An overview for Design in Science is in the homepage for Origins Evidence.
Sections in this page:
1. What is intelligent design?
Four Types of Design
Introductory Overviews
2. Intelligent Design as an inclusive Big Tent
ID and
Young-Earth Creation
ID and Old-Earth
Progressive Creation
ID and
Evolutionary Creation (Theistic Evolution)
3. What are the implications for Apologetics & Natural Theology?
4. Can a theory of intelligent design
be authentically scientific?
Introductory Overview: Why are so
many so confident?
Can we find scientific support for (or against) design?
Why doesn't Intelligent Design publish in science journals?
Can Intelligent Design be useful in science,
now or in the future?
Is rigid methodological naturalism useful
(or even essential)
in science?
While exploring these questions, there will be some overlapping of ideas with other areas, especially EVALUATION OF EVOLUTIONS (for science) and METHODS OF CREATION (for theology).
What is a theory of design? What
claims are (and are not) being made by design theorists?
Why are
some design theories controversial? Many
theories about design-directed action (involving faces on
Mt Rushmore, murder investigations,...)
are evaluated based on their scientific merit, using evidence and logic,
but other design theories are criticized for being "not scientific." Why? And
what are the similarities and differences between theories of design
and creation?
Some disagreements about design are unavoidable because people just disagree. But some of the "more heat than light" in debates about design is due to confusion about definitions of design. This is partly due to ignorance, when people just don't think about what they're saying. But some confusing seems intentional, when debaters (on both sides) think distortion will help them appeal to listeners they want to impress. If we want less confusion, we should define different types of "design" so we can distinguish between them, so we can think and speak with more clarity:
Four Types
of Design
When scientists study a feature
of nature (a star, bacteria, whale, biochemical system,...) they can ask
about its origin. Was it produced by design, by
natural process because before history began the universe was cleverly designed
so this would happen (with Natural-initial
design, Ni), and/or by natural
process that, during history, was supernaturally guided
in a natural-appearing way (with Natural-supernatural
action, Ns),
or by empirically detectable design-directed action
during history, by a natural
agent (Detectable-natural action, Dn)
or supernatural agent (Detectable-supernatural
action, Ds),
which was necessary because undirected natural process would not produce
the feature? Or
was there no design of any type, as proposed
by atheists?
All theists agree that the universe
is designed (Ni) and that God can guide natural process (Ns),
but there is disagreement when we ask "Does scientific evidence and logic
indicate the occurrence of detectable design-action during the formative
history of nature?" Proponents of detectable
design-action during history (Dn or Ds) think all four
design-actions did occur, while proponents of evolutionary creation think
the universe was designed so natural process (Ni or Ni-and-Ns)
would be sufficient, so
there would be no need for detectable design-action in history.
TERMINOLOGY: In the rest of this page, Intelligent Design (or ID or Design) will refer to a claim for detectable design-directed action (a claim that undirected natural process did not produce a particular feature) because detectable design-action is the main focus of pro-ID and anti-ID arguments & emotions, while intelligent design or design (notice that neither is capitalized) can refer to any of the four designs (Ni, Ns, and/or Dn-or-Ds), depending on context.
• details of definitions are in Four Types of Design (and why one type is sometimes controversial) by Craig Rusbult (14 k + 7k)
Another type of confusion — caused by a common use of ‘naturalism’ with two meanings — is examined in METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Questions about intelligent design in a fine-tuning of nature — with a variety of features that are "just right for life" — are examined in DESIGN OF THE UNIVERSE.
The following introductions
cover a wide range of arguments for and against Intelligent
Design and
its potential applications in science and education:
• A summary of anti-ID arguments is in the FAQ
about ID (29 k) by TalkDesign.org, which is a spinoff
from TalkOrigins.org
• The pro-ID Discovery
Institute has an FAQ (11 k)
about Intelligent Design, Darwinian Evolution, and Science Education
Policy. Other answers to Frequently Asked Questions
(FAQs) are from BeliefNet (6 k)
and Stephen
Jones (12 k).
• A view that is not totally pro-ID or anti-ID
is from Loren Haarsma — who asks Is
Intelligent Design "Scientific"? and looks at scientific, philosophical,
and theological aspects of this question — as part of a series in PSCF with
responses from Michael Behe and John Bloom. Originally, this talk
was part of a symposium — Models
of Creation: Intelligent Design and Evolution — organized
by John Bloom for the annual conference of ASA in August 2005. Haarsma
proposes that instead of "debating the demarcation of
science" (by asking "Is ID science?") we should
ask, "Are
the scientific arguments of ID good science? Are
the philosophical arguments
of ID good philosophy? Are
the theological arguments of ID good theology?", and he concludes
with recommendations for advocates of ID and opponents of ID.
