The Rise of Intelligent Design
The November 2004 National Geographic referred to the Gallup Poll that took place in February 2001. It showed that only 12% of Americans believe life came about apart from God. But what surprised the British science establishment was the outcome of the MORI poll that followed the Horizon programme, “A War on Science”, presented by Richard Dawkins on BBC2 on January 26. While 48% of those questioned said evolution best described their worldview, which is a lot more than the 12% of Americans, what was surprising was the 22% who chose creationism. And while one could expect even more than the 69% who wanted evolution as part of the science curriculum, a massive 44% said they wanted creationism included in the school curriculum and 41% wanted to see Intelligent Design included.
These findings so surprised the scientific community here in the UK that the President of the Royal Society, Lord Martin, said that 150 years after Darwin, “It is surprising that many should be skeptical of Darwinian evolution.”
The Guardian on 21 February reported: “A growing number of science students on British campuses and in sixth form colleges are challenging the theory of evolution and arguing that Darwin was wrong.”
The high percentage who wanted Creationism taught surprised the scientific community, who were unaware that the influence of creationism and Intelligent Design was so strong in the UK. But what is the Intelligent Design Movement?
In one sense Intelligent Design is a term that could be used to cover all thinking on origins by supernatural means. Young Earth Creationism would come under this umbrella. Creationists believe that the world and all it contains was made by a supernatural Intelligence in six literal days, thousands and not millions of years ago. What evolutionists interpret from earth's strata to be millions of years Young Earth Creationists would see the same strata laid down by the Noachian Flood of the Genesis story. Kevin Logan's book, Responding to the Challenge of Evolution is still one of the best overviews of both sides of this debate.
Theistic Evolution (T.E.), some times referred to as Old Earth Creation or Deep Time, is the concept that God used evolution over millions of years to bring about the material universe and life as it is, culminating in man as the final stage of His creation. Progressive Creation is said to have various interpretations but basically and simplistically put it follows the evolutionary model but with God stepping in at various stages of evolutionary development to set certain patterns and directions in bringing about the different stages of life culminating in man.
All of the above involves the supernatural in bringing about creation and the origins of life on planet world. They would all come under that umbrella term, Intelligent Design. Back in the sixties and the seventies the Moody Institute used ‘intelligent design’ in its films (and in more recent years in video form) to support belief in a Divine Creator. The mouse-trap illustration used by the Intelligent Design theorist Michael Behe was an illustration used by the Moody Institute for support of ‘intelligent design.’ The distinguished scientist, the late Earnest Wilder-Smith can be found profiled in the ‘Who’s Who'’ of creationists and evolutionists in the 70s and 80s, a scientist with three earned science doctorates, he was a Young Earth Creationist who used intelligent design as evidence for a Creator. William Dembski credits Wilder-Smith with being the inspiration for making the study of Intelligent Design his life's work. A younger contemporary, Professor E. H. Andrews formerly of London University, followed the same intelligent design argument in his books in support for a supernatural creation. Both scientists allegedly debated with Richard Dawkins at some time. There is some embarrassment and confusion over this with Oxford not seeming to have recorded the incident.
But none of these fit the description of what is referred to today as the Intelligent Design Movement. The Intelligent Design Movement has been confused with biblical creationism by its opponents in the media, deliberately so as to discredit it. Professor. John Walton of Andrews University addresses that in his article, Origins Science Needs Design Rehab. It is in fact quite different in its approach and emphasis. Whereas the other theorists described above come mainly from a Biblical base, the Intelligent Design Movement comes from the direction of nature, just as does evolution. It sees the evidence in nature from the different science disciplines not supporting the Darwinian hypothesis, but rather that evidence from nature suggests that its origin could only have come about by intelligence.
Philip Johnson, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer are leading names associated with the current movement known as Intelligent Design. Becoming a prominent critic of evolutionary theory, it was Johnson who popularized the term “intelligent design” in its current sense in his 1991 book, Darwin on Trial. Considered the founder of the modern Intelligent Design Movement Stephen Meyer tells how it all began with Phillip Johnson in his article Darwin in the Dock.
