Salvo - Issue 4This is the continuation of my survey of Issue #4 of SALVO Magazine, as it relates to creationism. If you missed part one it might be worth your while to familiarize yourself with the first post before continuing, as I will dispel with the background already covered in part one and get straight back into it.

There is a small section refuting three main accusations against the Intelligent Design movement called What ID is NOT (p.36). Under the sub-heading of ID is Creationism is the following response:

“You’ve no doubt heard this one numerous times. In reality, this is flat-out false. The average creationist believes in a young earth, biblical literalism, and the complete absence of evidence for evolutionary processes. The ID proponent, on the other hand, rejects – or at the very least suspends speculation on – all three of these convictions, maintaining only that there are reasons to conclude that life was designed; how it was designed or by whom lie beyond the ID theorist’s field of inquiry.”

Creationists’ Clarification:

In reality, it is this characterization that is flat-out false! While it is important to distinguish between creationism and ID, the more I read this issue the more I began to wonder if they had gone out of their usual way to build a subtle case against the reasonableness of creationism. In fact throughout the entire 96 pages, I have struggled to find a single positive comment about it and just about every attempt to define it is false on some level. The only thing missing from this caricature on page 36 is that the average creationist is a flat-earther! That certainly would’ve helped to drive the wedge deeper between the two positions… but of course, that would be misleading. Three main points to make here:

  1. It’s true, ID is not Creationism and the average creationist may indeed believe in a young earth. But;
  2. As pointed out earlier (see part one) creationists are not biblical literalists. To suggest otherwise is sloppy, and grossly misrepresents the position that YECs actually hold.
  3. To say that YECs believe in a “…complete absence of evidence for evolutionary processes”, really depends on how you define an evolutionary process. For example, mutations and natural selection are part of the supposed evolutionary process and yet creationists accept both of them.[1] Why wouldn’t they? These are observable phenomena, otherwise known as real science! Instead they reject the notion that these processes are evidence for the evolutionary worldview depicted in the typical monophyletic Darwinian tree. Creationists hold this view for two main reasons: 1) they believe the Bible – which is held in the highest authority – provides enough information about the origin of life on earth to make a distinction between it and an evolutionary world view; 2) they are far from convinced that mutations and natural selection constitute the observable modus operandi of evolution – a function that would need to alter an organism so that it gains the new genetic information required for new body parts or plans.

So if creationists are not biblical literalists and do not deny observable “evolutionary” processes such as mutations and natural selection then the characterization of the view presented on page 36 is seriously misleading. In fact other than the age of the earth and the universe, the only key distinction between ID and Creationism mentioned on p.36 would appear to be how and by whom life was designed.

Flicking over to p.40 we find a passing reference to creationism that includes a caricature of ID that is in constant need of correction by ID advocates … (Creationists know exactly what that’s like):

“According to a spate of recent media reports, intelligent design is a new “faith-based” alternative to evolution – an alternative based on religion rather than scientific evidence. As the story goes, intelligent design is just creationism repackaged by religious fundamentalists in order to circumvent a 1987 Supreme Court prohibition against teaching creationism in the public schools.”

Creationists’ Clarification:

Notice how the secular thinking on this topic implies that religion doesn’t provide any real knowledge; instead real knowledge comes from the scientific evidence for evolution. I find it sadly ironic that SAVLO have correctly identified this as an obvious misrepresentation of ID, but failed to recognize the false picture of creationism they are likewise painting.

As previously mentioned, it’s fair to distinguish between ID and Creationism and many in the creationist movement are careful to do so as well, albeit without the caricature so common in the secular media. However, the ID movement is overwhelmingly dominated by old-earth thinking, so it is no surprise that the most well known mouth pieces for the movement (e.g. Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, to name a few) still distance themselves from traditional creationism when not taking a strict ID posture.[2]

Then from p.42:

“Of course, many will still dismiss intelligent design as nothing but warmed-over creationism or as a “religion masquerading as science.” But intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based upon the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.”