• In April 2002, Natural History published
a
written
debate about Intelligent
Design with an introduction by
Richard
Milner & Vittorio Maestro, pro-and-con statements & responses (from
Michael Behe & Kenneth
Miller, William Dembski & Robert Pennock, Jonathan Wells & Eugenie
Scott), and an overview by Barbara Forrest. (39 k for the 8
main parts, plus 14 k for author-bios, links suggested by each author,
and educational
resources) Basically, Natural History is anti-ID, and
later Mark Hartwig wrote a brief pro-ID
analysis of this written debate and a related
oral debate. (3 k)
• Historical Overviews: A brief
history (2 k) by Ron Numbers, The
Origin of Intelligent Design (19 k) by
Jonathan
Witt, Phillip
Johnson
and the Intelligent Design Movement, 1977–1991 (21 k +
10k)
by
Donald Yerxa. Also, histories focusing on education (and
associated legal questions & political strategies) are in EDUCATIONAL
POLICIES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
In the next section you can see the wide range of views inside the
Intelligent Design community.
Most advocates of Intelligent Design are monotheists — mainly Christians, but also Jews and Moslems — who think the designer is God. The "big tent of Intelligent Design" includes mainly old-earth progressive creationists and young-earth creationists, but not evolutionary creationists who propose theistic evolution.
What are the relationships between the four types of intelligent design and VIEWS OF CREATION?
• Intelligent
Design: The New "Big Tent" for Evolution's Critics by Terry
Devitt, describes the big tent as viewed by historian Ron Numbers. (5 k)
• Intelligent
Design Movement Struggles with Identity Crisis by Bruce Gordon (5 k)
When analyzing the ID movement we should distinguish between its scientific and sociological aspects, while considering the interactive relationships and mutual influences between science and sociology. Some criticisms of ID are due to its association with young-earth creationism:
Most of the prominent ID leaders, but not all, think the earth and universe are billions of years old. ID leaders welcome young-earth creationists into their Big Tent, based on a two-phase strategy for studying origins: first, ask whether natural process was sufficient to produce everything in the history of nature; then try to determine the age of our earth and universe. What does each group gain from the relationship? The anti-evolution aspect of young-earth creationism gets a "free ride" from design theories that are more scientifically credible, and are less constitutionally questionable in American public education. Intelligent Design can use young-earth support, sociologically (in the Christian community), financially (in contributions and book sales), and politically (in education and other areas). And both are partners in opposing a materialistic philosophy claiming that "only matter exists."
Proponents of young-earth views seem interested but cautious:
• Secular
Creation? by Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis (AIG) (4 k)
•
AiG's
Views on the Intelligent Design Movement by Carl Wieland (22 k
+ 2k)
• NeoCreationism:
A More
Accepted Creationism? by Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation
Research (12 k + 2k)
Proponents of Intelligent Design emphasize the similarities in views and goals:
• excerpts from an
interview (2003) with Phil Johnson (6 k interview + 14k of blog-responses
from
Christians) / IOU — I'll also try to find Phil's
earlier ideas about this. ==
• Life
in the Big Tent: Traditional Creationism
and the
Intelligent Design Community by Paul
Nelson, who is both ID and young earth (24 k + 6k); and another
version, similar but with some differences, is here. (23 k
+ 2k) { Soon, I'll ask Paul which version he prefers
and will link only to it. } ==
•
Intelligent
Design's Contribution to the Debate over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris by
William Dembski, who is ID and old earth (24 k)
Critics of ID point out some disadvantages
of a Big Tent:
• Del
Ratzsch, who defends ID (in some ways) and criticizes it (in other ways),
explains: "Although
not part of ‘official’ IDM [Intelligent Design movement] doctrine,
some among academic ID advocates, and the overwhelming bulk of lay ID advocates,
accept a ‘young-earth’ version of creationism. And although
not a part of ‘official’ IDM doctrine, the overwhelming bulk of
ID advocates take the designer in question to be God. Each of these unofficial
but sociologically dominant peripheral beliefs have attracted sharp – sometimes
venomous – criticisms directed toward IDM as well." (more
from Del Ratzsch)
• The
Problem with Intelligent Design by William Grassie (the founder and former executive director
of Metanexus) who is a gentle critic of ID, says "it
is vital that we separate known natural history from the interpretation of that
natural history. We can debate the meaning of the Cambrian Explosion, but
we should not be denying that
it happened. Scientific evidence for a long and evolving natural history
of life on this planet has grown dramatically and profoundly in last two centuries.
