Why Won't ID Proponents Identify Their Designer?

In a recent post on the Discovery Institute's Evolution 'news' and Views site, Walter Myers III said "In Refusing to Identify a “Designer,” ID Proponents Aren’t Being Coy".  The question to me is what has driven them to not identify their designer?   Reading the original Wedge Strategy document, you see it loaded with references to Christianity and the Christian God, for example

"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and the replace it with a science constant with Christian and theistic convictions" (Wikipedia: Wedge Strategy)

How can you write things like that, in your guiding strategy document, and then deny the identity of the designer . . . well 'officially deny' that identity.  Often ID proponents have identified their designer as the Christian God, but they rarely do it officially, one exception to that is the head of their own pet lab, Douglas Axe, whose latest religious missive included this description on Amazon:

"Axe argues that the key to understanding our origin is the “design intuition”—the innate belief held by all humans that tasks we would need knowledge to accomplish can only be accomplished by someone who has that knowledge. For the ingenious task of inventing life, this knower can only be God." (Amazon: Undeniable)

I am curious where did that description came from?  It was also repeated at the HarperOne website (the religious imprint of Harper-Collins). which makes me think it's part of the press release for the book.  Pretty clear-cut who the designer is, isn't it?

A different point comes from Robert Pennock, writing about Intelligent Design:

"When lobbying for ID in the public schools, wedge members sometimes deny that ID makes any claims about the identity of the designer. It is ironic that their political strategy leads them to deny God in the public square more often than Peter did."(Stephen Meyer and the Return of the God Hypothesis)

So ID proponents refuse to official designer as a deity comes across a just another tactic.  As soon as they make the designer a deity, they get lumped in with the other religious nut jobs who keep trying to push their belief set onto everyone else . . . you know folks like little kennie ham and Mike Pence.  If Pence doesn't ring a bell, he's the hamster-haired misogynist's vice-president and his efforts to push his religious beliefs on everyone was well documented when he was Governor of Indiana.

OK, so I guess I have to see what Walt says about the subject.  believe me, my expectations are pretty low.  His sums up his argument with this:

"In not specifying a designer, ID leaves science open to pursue plausible explanations of biological complexity without getting tangled up in extraneous theological or philosophical discussions. The everyday practice of the current scientific establishment already curtails and constrains what science is able to discover. ID resists this trend, and instead seeks to democratize scientific investigation."

Really?  They offer absolutely no scientific support for ID, and Walt thinks not naming the designer is an example of opening the door for plausible explanations?  Anyone buy into that?  No, not you current ID proponent, you'll believe anything Walt says.  But anyone else who isn't a current drinker of DI kool-aid? 

Let's break this down a little bit.  Walt admits that science has limits.  The limits Walt is talking about is that science and it's framework of methodological naturalism.  Walt says:

"ID proponents would certainly not be adherents of metaphysical naturalism, but they do accept methodological naturalism as an ostensibly normative principle for doing science, while believing it unnecessarily constrains science from entertaining empirical proof of intelligent agency."

Here is where Walt is trying to build a strawman, on the one hand claiming to accept scientific methodology and yet at the same time wanting to bring in the supernatural.  Since methodological naturalism references natural causes and events -- not supernatural ones, Walt says that is what limits science from taking ID seriously . . . and yet in the same sentence he claims ID proponents would not be 'adherents to metaphysical naturalism . . . which rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.  So that means ID proponents are interested in supernatural causation . . . so why won't they identify officially their designer?  Isn't that pretty much what Walt just admitted too?

So all Walt is trying to sell to people that ID isn't religious . . . and yet, once again, everything about ID is religious, from their guiding document to their core audience.  So back to the original question, why do ID proponents hesitate to identify the designer?  So, Walt himself is the one being coy here,  his article is nothing more than another tactic to try and divorce the DI from their religion -- and another failing one at that.

Can it be stated any clearer: Intelligent Design is Creationism.

The Discovery Institute (DI) is at it, whining and complaining when someone says anything about Intelligent Design (ID) that might be critical, this time the target is the NY Times.  George Johnson wrote a piece for the NY Times Science section that briefly mentioned ID in "The Widening World of Hand-Picked Truths" and, of course, since it mentioned ID, the DI, in the guise of one of their rabid attack Chihuahuas--davey 'klingy' klinghoffer, had a typical knee jerk reaction to it.  Here's what George said:

"Like creationists with their “intelligent design,” the followers of these causes come armed with their own personal science, assembled through Internet searches that inevitably turn up the contortions of special interest groups. "

It's easy to see why klingy is upset, I mean how on-target do you have to be before you make him, and his masters, nervous.  How many times can they deny ID = Creationism?  How often does the DI claim to be doing science, yet show no evidence of actually doing it?  Sounds like a definition of 'personal science' to me.  And if the DI isn't an example of a Special Interest Group, I don't know what would be then, and list all their tactics, like 'Teach the Controversy', is a good example of their contortions!  "Is It "Delusional" to Think Darwinism Is on the Ropes?" is the post and Klingy has a lot to say, as usual, but I want to concentrate on this part of his comment:

"Now, as I've point out before, Johnson like many mainstream science journalists is woefully uninformed about ID -- as the confused conflation of intelligent design with creationism demonstrates."

Yes, he's stated over and over again that Intelligent Design is not Creationism.  Does anyone buy that?  Let's concentrate on the NY Times.  Their coverage of Modern Intelligent Design goes back to the mid-90's.  Let's take a look at what I think is the first article in the NY Times on the modern ID Movement:  "Christians and Scientists; New Light for Creationism".  Here's a few quotes, the underlining is mine:

"Since his [Phillip E. Johnson] conversion to evangelical Christianity at the age of 37, Mr. Johnson has written three books attacking evolution. He says he is aiming to challenge not merely the secularism of universities but of an entire culture that he says rests on the scientific assumption of ''naturalism'' -- the idea that the natural world has no supernatural supervision."

