The phrase 'intelligent design' has been used out of context by those who take Genesis literally, which has angered the evolutionist establishment
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE
Sunday, Aug 21, 2005,Page 9

The word creationism, coined in 1868 in opposition to what was then called Darwinism or evolutionism, had fallen on hard times. The proponents of a theory faithfully attributing the origin of matter to God, "the creator," were seemingly overwhelmed by the theory put forward by Charles Darwin and bolstered with much evidence by 20th century scientists. As a result, the noun creationism (like its predecessor, teleology, the study of purposeful design in nature) gained a musty connotation while evolutionism modishly lost its -ism.

Then along came the phrase intelligent design, and evolution had fresh linguistic competition. Though the phrase can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American and in an 1868 book, it was probably coined in its present sense in Humanism, a 1903 book by Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller: "It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design."

The phrase lay relatively dormant for nearly a century. "The term intelligent design came up in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Wash., called Sources of Information Content in DNA," recalls Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, who was present at the phrase's re-creation. "Charles Thaxton referred to a theory that the presence of DNA in a living cell is evidence of a designing intelligence. We weren't political; we were thinking about molecular biology and information theory. This wasn't stealth creationism. The phrase became the banner that we rallied around throughout the early 1990s. We wanted to separate ourselves from the strict Darwinists and the creationists."

At about that time, the traditional creationists took up the phrase. "We are a Christian organization and use the term to refer to the Christian God," says John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research in Santee, California "The modern intelligent design movement looks at Dr. Phillip E. Johnson as its founder.... His book, Darwin on Trial, kind of started it all in the early '90s. We were using intelligent design as an intuitive term: a watch implies a watchmaker." (That mechanical analogy was first used by the philosopher William Paley in his 1802 book, Natural Theology, a pre-Darwinian work holding that the complexity of nature implies an intelligent creator -- namely, God.)

The marketing genius within the phrase -- and the reason it now drives many scientists and educators up the walls of academe -- is in its use of the adjective intelligent, which intrinsically refutes the longstanding accusation of anti-intellectualism. Although the intelligent agent referred to is Divine with a capital D, the word's meaning also rubs off on the proponent or believer. That's why intelligent design appeals to not only the DNA-driven Discovery Institute complexity theorists but also the traditional God's-handiwork faithful.

This banner floating over two disparate armies challenging evolutionary theory has the Darwinist scientific establishment going ape. Leonard Krishtalka, a professor at the University of Kansas, lumped the armies together last month in a widely quoted definition of the ID movement as "nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo." Reached by my researcher, Aaron Britt, Krishtalka added: "It's a sophisticated camouflage of Genesis-driven creationism. Intelligent design sounds scientific, and they couch it as science instead of religion. It's frighteningly Orwellian." Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, says: "Whether or not there is or was an intelligent designer is not a scientific question. It's not an alternative to evolution. What they are trying to do is get religion in the science classroom."

Media scorn piles on: The liberal pundit Jonathan Alter of Newsweek finds "the threat to science and reason comes less from fundamentalists who believe the earth was created in six days than from sophisticated branding experts and polemical PhDs," while the conservative columnist-psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer in Time denounces "this tarted-up version of creationism." The cartoonist Signe Wilkenson of The Philadelphia Daily News has President Bush pointing to a convoluted map labeled "Iraq Strategy" with a general in a pupil's chair asking, "So when can we study intelligent design?"

To counter the "sophisticated branding experts" who flummoxed establishmentarian evolutionaries with intelligent design, opponents of classroom debate over Darwin's theory have come up with a catchily derisive neologism that lumps the modern ID advocates with religious fundamentalists: neo-creo. The rhyming label was coined on Aug. 17, 1999, by Philip Kitcher, professor of the philosophy of science at Columbia University, in a lively and lengthy online debate in Slate magazine with the abovementioned Phillip Johnson, professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley: "Enter the neo-creos," Kitcher wrote. "Scavenging the scientific literature, they take claims out of context and pretend that everything about evolution is controversial.... But it's all a big con." Johnson replied: "I want to replace the culture war over evolution with a healthy, vigorous intellectual debate. The biggest obstacle is that the evolutionary scientists are genuinely baffled as to why everyone does not believe as they do. That is why they appear so dogmatic, and why they tend to slip into sarcasm and browbeating."

ID advocates like to point to Albert Einstein, an apostle of order in the universe, who repeatedly rejected a statistical conception of physics with his famous aphorism, "I cannot believe that God plays dice with the world." However, his recent biographer, Dennis Overbye, a science reporter for the Times, says: "Einstein believed there was order in the universe but that it had not been designed for us." Overbye also notes that Einstein wrote the evenhanded "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."

I will leave the last word on this old controversy with its new phraseology to the neuroscientist Leon Cooper, a Nobel laureate at Brown University. He tells all of today's red-faced disputants: "If we could all lighten up a bit perhaps, we could have some fun in the classroom discussing the evidence and the proposed explanations -- just as we do at scientific conferences."

HEY TO YONGTTAY

THIS WAS VERYING INTERSTING

BUT to my understanding about evolution that
animals just came about by surveral of the fittest
or the strongest animals fish and birds????

as for as intelligent design it is a coin phrase
that seems to be politically correct that some
groups have jumped on the band wagon.

as for as true christians that understand
the bible being politially correct is not
the way to go

just thinking

dgrimm60


the way to go

I have always thought that creationism is a belief held by Christians, Jews and Muslems while inteligent design includes other beliefs of divine orgin. Just because one believes in inteligent design wouldn't make him or her a creationist.

As I have pointed out before, if God exists, then He is a part of reality; and no true science can be based on a determined resolve to ignore part of reality, and no one can be a truly responsible scientific professional if he refuses to bring religion into his reckoning. Similarly no one can be a realistic, responsible teacher if he refuses to bring religion into the science classroom. The claim that any belief in a Creator should be excluded from all involvement with science is an expression of atheism, which has been recently recognized legally as a religion. It is a religion that the vast majority of scientists and educators do not agree with; yet many have been brainwashed into thinking that accepting the tenets of belief of atheism is the only true way to go about the business and the teaching of science. How long will the people among us who supposedly are the most intelligent, continue to fall for this blatant con?