. 24/7 Space News .
Intelligent Design: The New 'Big Tent' For Evolution's Critics

illustration only
Seattle - Feb 16, 2004
Since the advent of Darwinism in the mid-19th century, a variety of movements have jousted for the intellectual high ground in the epic evolution versus creationism debate. At one end of the spectrum reside the "naturalistic evolutionists" who argue that life neither requires nor benefits from a divine creator.

At the other pole, "scientific creationists" compress the entire history of the cosmos into 6,000 years and insist that the heavens and Earth and all life arose in one six-day creation event. Somewhere in the middle, are "theistic evolutionists" who argue for a creator, but see no reason why God could not have made the world by means of evolution.

And in the last decade or so, yet another movement has forged a claim in the high-stakes contest for intellectual primacy in the apparently ceaseless battle over the origins of life. The newest combatants, known as "intelligent-design theorists," reject both theistic and naturalistic evolution and, instead, claim evidence of the hand of an unknown "intelligent designer" in the genesis of life.

But for Ron Numbers, the leading historian of the struggle between Darwinism and the anti-evolution movements of the past 140 years, intelligent design is simply the latest effort to create a "big tent for all people critical of evolution."

As he views it, there are significant differences between scientific creationism and intelligent design. First, adherents of intelligent design scrupulously avoid biblical arguments to undermine evolutionary theory and argue instead that the subcellular complexity of life demands a knowing designer. What's more, many who subscribe to intelligent design theory have no problem accepting the great antiquity of life on Earth.

"They do create some problems for people (strict creationists) who take the Bible seriously," says Numbers, a professor of history of science and medicine at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "They argue that the emphasis of young Earth creationists has been divisive."

But those big differences notwithstanding, the intelligent design movement, like the more biblically oriented creationist movements, has the same ambitious agenda: to influence how science is taught in the nation's schools. In particular, they seek to weaken or eliminate the teaching of evolution - the dominant, unifying theory of modern biology - in public schools.

Despite friction between the two camps, strict creationists and intelligent design adherents have at times joined forces to advance their educational agenda, the most recent example in Georgia, where a proposal for middle and high school science classrooms calls for deemphasizing evolution.

Addressing scientists here today (Feb. 14) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Numbers gave historical context to the intelligent design movement, a movement that comes from no particular religious point of view, but nonetheless argues for a supernatural hand in the creation of life.

"They couldn't care less about Genesis, and it is big enough that it can even appeal to some Jews and Muslims," says Numbers. "Its appeal is the complex nature of the world."

At the root of intelligent design theory is that life, at its most basic biochemical level, is too complex to understand. That science has not unraveled many of the biochemical secrets of life is evidence that an "intelligent designer" has intervened, its theorists assert.

This argument, says Numbers, ups the antievolution ante by arguing that science itself must change to accommodate the things it cannot explain.

"They are claiming this is a scientific discovery, so it should be taught with other scientific claims in the schools," Numbers explains. "They are saying science should change its most fundamental rule, that science admits only naturalistic explanations.

"The intelligent design people are saying that if the goal of science is to discover the truth, why should scientists, a priori, reject the theory of intelligent design? There must be intelligent design in the face of irreducible complexity.

"They have made a tremendous splash," says Numbers. "They want to change the way science is done, but so far as I know, there has yet to appear an article in a scientific journal that makes this broader claim."

The odds that the intelligent design movement - even with some scientist subscribers - will change the way science is done are slim, Number asserts: "To change science, they'll need to convince the scientific community, and they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of doing that."

But the likelihood that intelligent design theory will make inroads into the public science classroom and into textbooks is good, Numbers believes.

"It is very likely to influence science teaching. Intelligent design doesn't talk about God explicitly, so in some cases it might pass legal muster. They're trying to get into the schools that way, and they may be successful, I think."

Scientists and other proponents of evolution, tend to conflate creationism and intelligent design. "They see intelligent design as little more than gussied up creationism, despite the significant differences," Numbers says.

Either way, the stakes in the classroom are too high, he argues, to ignore the intellectual arguments of intelligent design as an answer to evolution.

Related Links
University of Wisconsin-Madison
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express

Researchers Determine Reason For Deadly Spread Of 1918 Influenza
Chevy Chase - Feb 11, 2004
The explosive spread of the influenza virus during the 1918 pandemic that killed some 20 million people worldwide was likely enabled by the unique structure of a protein on the virus's surface, researchers are reporting. The newly determined structure of the viral protein reveals that the 1918 strain of influenza underwent subtle alterations that enabled it to bind with deadly efficiency to human cells, while retaining the basic properties of the avian virus from which it evolved.



Thanks for being here;
We need your help. The SpaceDaily news network continues to grow but revenues have never been harder to maintain.

With the rise of Ad Blockers, and Facebook - our traditional revenue sources via quality network advertising continues to decline. And unlike so many other news sites, we don't have a paywall - with those annoying usernames and passwords.

Our news coverage takes time and effort to publish 365 days a year.

If you find our news sites informative and useful then please consider becoming a regular supporter or for now make a one off contribution.
SpaceDaily Contributor
$5 Billed Once


credit card or paypal
SpaceDaily Monthly Supporter
$5 Billed Monthly


paypal only














The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2016 - Space Media Network. All websites are published in Australia and are solely subject to Australian law and governed by Fair Use principals for news reporting and research purposes. AFP, UPI and IANS news wire stories are copyright Agence France-Presse, United Press International and Indo-Asia News Service. ESA news reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additional copyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement, agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by Space Media Network on any Web page published or hosted by Space Media Network. Privacy Statement All images and articles appearing on Space Media Network have been edited or digitally altered in some way. Any requests to remove copyright material will be acted upon in a timely and appropriate manner. Any attempt to extort money from Space Media Network will be ignored and reported to Australian Law Enforcement Agencies as a potential case of financial fraud involving the use of a telephonic carriage device or postal service.