it is presented with "˜intelligent design.' Whether this reflex is genuine or just part of a political strategy doesn't matter. What matters is that while some of us think in dynamic terms and focus on the arguments, concepts and their development, Matzke thinks in static terms and focuses on whether or not someone can be labeled a creationist.
Comment by MikeGene — November 12, 2005 @ 10:45 am
November 12th, 2005 at 8:06 pm
Nice essay, Macht!
Comment by MikeGene — November 12, 2005 @ 8:06 pm
November 14th, 2005 at 11:35 pm
There is a divide within the creationist community. I would not say ALL creationists are disagreement with ID, in fact it is the younger generation of creationists who are in agreement with ID. They realize the value of treating ID like any other scientific theory, a theory free of theology.
You are right however, the creationist now have level of intellectual sophistication not seen earlier. I was astonished to hear 1/3 biology freshman at Iowa State are creationists!
This is an indication the community of creationists are no longer insulating themselves from the mainstream, that creationist parents are less afraid their kids will somehow be deconverted. The students are not at all intimidated by their professors! It shows confidence the ID arguments will defeat claims of the Darwinian mechanisms. This is a indication consistent with your claim of creationist sophistication.
I see the sophistication it on the college campuses I visit, creationist biology majors quoting Michael Behe!
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 14, 2005 @ 11:35 pm