While it's easy to see Johnson hasn't changed his tune since then, but I still have one issue with comments like this.  Science doesn't make an assumption of naturalism, it's more of a constraint.  Think it through, how does one develop, test, and then put to use supernatural explanations?  While Johnson will never admit it, you cannot.  Therefore science focusing on natural explanations is the only direction it can go.  Science does not address the supernatural because it cannot.  Supernatural explanations are pretty much useless, whether you are talking about a deity, a ghost, or other para-psychological 'phenomena'.  Here's another quote from that article:

"Another ally of Mr. Johnson is Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University who contends that the molecular machinery of cells is so complex and interdependent that this is proof of purposeful design. Mr. Behe's book, ''Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,'' was chosen as 1997 Book of the Year by the evangelical monthly Christianity Today. "

The NY Times has been covering Creationism and Intelligent Design for years and the two have been linked consistently, not by outsiders, but by ID proponents own words and actions.  It does go back much further than Johnson, the daddy rabbit of the DI.  Here's one from 1864:
"RELIGION AND CHEMISTRY, OR PROOFS OF GOD'S PLAN IN THE ATMOSPHERE AND ITS ELEMENTS." the last paragraph includes:

" . . .in which the scientific information is of the latest character, to the arguments from special adaptation, and the general plan, as furnishing unquestionable proof of intelligent design. With some cautionary remarks on the necessary limits of scientific and religious thought . . ."

So it seems no matter how far back you, the concept of ID is religious.  The modern movement of ID grew out of Creationism and never strayed far from its roots.  You really can't tell them apart, so much so that a simple cut and paste was used to change a Creationism text into an Intelligent Design text, or does klingy think we have forgotten 'cdesign proponentsists' and 'Of Pandas and People' so quickly.  What if the Evangelical audience that supports ID suddenly transferred their support elsewhere, you would be saying "What Discovery Institute?" 

Sorry klingy, your complaints don't add up.  As for the rest of your whine, is it delusional to think 'Darwinism' is on the ropes?  In a word, yes.

Aside from disagreeing to his pejorative use of the word 'Darwinism', what support does he have that the Theory of Evolution is on the ropes?  None.  Oh, he occasionally points to the DI's list of 700, although now I think they are over 800.  Gee, how long have been collecting signatures?  5 years, 10 years.  I have to check.  Oh, 2001, so 14 years, and they finally got passed 800 and only a small percentage of them actually work in biology-related fields (about 25% according to a 2001 NY Times article and as of 2007 the biology-related signatories represented .01% of working biologists, not 10%, or 1%, not even 1/10th of 1%, but 1/100th of 1%).  I wonder why klingy doesn't bring up the 6900+ signatures of scientists who support Evolution, over 65% are in biology-related fields.  In 2005 those signatures were collected over a 4-day period . . . 4 days!  I guess I can see why klingy tends to forget about that.

So what support does klingy offer that Evolution is endangered?  Do we suddenly see Evolution not being referenced in PubMed?  Ah, poor klingy, PubMed references Evolution only about 415,274 times.  Now I am sure many of those aren't addressing biological evolution, so I adjust the search parameter to 'biological evolution' and the number dropped all the way down to 64,801 for that specific phrase.  Just for fun, how does 'Intelligent Design' stack up?  Klingy might be impressed, 187 references, but it looks like many of those aren't saying nice things about it.  Sure, evolution is on the ropes, really?  Can't tell that from working scientists.

Do we find colleges no longer teaching Evolution?  Other than places like Falwell's Lament, aka Liberty University, only evangelical schools seem to teach Creationism/ID, and even most of those at least pay some lip service to evolution.  Why is that?  Search for yourself, they are in a significant minority.  So . . . if ID is not Creationism, why are only a very few non-secular schools teach it?  At most non-secular and secular schools, Creationism might be mentioned in a historical context, but when it comes to real science, it's barely a footnote.  So it doesn't look like it's on the ropes in higher education either, in spite of all the efforts of the DI to destroy science education.

Do we find any scientific arguments against evolution?  Nope, only philosophical ones, mainly motivated by religious beliefs.  Poor klingy! I mentioned once, but let me expand a bit, if ID is not Creationism, why are the only people who seem to take ID seriously are Evangelical Christians?  Yup, while there are a few exceptions, like klingy, the clear majority are Christians of the Evangelical variety.  So, scientifically, there doesn't seem to be much of a problem with Evolution.

Another question, who hosts ID 'conferences'?  Universities?  Colleges?  Scientific organizations?  No.  It's Christian groups, churches, and school ministries.  Other than self publishing in their own journals and publishing groups, where do ID proponents publish?  Scientific journals?  Science Presses?  No, they publish mostly in the religious imprints or popular publishers whose requirement of support is damn near zero.   Where are ID books, like anything written by Stephen C. Meyer, found in libraries and bookstores?  The non-fiction or science section?  No, Christian Fiction is where I see them.  Does anyone other than the DI think Evolution is on the ropes?  I think 'delusional' is a pretty way to express it.  I'm sure there are others, but this one works for me.

OK, I know we'll be posting on this topic over and over again, since the number of times folks like klingy and little casey luskin claims the two are unrelated seems to be to closest we will ever get to infinity, I just don't want anyone to fall for their claims.  ID = Creationism, no matter what the ID marketing department says.