... [so] responsible Intelligent Design advocates admit to a long Earth history. These
ID advocates rarely talk about natural history, however, because they do not
want to alienate the Young Earth Creationist who constitutes the base of their
movement." (11 k
+
1k)
• In a less gentle criticism, IDing
ID, Chris Mooney compares
Intelligent Design & Young-Earth
Creation Science, describing their substantive differences and strategic
similarities. (10 k)
• Eugenie Scott, in her paper
about the
big tent, says that "if
ID is going to attain any level of scholarly respectability, its proponents
are going to have to distinguish
their model
from the discredited,
unscientific YEC model, even if that means losing the support of biblical-literalist
Christians." (11 k)
• Steve Reuland, on PandasThumb, analyzes and criticizes Phil
Johnson's "no position" position. (16 k main,
22k comments)
Evolutionary Creationists do propose divine intelligent
design:
There are three types of divine design and they
accept two (divine design of natural process, and divine design-action by a
guiding of natural-appearing events)
but reject one (divine Design-action that is miraculous-appearing and
thus might be scientifically detectable). In terms of the definitions
used in this page, evolutionary creationists accept intelligent design but
they reject detectable Intelligent
Design, so generally they are excluded — by their own choice, and
by the ID community — from the "big tent" of ID, which includes
mainly old-earth progressive creationists and young-earth creationists.
• Opening
Remarks & Closing
Remarks (5 k & 2 k) by Denis Lamoureux, an evolutionary
creationist, for the second pro-ID conference about Darwin, Design, and
Democracy.
• Review
of Phillip Johnson's Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Terry
Gray, who says "I agree with 95% of what I read. Johnson's
assessment of the big picture is correct and his call to Christians to step
into the modern debate
with the big picture in view is, I think, the right strategy... and [quoting
Johnson] ‘we
should
unite our energies to affirm the reality of God.’ But we disagree
about some of his detailed criticisms of evolution and his inclusion of the Intelligent
Design claim as an essential
plank in the big picture. ... God is involved actively in the ordinary
operations of the universe. The particular combination of genes in my daughter
is a consequence of chance recombination and independent assortment events, but
the combination is exactly what God wanted. Anything for which we think
we understand the mechanism in science is God-directed as much as any miracle
for which we can't understand the mechanism." (12 k) Also, The Mistrial
of Evolution (an earlier review, by Gray, of Darwin
on Trial by Johnson)
• Divine Guiding of Natural Process by
Craig Rusbult with extensive quotes from six authors (Howard Van Till, Keith
Miller,
Terry
Gray, Loren Haarsma, Robert John Russell, and Peter Rüst)
plus ideas from Richard Bube, John Polkinghorne, and David Oakley. (13 k
+ 10k) Evolutionary Creation & Progressive
Creation includes these ideas and also asks "Can we
be
scientifically
certain?" and "Can
we be theologically certain?"; assembled (with comments) by Craig
Rusbult, featuring the ideas of 15 other authors; the link takes you to
views from Peter Rüst, where we can ask "evolutionary creation
with intelligent design?" and "can we detect natural-appearing divine
guidance?" (9 k intro/summary, plus 68 k + 27k)
• The
Phillip Johnson Phenomenon: Are Evangelicals Inheriting The Wind? by
Denis Lamoureux, describes Johnson's Foundation Principles (Pervasiveness
of Naturalism,
Intelligent Design in the Universe, and Failure of the Theory of Biological
Evolution), Rhetorical Moves, and Theological Assumptions, plus Pastoral
Implications and a Conclusion.
•
The
Miracle of Evolution by Stephen Barr, about treatment of ID by Evolutionary
Creationists, and vice versa. (19 k)
and from the perspective of Intelligent Design,
• something by ID-proponent
Dembski (probably Intelligent
Design: Coming Clean, instead of the older What All Theologians Should
Know about Intelligent Design) — plus quotations about TE from
Phil & Bill & others
Dialogues — Intelligent Design and Evolutionary
Creation
• A series in First Things (1993) begins
with
Creator
or Blind Watchmaker? by
Phillip Johnson, followed a few months later by God
and Evolution with Johnson and Howard Van Till. (36 k
and 52 k)
• Two discussions in the ASA journal (2002 & 2003)
between
Mark
Discher
& James Madden (pro-ID) and Howard Van Till (pro-EC), about Intelligent
Design & a "Right Stuff" Universe, and Defeating Naturalism. (totals
= 85 k
and 52 k)
Theological Questions about Intelligent Design
• A common claim of ID is that "we're focusing on science now,
and we'll think about theology later," but George Murphy thinks there
is a
need for theology now in our discussions about Intelligent Design. (7 k) Murphy,
in Intelligent
Design as a Theological Problem says one problem
is that "The ID movement has not... addressed
the relationship between the actions of its Designer and natural processes...
