Intelligent design (ID) is an antiquated hypothesis that has been given a new sheen of hope by many theologians, particularly Phillip
Johnson and William Dembski. Their organization, called the Discovery Institute, has rejuvenated the creation myth that is shared
by so many religions, but tries to market it as a scientific theory. Earlier incarnations of intelligent design include creation
science, flood geology, and simply creationism. Advocates of intelligent design again, like many of their religious predecessors,
claim that theirs is truly a scientific theory. This is simply not the case and has never has been the case. The
difference between intelligent design (ID) and earlier forms of the creation myth is that its adherents are not taking on a battle
concerning science, but rather a political battle to redefine science in order to allow their religious views to be taught as science. Johnson and Dembski are religious men who are presumably extremely knowledgeable about their respective fields. Johnson is a
lawyer and Dembski is a mathematician. But, they are not biologists in any sense. Furthermore, they are not relying upon
their respective knowledge fields in their incessant insistence concerning ID: they are relying hope, and their subsequent faith,
but are using their fields of knowledge to gain access to legal foundations in order to create unfounded rhetoric in defense of an
unfounded hypothesis. These men are intelligent, but they are also acting deceptively. They are both deceiving themselves
and those religious adherents that have the same hope as they do: that there is in fact a god and that god is the Christian god. What they are doing is nothing more than a smear campaign steeped in deception, denial and deceit. They are aware of what they
are doing, but are either blinded by their faith, or blinded by pride, religious obsession, or perhaps even hope. In any case,
these men are not good men because they are capable of understanding the difference between true theories and hypotheses but have
decided to try to shed doubt on that difference for the sake of their personal hopes and misconstrued faith.
The creation myth can
be found in ancient religions such as Hinduism. But, in the west, Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle proposed it. Plato was primarily a philosopher, but Aristotle’s interests evolved into the early sciences. Aristotle was most likely an honest
scientist, proposing the concept of creationism in his Metaphysics. There, he introduced what he called the “unmoved mover”,
a concept that he used to describe a first cause of the universe. Aristotle’s concept of an “unmoved mover” has through time
evolved into what is now considered creationism by Christianity. Aristotle came to his conclusion concerning an “unmoved mover”
through valid reasoning rather than emotional pleas and empty rhetoric such as is used by adherents of ID. Until recently the
likes of Duane Gish and Henry Morris were good examples of the spearheads of creationism. Their propositions were easily and
quickly recognized as the ramblings of the fanatically religious, and were discounted as such even by many thinking religious peoples. The constant quoting of the bible as well as the twisting of second grade science was easily recognizable and deemed not worthy of
serious discussion by intelligent people. In short, Gish and Morris as well as others who proposed such preposterous hypotheses
were not taken seriously by the scientific community. This problem was recognized by modern creationists.
The Discovery Institute’s
Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture is the latest organized promoter of creationism under its new guise: Intelligent Design. Their plan of action: to force ID into the schools and into public and scientific communities by using what they call “The Wedge”. According to Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross, in their book Creationism’s Trojan Horse, it is through relentless “energetic programs
of publication, conferences, and public appearances, all aimed at impressing the lay audiences and political people, [that] the Wedge
is working its way into the American cultural mainstream.”[1] The Discovery Institute’s purpose is not scientific, but theocratic. It has yet, in fact, to offer any scientifically valid arguments for its claims. It claims that it is promoting a scientific
theory that disproves evolution while at the same time proving that the universe was created by an intelligent designer, similar to
William Paley’s watchmaker argument. The difference between Paley and the current ilk of ID’ers is honesty: Paley did not hide
the fact that he was arguing for a religious proposition. However, The Discovery Institute, and similar organizations that have
since followed their lead, are completely dishonest because while they are arguing for a religious proposition they hide that fact
by calling it a scientific theory, which it is not. In fact, Phillip Johnson said as much in a religious conference in 1999. The objective, he said, is to “convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic thus shifting the debate from creationism vs.
evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to “the truth” of the bible
and then “the question of sin” and finally ‘introduced to Jesus’”.[2]
Johnson, a lawyer by trade and the founder of the current ID hypothesis, is using a fallacy commonly known in logic as a Red Herring. In short, while he claims that it is the purpose of the Discovery Institute to introduce new science, the truth is that the Discovery
Institute is simply a guise to introduce religion into public schools and to discredit good science by redefining it to include creationism. Because the politicizing and legalization of Christianity is its true purpose, Johnson must steer critics away from the real argument
(creationism vs. evolution) and lead them to another argument that has nothing to do with his true purpose (the existence of God vs.
the non-existence of God). Johnson’s dodge is well played, however, because the Discovery Institute has (in actuality) no research
supporting its claim of intelligent design (more on this later) making it impossible for Johnson to back up his claim that ID is a
scientific theory. Johnson must rely upon ignorance and dishonesty because to rely upon intelligence and honest critique would
be a deathblow to ID.
Religion has relied upon fallacies in the
past, and so this should not be any surprise to anyone who is familiar with religious history. For example, religion has relied
upon the fallacy of force, false dilemmas, fear, ignorance, pity and many more to promote its two-part agenda: to convert people who
do not believe its tenants and to regain political control and hence social power. “The Wedge” plan of those who support ID
is simply the newest lie proposed by religious proponents to achieve their goals. It is truly heinous because it is promoted
dishonestly by intelligent people who ought to know better. While they ought to know better, they choose to be deceitful and
dishonest for the sake of their beliefs, hopes and desires. While ID is the newest variation of religious creationism, the use
of lies and deceit is nothing new to religion.