The recent stream (rushing river) of posts contesting the diverse claims
made by the leaders of the ID movement (Johnson, Behe, Dembski, Meyer,
Nelson, et al) has illustrated a fundamental and persistent character trait
of this movement.
It's fundamental claim is, in essence, "We have empirical evidence that X
was intelligently designed," where X is ordinarily some organism or biotic
subsystem. To this claim my standard and oft repeated response is, "Fine,
but I cannot begin to evaluate your claim until you tell me what you mean
when you say that "X was intelligently designed."
In one exchange on a list-serve, Dembski responded, "To be intelligently
designed is to be designed by an intelligent agent." However, from what I
learned already in high school, one cannot construct a meaningful or
illuminating definition for a term by using exactly the same words of that
term as the core of the definition.
Essentially the same flaw appears in Behe's recently quoted attempt at a
definition: "By 'intelligent design' I mean to imply design beyond the laws
of nature." The key word, "design," is not actually defined.
So, the fundamental character trait being demonstrated here (and
consistently in exchanges with the ID leadership) is the strategic avoidance
of a clear and candid working definition of the very term that names their
movement.
In modern usage, "design" most commonly means, "thoughtfully conceptualized
for the accomplishment of a purpose." It is an act of mind (or Mind).
However, when one looks at what is usually offered as support for the claim
that "X was intelligently designed," one ordinarily finds a list of
arguments of the form, "X could not have been assembled (at least for the
first time) by natural means. Therefore X must have been intelligently
designed." Thus, "intelligent design" entails, as an essential element, the
idea of non-natural assembly, or the action of some form of "hands."
Therefore, when ID's chief proponents say, "X was intelligently designed"
what they really mean would be far more accurately conveyed by saying that
"X was BOTH thoughtfully CONCEPTUALIZED for the accomplishment of a purpose
AND ASSEMBLED (at least for the first time) by the action of some
unspecified non-natural agent." One could add the obvious caveat that the
unspecified agent is ordinarily equated to God (specifically, God as
conceptualized by Evangelical Christianity , with its interventionist
concept of divine creative action).
I'm not sure what the adjective "intelligent" is supposed to add to the
meaning of "intelligent design," but it seems that the heart of ID's working
(but not candidly stated) definition of "design" is "assembled (at least for
the first time) by non-natural means."
In other words, ID (intelligent design) means NONA (non-natural assembly).
Howard J. Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 11 2000 - 10:38:26 EDT