Page Title

The current debate over intelligent design versus evolution is primarily a debate not about the details
of science, but about the rules and limits of science, the rules and limits of law, and the intersection of
science and law as each inevitably impact theistic religion in any answer to the question, where do we
come from? Intelligent design impacts theistic religion favorably, but is deemed to be not science by
mainstream scientists. Darwinian evolution (specifically the neo-Darwinian synthesis) impacts theistic
religion negatively by proposing a purely naturalistic (i.e., non-intelligent) process for the "occurrence"
of life and its diversity, but it is considered science by mainstream scientists.

As with any controversial subject of debate, no real progress can be made unless both sides are using
terminology precisely and consistently. In the current origins debate, intelligent design theorists have
staked out a position that of the three known explanatory causes of events and objects, i.e., chance,
law, and design, the observed and evident design in nature is just that--true design--and cannot be
explained by chance and law alone. Darwinism, on the other hand, holds that the design in nature is
not design, but “apparent” design—all objects in nature, including living beings are simply occurrences.
One evolutionist writer refers to the design in nature as an "illusion."

"Apparent" design is linguistically problematic.   Just as “intelligent design” is arguably redundant,
"apparent design" is a useless contradiction in terms. Something is either designed (intelligently) or it
is not. Like knowing someone is "apparently pregnant," knowing something is "apparently designed"
imparts no useful knowledge. Apparent design is not design. To use the language of design in this
way to describe the opposite concept only adds unnecessary confusion into the debate.

The language problem is exacerbated because in the English language we have no word for “obviously
appears to be an intelligent design, but is, in fact, only an unintelligent occurrence.” This is not
surprising because in our human experience there has been no need for such a word. Our experience
teaches us that something that appears clearly designed by an intelligent being is, in all but the most
unusual and easily resolved cases, actually intelligently designed. A well-made arrowhead is clearly
designed, and no reasonable person would refer to it as “apparently designed” simply because we
have no knowledge of its maker.   In the few cases of questionable origin, the closest English term to
apply might be “artifact,” as in “the artifact is of non-human origin.”

Therefore, I propose a new term to help clarify issues in the current intelligent design/evolution
debate. Recognizing that many things in nature appear to be designed, and true design necessarily
requires intelligence, the question is simply whether or not such observed things are true, intelligent
designs, or apparently-designed-yet-actually-unintelligently-caused occurrences. Because there is no
English word for “apparently-designed-yet-actually-unintelligently-caused” with respect to observed
events and objects, I propose the term adesign. Adesign is the absence of design. Adesign leads to
adesignism, which, like its linguistic counterparts atheism and agnosticism, is a belief system defined by
what it denies. By creating a clear contrast between design and adesign, the new terminology
precisely captures the heart of the origins inquiry: nature exhibits either some design requiring
intelligence, or all adesign requiring no intelligence. There is no other logical choice.

With the new terms of debate, a designist is one who believes the specified complexity evident in
nature is true design. An adesignist is one who denies that the specified complexity evident in nature
is true design. This terminology has the added benefit of removing the overtly religious component of
the debate, at least as an obstacle for understanding. A designist is not required to be a theist, but
he or she may be a theist without inconsistency. Likewise, an adesignist is not required to be an
atheist, but he or she may be an atheist without inconsistency. However, the converse does not
necessarily hold.   A religious designist (e.g., a creationist) who claims to be a scientific adesignist (e.g.,
a theistic evolutionist) would seem to be taking a contradictory position, and should be required to
explain. Likewise, a scientific adesignist (e.g., a Darwinist) who claims to be a religious designist (e.g.,
claiming “religion or God is fully compatible with evolution") must explain this position clearly, because
such a position is contradictory on its face.

As a scientific question, therefore, public schools could teach both designism as well as adesignism,
with neither requiring an overtly religious emphasis. Of course, both necessarily carry philosophical
and religious inferences, but such a condition is unavoidable as inherent in the inquiry. By focusing on
design as the crucial inquiry, teachers can present the data objectively, religiously-neutrally, and,
above all, in an atmosphere of academic freedom.

Proposing a New Lexicon for Understanding in the Evolution/Intelligent Design Debate

BACK

HOME