[because] a theological attempt to understand how God acts through natural
processes to introduce information into biological systems would seem to
mean surrender to the naturalism that ID is fighting against." (10 k)
• Denis Alexander asks "Is
Intelligent Design Biblical?" and explains
why he thinks "arguments of the ID movement are
a Trojan horse bringing what is essentially secular un-Biblical thinking
into the
heart of certain evangelical
fellowships within Europe. In its place we need to emphasise the great
Biblical truths of the creative handiwork of God in every aspect of the created
order." (22 k)
• IOU — before August 2008 we'll have ID-and-theology views from proponents
of ID
•
Sometimes a claim for Intelligent Design is dismissed with a "God of
the gaps" label, but this term has many possible meanings so we should
ask "What
do you mean by GOD OF THE GAPS?"
• You can also check the next section, Intelligent Design in Apologetics & Natural
Theology.
Also, some parts of METHODS
OF CREATION are about relationships between evolutionary
creation, intelligent design, and Intelligent Design.
APOLOGETICS
Some
creationists — both young earth (Ham & Morris) and
old earth (Ross) — criticize ID because it "doesn't
go far enough" by identifying the designer as the God of the Bible. But
Lee Strobel thinks our scientific studies of nature
can lead to Unmasking
the Creator and to faith in Christ. And some Christians think using
ID as "evidence for the existence and actions of God" isn't wise. {later,
there will be more web-resources here}
NATURAL THEOLOGY
Our science can influence
our theology, but it's important to ask "how should science
influence theology?" George Murphy explains
why, when we're Reading
God's Two Books, it's better to use scriptural
theology (based on the Bible) instead of natural theology (based
on what we see in nature) as the foundation for building our understanding
of God: "We
should begin with the knowledge of God revealed in the history of Israel
which culminates in Christ. Then we know that the creator, the author
of the book of nature, is to be identified with the crucified and risen
Christ, and we can read the book of God's works in that light."
William Dembski agrees, in
a recent lecture: "Dembski said he sees
Intelligent Design's theological
role
more ‘in a negative sense
of
clearing
out the intellectual rubbish that has been bequeathed
on our culture through materialistic, atheistic worldview. But
it doesn't give us a positive theology. If you want a positive
theology, study theology.’ (February
2006, source)" But
Murphy does not agree with Dembski's claim that Intelligent Design is necessary
for "clearing
out the intellectual rubbish" of a "materialistic,
atheistic worldview."
Paul Arveson develops these
ideas in more depth, and encourages unity ("let’s
unite around our faith in Jesus Christ") in What
does Christ have to do with It? — Theological implications of Intelligent
Design, and an Alternative View. (20 k)
4. Can intelligent design be authentically scientific?
This major section has been moved into a separate links-page about
INTELLIGENT DESIGN & SCIENCE that
includes these sections:
Introductory Overview: Why are so many so confident?
Can we find scientific support for (or against) design?
Why doesn't Intelligent Design publish in science journals?
Can Intelligent Design be useful in science, now or in the
future?
Is rigid methodological naturalism useful (or even essential)
in science?
• INFORMATION for readers is in a brief page about our Goal (a quick education for you), Quality (because we've made choices) and Variety (you'll see multiple positions, hence the disclaimer below), Exploring with Freedom (you can use sections and page-links in any order), Size (what does "20 k + 5k" mean?), and Links (that open in a new window).
A DISCLAIMER: |
THREE TYPES
OF LINKS in this website for Whole-Person Education:
An ITALICIZED LINK keeps you inside a page, moving you to another part of it. Above, a NON-ITALICIZED LINK is page-adding, opening a new page in a new window. Below, a NON-ITALICIZED LINK is page-replacing, opening a new page in this window. |
this page, written by Craig Rusbult (editor of ASA Science
Ed Website), is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/design2.htm
and was revised
May 9, 2008
all links were checked-and-fixed on July 3, 2006
other links-pages about Origins Questions are at the top
of this page,
or you can Search the Website