Many scientists have said that ID is merely old-school Creationism “thinly disguised” with “a fake mustache.” Gilson says this is a mistake. But perhaps scientists can be forgiven. After all, consider how the term “intelligent design” was born. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that “creation science” could not be taught in public schools because it advances a particular religion. That same year, a Creationist textbook called Of Pandas and People had been published using terms like “creationism” over 150 times. But after the defeat of Creationism in court, the editors replaced every instance of “creationism” with “intelligent design” and every instance of “creationists” with “design proponents.” In one case, part of the original term, “creationists,” was left behind by the editing process, rendering “cdesign proponentsists”:
The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.1
That the editors merely replaced “creationism” with the new term “intelligent design” is abundantly obvious when one compares various drafts of Of Pandas and People (originally called Biology and Creation):
Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Biology and Creation 1986, FTE 3015, p. 2-10)
Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Biology and Origins 1987, FTE 3235, p. 2-13)
Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1987, creationist version, FTE 4996-4997, pp. 2-14, 2-15)
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1987, intelligent design version, FTE 4667, p. 2-15)
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1989, 1st edition, published, pp. 99-100)
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1993, 2nd edition, published, pp. 99-100)
So at its origins, it is quite true that Intelligent Design was merely Creationism “thinly disguised” with a “fake mustache.”
But is this still the case, or is Intelligent Design now a very different thing than Creationism? Nick Matzke points out that:
Chunks of Pandas are currently on the Discovery Institute website. The authors of Pandas include DI fellows Stephen Meyer (VP of the DI, director of the DI’s Center for Science and Culture, organizational head of the ID movement), Michael Behe, Dean Kenyon (YEC), and Nancy Pearcey (YEC). Dembski and Wells coauthored a new edition. Phillip Johnson, Dembski, Behe, etc. all endorsed the old edition of Pandas in print, and Behe defended Pandas as “intelligent design” in court. Shouldn’t I take their word about what is ID over your opinion?
And yet, the definition of ID in Pandas is identical to the definition of creationism in earlier drafts of the book, except for the creation/design switcheroo.
In response, Gilson repeatedly (1, 2) accused Matzke of committing the genetic fallacy. But this is incorrect. A genetic fallacy (please read that page, folks!) is given when someone argues that “X is believed for non-justifying reasons, therefore X is false.” But Matzke never argued that ID is false because it was believed for non-justifying reasons. He argued that Intelligent Design is Creationism thinly disguised because the term originated by simply replacing the term “creationism” with “intelligent design” as a textbook, and because the leading proponents of ID endorsed the original version of that book and still endorse the current version.
Gilson thinks that even if Intelligent Design and Creationism meant the same thing at the beginning, they do not mean the same thing today:
There was a time when “suffer” and “allow” meant the same thing… Same with ID and creationism. [But] it’s time to catch up with history and deal with what the terms mean today.
So what is the difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism today? One difficulty is the many meanings of “Creationism.” In the broadest sense, Creationism just means that “The universe was created by a being.” Even Aristotle was a Creationist in that sense. On that point, ID and Creationism agree.
But during most of the 20th century, the term Creationism had a more specific meaning in America. It often entailed Biblical young earth beliefs and a rejection of common descent. But ID does not entail such beliefs or a rejection of common descent.
So it depends what you mean by “Creationism.” The moral of the story is to follow Socrates’ advice and define your terms before you argue with someone.
Here’s how I like to think of Creationism and Intelligent Design. I tend to use “Creationism” to refer to theories informed by the Bible or Christian (or Muslim) theology. For example, a theory including a 6,000 year old Earth is obviously Creationism.
In contrast, I tend to use “Intelligent Design” to refer to modern attempts at natural theology, which are not dependent on scripture or doctrine. The method of natural theology is to make an inference from observations of public, natural evidence to the existence of some kind of Designer or First Cause. This method does not allow you to assume any properties at all about the Designer that cannot be inferred from the observations of public, natural evidence.
Of course, we all know that the major proponents of Intelligent Design are motivated by their pre-existing Christian beliefs. And so was William Paley, who wrote Natural Theology in 1802. But for the purposes of their arguments, natural theologians do not smuggle in any assumptions from scripture or doctrine. They only allow themselves to defend their inferences from observations of evidence we all agree on – for example, the complexity of biological systems.
Remember, “intelligent design” and “creationism” are just words. They mean whatever we say they mean. But for clarity’s sake, I have a proposal:
Intelligent Design: the assertion that certain features of the natural universe are best explained by an intelligent cause.
Creationism: the theory that God created the universe, as dictated by some religious doctrine or scripture.
Under this proposal, it is quite possible (and common) for someone to accept Creationism but argue for intelligent design. Indeed, it may be unlikely that someone would defend intelligent design without first personally accepting Creationism. But one may argue for intelligent design without any reference to Creationism.