Creationists’ Clarification:

A standard canard of those who oppose any kind of intelligent design ideas - which I think SALVO have represented fairly here - is that creationism masquerades as science, which is demonstrably false.[3] But as far as this survey goes, the statement on p.42 is not terribly contentious. In addressing the concern that ID is simply “warmed-over creationism” or “religion masquerading as science”, they correctly identify the key distinction between the two comes down to biblical authority.

Creationists would also agree that design is an inference from biological data, and that this of course supports certain deductions from biblical authority.

Mike Egnor lays his cards on the table in a piece on p.85, beginning by reassuring us that he is not one of those people:

“Please note that although I’m a Christian, I do not consider myself a “creationist.” I accept that life appeared on earth several billion years ago, that all living things probably share a common ancestor, and that random evolution does occur. But I also believe that Darwin’s theory falls short of explaining all of biology…”

Creationists’ Clarification:

Enough said. This is not an uncommon position among ID advocates (e.g. Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution).

Finally on p.91 is an article about the Darwin Exhibit that was at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago:

“Smattered throughout these displays are editorial commentaries on religion. Subtle jibes such as “Darwin’s theory would shake up the Christian Church” and “the earth is much older than the Bible implied” give the impression that matters concerning life’s origins have long since been settled. Concluding the exhibit is a large panel that equates the theory of intelligent design with creationism. … In the end, the Field Museum’s “Darwin Exhibit” is more of a defensive stance against intelligent design and creationism than a celebratory validation of Darwin’s ideas. It wastes space falsely equating intelligent design with creationism…”

Creationists’ Clarification:

If Darwin’s theory is correct then it stands to reason that the earth is much older than the Bible implies; certainly that would have to be the position of young earth creationists who believe the Bible is clear on this matter, being only thousands, rather than billions, of years old. But this would understandably be perceived as something of a straw man (or, “jibe”) to many ID advocates who, while remaining unconvinced about Darwinism (or Neo-Darwinism), are quite settled on a multi-billion year old earth and universe.

Finally, as I am sure the SALVO writing staff are well aware, it is very common for skeptics to conflate intelligent design with creationism, as if to demonstrate that any association with the latter somehow automatically discredits the former. I’d agree with the position expressed throughout this entire SALVO issue that this is a bit disingenuous (not to mention logically untenable), as anyone who takes the time to properly understand the claims of ID, will recognize that this apparent conflation is entirely manufactured.

Conclusion:

To use a crude analogy, when you paint something as ornate as a stair balustrade, it can be difficult to get into all the nooks and crannies. Given that this issue was especially devoted to Intelligent Design, I think SALVO did a fantastic job making sure that the paint covered everything; making clear exactly what ID is (and is NOT) and how it can be used to shed light on the evidence. In doing so, it was absolutely necessary that creationism be addressed.

Unfortunately, the impression of creationism that one is left with after reading SALVO is far from accurate and this is  apparent at the outset[4]. And if, after having read my assessment, you are now more confused about creationism than you were before, then I have failed in my goal to bring some clarity to this view[5]. I hope that is not the case, but I will do my best to respond to any well-intentioned follow-up questions that have clarity as the ultimate goal in mind.

Footnotes:

  1. I believe that this will come as a shock to many people who rely on second-hand sources, albeit typically reliable ones like SALVO Mag, instead of bothering to understand the actual views of leading creationists.
  2. I have heard interviews or read material by all of these men in this regard, and the recent textbook produced by Hill House Publishers™ on behalf of the ID movement, quite obviously assumes and is influenced by old-earth thinking. Of course, I don’t intend this to detract from the value of the textbook and its intention to critically evaluate the truth claims of evolution.
  3. See Separation of Creation and Science
  4. The first mention of creationism on p.10, where an attempt is made to describe creationism, is far from accurate. See part one.
  5. I want to take special care here to be clear that the entire point of this survey is to bring clarity to creationism, not to prove its truthfulness. Indeed, I am a young earth creationist and my reasons for that is another discussion entirely. But this two-part article is not intended to defend that point of view. I only wished to point out the ways in which it is often falsely portrayed. As it happens, this issue of SALVO was highly representative of this and therefore provided the perfect opportunity for me to address the many ways in which creationism is misrepresented.

Other related Aristophrenium articles: