r Isn't Intelligent Design Really Just Creationism in a Lab Coat?

Joe Renick

Executive Director

IDnet-NM

One of the frequent criticisms that science levels against Intelligent Design (ID) is that because of its religious implications, ID is really nothing more than Creationism dressed up like science. The phrase “ID is creationism in a lab coat” is a stereotype that is easily understood, frequently used…and false. An analysis of the logic reveals that the stereotype is based on a religious implication that is irrelevant to both ID’s scientific status and its legal status.

In a 1987 case (Edwards v. Aguillard) the Supreme Court found that the teaching of Creation Science in public schools was in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Given that finding by the Court, critics of ID have made it a practice to attempt to convince school boards and the public that ID is no different than Creationism and is therefore unconstitutional. Educators, under threats of expensive lawsuits, will then be careful to make sure that ID does not find its way into public education. The battle against ID is won without giving the slightest consideration to its scientific merits.

However, this is just a big bluff. It is quite true that ID has profound religious implications, but that is of no consequence - either to science or to law. Philosophers of science agree that the scientific status of a theory depends on the evidence that supports it and not the source of the theory or its implications. However, what the courts care about in determining the legal status of a theory is its source. Implications do not matter. So long as a theory is not based on a religious source, it is constitutionally permissible for public schools to teach that theory - regardless of its implications.

The courts have also ruled that the fact that a theory may happen to coincide with some religious belief or doctrine does not provide a constitutional basis for banning that theory from public education.

Whether it is right or wrong, and whether we agree with it or not, it is the finding of the Supreme Court that the constitutional problem with teaching Creation Science is the fact that it has its roots in the Genesis account of creation - a religious source. The courts ruled that because of its religious source, Creation Science promoted a religious viewpoint and is thus in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

ID theory, however, is rooted solidly in direct observed physical evidence that was discovered in the twentieth century, not by theologians or religious prophets or by searching holy scripture, but by secular scientists in secular universities and laboratories whose research was paid for by secular public funds. These scientists were not searching for evidence of intelligent design in nature. Evidence of design in the cosmos and in biology did not have to be "teased" out of the raw data - it "emerged". It was simply "there" - unavoidable, inescapable, overwhelming...and beyond explanation by materialistic science.

ID is a legitimate scientific theory of origins based on "emergent" features discovered in nature by science in the last half of the twentieth century. It is supported by abundant, directly observed evidence. And yes, it has profound religious implications.

Materialistic scientists are well aware of the threat that ID poses to Darwin and the naturalistic ideology it supports and will go to great extremes to protect the Darwinian theory. They must. The intellectual foundation of their naturalistic worldview is at stake. And thus, not having a convincing scientific argument, they must turn to a misrepresentation of constitutional law and a distortion of the true nature of science to find protection for their theory.

Intelligent design may have implications for a Creator, but because it is solidly rooted in empirical evidence, it is not "Creationism in a lab coat".

Given the naturalistic implications of evolution, one might offer another stereotype…”Evolution is Naturalism in a lab coat”. How well rooted is evolution in empirical evidence?

 < Back to Essays