| Although anti-evolutionism has existed for well over a century, recent evolutionary critics have used non-theistic arguments to attempt to show that Darwinian evolution could not have produced some examples of biological complexity. Called “intelligent design” (ID) theory this movement claims to present genuine scientific facts that prove the inability of evolution to produce most biological structures, thus necessitating the infusion of ‘intelligently-designed’ structure or information into biological life. Despite claims of scientific legitimacy by the ID movement, evolutionary scientists, professional scientific associations, and scientific proponents have widely dismissed ID arguments as non-scientific reasoning dressed up in the terminology of science. Using Gieryn’s theory of boundary-work together with Frickel and Gross’ theory of scientific/intellectual movements (SIM), I examined the institutional relationship, if any, between science and the ID movement, using the inter-organizational network of ties between ID organizations and organizations representing other fields. I used several network theoretic measures to examine the extent of ties between the ID, creation science, and science fields. I found very sparse connections between ID and science, indicating strong institutional boundary-work by scientists. While there was some overlap between ID and creation science, I found considerable evidence that these two movements have distinct intellectual cultures. My findings suggest that, regardless of their origins, the intelligent design and creation science movements are two independent organizational communities. |