The Intelligent Design Movement would include non-Christians as well as Christians. There was tremendous media publicity surrounding the defection from atheism by the world famous atheist, Professor Anthony Flew, back in December 2004. It seemed almost treasonable to fellow atheists that Flew should be so persuaded by the evidence that he would defect from atheism to Intelligent Design. But, while creationists would be delighted for Anthony Flew if he did become a Bible believing Christian, as did his renowned fellow debater at Oxford, C. S. Lewis that is far from the case with Professor Anthony Flew. And the difference between Creationists and Intelligent Design Theorists is obvious to anyone familiar with either by reading their criticisms to or about each other on the web.
Where does Intelligent Design conflict with Darwinism? For the Intelligent Design Theorists, intelligence must have come first to produce the complexity of design and of life found in nature. As with Creationists, intelligence produced matter and then life with all its variety of design. This contrasts with Darwinism which has matter creating itself and then producing life, so in the Darwinian scheme of things, matter came before intelligence. The populist writer, Bill Bryson, has earned plaudits from the educational and science establishments for his book, A Short History of Nearly Everything. It was in the top ten of the book charts for over a year, and sold over a million copies. His description of the origin of matter and of life and its development describes well the Darwinian view of origins.
To quote Bryson on page 28 of his book he says, “In a single blinding pulse, a moment of glory much too swift and expansive for any form of words, the singularity (that microscopic bit of material from which arose the Big Bang), assumes heavenly dimensions, space beyond conception . . .. In less than a minute the universe is a million billion miles across and growing fast. In three minutes . . . we have a universe . . .. And it was all done in about the time it takes to make a sandwich.” Says Bryson on page 31, “It seems impossible that you can get something from nothing, but the fact that once there was nothing and now there is a universe is evident proof that you can.” Christians would say the same of course, that the universe came from nothing, except that it was God who was responsible for bringing the universe into being and life on this world, and not nature.
Intelligent Design theorists would see this Darwinian explanation of origins as described by Bryson as untestable, implausible and improbable.
Creationists would see the evolutionary explanation of origins as being equally a belief in the supernatural as that of biblical creationism – in that matter could create itself, bring itself into being and then create the universe and then create life – out of nothing – without intelligence being involved. And while Intelligent Design theorists do not come from a biblical base, for them, evidence from nature does not support this Darwinian view.
For many scientists, this failed and untested Darwinian hypothesis has seen science sent down wrong roads in scientific research, hence the enormous growth in what is now known as the Intelligent Design Movement.
Evolutionists accuse ID theorists of being Young Earth creationists dressed up in a different garb. That one can see there is no connection between the Intelligent Design Movement and creationism can be seen in creationism's criticism of Intelligent Design. How more formidable both could be if they saw themselves as allies against Darwinism rather than opponents in their views. Is it reasonable to expect that Prof. Anthony Flew, and those like him, should be expected to defect immediately from atheism to biblical creationism?
The threat to Darwinism then comes from both ‘Intelligent Design’ as well as ‘Young Earth’ creationists. The increasing number of scientists who have come to the conclusion that the origin of the universe and life as we know it could not have arrived through the materialistic view of origins but that a superior Intelligence must have been responsible, is, according to the MORI Poll, challenging the Darwinian scientific community here in the UK as well as elsewhere in the world. Hence the phrases, ‘Intelligent Design,’ ‘Fine Tuning' and ‘Irreducible Complexity', and the title given to such scientists, “Intelligent Design Theorists.”
While Intelligent Design's approach is different from that of biblical creationism, in its opposition to Darwinism one can easily see how Darwinists make use of authors like Lee Strobel to discredit Intelligent Design. Strobel uses his interviewees who are Intelligent Design theorists for evangelistic purposes. Go back through The Times (T2) to 28 January 2003 and one can read Dawkins' irritation with “latter-day creationists disguised under the euphemism ‘intelligent design theorists.’”
The growing Intelligent Design movement among scientists appears to be causing a real stir and putting Darwinists like Dawkins on the back foot. The Anglican chaplain, Kevin Logan, was so right when he titled the first chapter of his book, “Battle Lines Are Drawn.” Since making his own response to Gateshead in 2002 the heat of the battle can be measured in the hours of television time, double page spread newspaper articles and books galore. It's a battle for the public mind. Certainly, the January 26 MORRI Poll and The Guardian survey of 15th August (2006) reporting a 30% student preference for creation/ID over evolution took the scientists favouring evolution by surprise. With an unequal playing field (or should it be battle field’?) with the media favouring the evolutionist it is surprising that both Creationism and Intelligent Design should have gained the interest and the ground it has.
Revised 21/04/09
