I think there still is great confusion among scientists as to what
Intelligent Design Theory actually claims. Perhaps the most concise
definition is provided by ID creationist Dembski (1989):
"
“Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary
to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that
these causes are empirically detectable”.
What makes this definition very different from various forms of
theistic evolution (I know many pro-science Christians don't like this
term but bear with me here) is the claim that an intelligent cause is
NECESSARY and EMPIRICALLY detectable. Taking the risk of
misunderstanding ID proponents: YES IDers claim that A DESIGNER is
DETECTABLE THROUGH SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY. Scientists should NEVER use
the word PROOF (outside of mathematics) but I guess in "everyday
language" IDers claim that it is possible to "prove" the
existence of a designer.
I think all too often CURRENT Intelligent Design Creationism often gets
confused with 18th and 19th century versions (e.g. Paley etc.)
thereof. I have always felt uncomfortable with this mixing.
In my eyes, the traditional philosophical argument from design is based
on a much more subjective search for "purpose or contrivance"
whereas modern Intelligent Design Theory makes much specific and bolder
claims about empirical detection. The two share a common ancestor
but they each have their own apomorphies (if I may use that term...) and
in my eyes each fails for different reasons (although I agree that there
are some common failures).
I meet a lot of Christians who claim to accept "intelligent
design" by their faith experience or because they feel the world is
CONSISTENT with their view of what a designed world would be like, but
they do not subscribe to the claims of THE Intelligent Design Creationist
Movement.
Incidentally, an excellent talk was given on the definitions of
Intelligent Design Theory, Theistic Evolution, Old Earth Creationism,
etc. by Marcus Ross at the 2003 GSA meeting in Seattle. The most
widely used and cited list of definitions by the geological community is
that of Scott (1999) in "Evolution: Investigating the Evidence"
published by the Paleontological Society. I have found that it can
be very difficult for Christians to identify with any one of the
positions described by Scott (1999). That is why I prefer and have
come to use the more detailed analysis of Ross (2003) in my
outreach efforts. Unfortunately, his work remains unpublished as
far as I know.
Unfortunately, the modern Intelligent Design Creationists have developed
a monopoly on the term "Intelligent Design" and many Christians
have been robbed of a (perhaps useful) way to explain their particular
religious position without being confused with the anti-evolutionist
movement.
I have clearly marked this posting "Creationim" in the subject
line. I hope this will aid those who wouldn't want to waste their
time. Eudora has an excellent programmable filter system. For
example, mine flawlessly and automatically places e-mails with the words
"Homo erectus" into a separate bin now. :)
Hope this helps!
Alex
----------------------
Alexander Glass
Paleobiology of ophiuroids, asteroids, and crinoids
Ph. D. Candidate
Department of Geology
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
1301 West Green Street, NHB 245
Urbana, IL 61801
United States
----------------
Tel:217-333-4963
Fax: 217-244-4996
----------------
“Although much sought after, truth can be dangerous to the
seeker. Myths and reassuring lies are much easier to find and
believe. If you find a truth, even a temporary one, it can demand
that you make painful changes.” The God Emperor, (
Dune God
Emperor by Frank Herbert)