Giving the truth scope

"Yes ... yes I lied. I'm a writer! I give the truth scope!" -- Chaucer, A Knight's Tale

I recently realized that the very words "Intelligent Design" are intentonally misleading. The theory, if it can be called one, relies on the concept of irreducible complexity. To grossly oversimplify, the idea is that there are structures in biology that could not have evolved by incremental changes. If this could be proven true, it would be a huge blow to the theory of evolution. ID claims that such structures do in fact exist, and with a final gratuitous non-sequitur, concludes that the only alternative explanation possible is the existance of an intelligent designer. This is exactly what Michael Behe claims in his book Darwin's Black Box, and it has been thoroughly dismantled here.

But perhaps the theory's real genius lies in it's name. Many Christians can and do acknowledge that evolution happens. Most of these Christians' thinking goes something like this: why can't God have created humans by influencing the seemingly random mutations that eventually resulted in us? In other words, they imagine that an intelligent designer, God, used evolution to create humans.

Contrast this to the actual theory of Intelligent Design, which is really just an attempt to discredit evolution. I think most Christians, not knowing the details of ID, see an unnecessarily hostile attack on religion. And for IDers, that is a win.

We need to stop allowing this debate to be framed in terms of "Intelligent Design." After all, the existence of an intelligent designer can't be tested, and that puts it firmly outside the scope of science. Instead, I propose we call it the theory of Irreducible Complexity.

I think this would help us in the court of public opinion, especially among the large demographic of people who only know about the debate from headlines and soundbites. But I certainly can't do it by myself. If you think it's a good idea, pass it along. Hopefully we can start something positive.