In their article, Behe, Biochemistry, and the Invisible Hand, Niall Shanks and Karl Joplin begin their abstract as follows:

In this essay we take creationist biochemist Michael Behe to task for failing to make an evidentially grounded case for the supernatural intelligent design of biochemical systems.

Pay attention to the two adjectives – ‘creationist’ and ‘supernatural.’ Why did Shanks and Joplin freely choose to label Behe, a theistic evolutionist, as a creationist? Why did Shanks and Joplin freely choose to add the label ‘supernatural?’

To see what I am getting at, compare two sentences: A) the sentence they wrote and; B) the sentence they chose not to write –

A. In this essay we take creationist biochemist Michael Behe to task for failing to make an evidentially grounded case for the supernatural intelligent design of biochemical systems.

B. In this essay we take biochemist Michael Behe to task for failing to make an evidentially grounded case for the intelligent design of biochemical systems.

Both A and B convey the same basic meaning – they will take Behe to task for failing to make a case for ID. So why did they decide to add these two adjectives?

Take the “supernatural.” Everyone knows that Behe is trying to make the case that certain systems are Irreducibly Complex (IC) and that he argues such IC systems signal Intelligent Design (ID). But it is also clear that IC systems, even if they signal ID, do not necessarily signal supernatural design. We know this is clear to Behe for two reasons.

1. Behe’s classic example of IC is the mousetrap, something Shanks and Joplin discuss. Yet the mousetrap, while a product of intelligent design, is not a product of supernatural intelligent design.

2. Behe acknowledges that IC/ID does not sufficiently lead us to supernatural design. Shanks and Joplin even discuss this:

Perhaps we organisms are the result of an experiment by space aliens from a galaxy far, far away. . . . But, as Behe notes, “Most people, like me, will find these scenarios entirely unsatisfactory, but they are available for those who wish to avoid unpleasant theological implications.” Hovering unmentioned over the text is the suggestion that a supernatural, undesigned designer could provide a suitable invisible hand, not to mention the necessary expertise in biochemistry.

Thus, because Behe’s argument does not rule out a supernatural design, such that an IC system could be produced by a supernatural designer, Shanks and Joplin feel justified in portraying Behe’s argument as one that does require a supernatural designer. Could provide becomes does provide. Yet there remains nothing in Behe’s argument that mandates we embrace a supernatural designer. Behe cites the space aliens, gives us his personal opinion that has nothing to do with the logic of the argument, and Shanks and Joplin fail to explain why this option is not valid. Clearly, the insertion of the word ‘supernatural’ is sleight of hand on the part of Shanks and Joplin.

It gets worse with the adjective ‘creationist.’ Shanks and Joplin fail to use independent criteria to define a creationist and then explain why it is that Behe, an evolutionist, falls into this category. Even if they did go to the trouble of defining their terms in a philosophy journal, it would remain to be seen as to whether their definition was akin to painting a bulls eye (creationist) around an arrow (Behe).

Consider some widely used and standard definitions of creationism.

Dictionary.com defines creationism as “Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.”

Merriam-Webster defines it as “a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis."

The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.”

Creationists are those who believe that God created the universe, and all species alive today, in a geological instant several thousand years ago. The usual motive for creationism is conformity to a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesisor some analogous scripture. (Leigh EG Jr. 1999. The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism. Trends Ecol Evol. 14:495-498.)

Futuyma’s Glossary:

The doctrine that each species (or perhaps higher taxon) of organism was created separately in much its present form, by a supernatural creator.

Since these independently derived definitions do not accurately describe Behe, we can borrow from William Dembski’s lexicon and note the attempt to paint Behe as a creationist is a fabrication. Shanks and Joplin are not drawing from a widely accepted definition of creationism that was defined independently of Behe and other ID theorists. They simply attach the label because they wanted Behe to be perceived as such. In fact, let’s call this the Creationist Fabrication.

So where did the word ‘creationist’ come from in their abstract? Did it poof into existence? No, Shanks and Joplin put it there through intelligent design. Let’s draw from one of Shanks and Joplin’s design questions: For what purpose was it made?

A tantalizing hypothesis is found in the mission statement of the journal where the Shanks and Joplin article is published:

Philo is the only professional philosophy journal devoted exclusively to criticisms of theism and defenses or developments of naturalism.

Since the journal is devoted to debunking theism, it only makes sense that Shanks and Joplin would insist that ID be viewed as “supernatural.” And that they label Behe a ‘creationist’ is a way to stack the deck to increase the odds their reviewers and readers will agree with them (consider the people behind the journal and the general audience of a journal that is devoted to debunking theism). In other words, it would stand to reason that the readership of Philo have minds that are primed to immediately dismiss Behe’s argument once Behe is labeled as a ‘creationist' trying to demonstrate the 'supernatural.'

Suddenly, it becomes clear why they not only chose sentence A over B, but why they began with it.