Intelligent design

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(See also)
m
Line 3: Line 3:
 
Intelligent Design Theory, sometimes called Intelligent Design (or simply "design", or "ID") is a [[religion|religious]] argument which attempts to rebut the theory of [[evolution]], and, by extension, the facts that support it. Their position is generally that evolution through [[natural selection]] and physical forces and principles alone is not solely responsible for the current diversity of life on earth. Some ID proponents honestly acknowledge that their critique is informed by a rejection of the [[methodological naturalism]] by which [[physical science]] examines the world and consequently cannot be science.  Others are a bit more evasive.
 
Intelligent Design Theory, sometimes called Intelligent Design (or simply "design", or "ID") is a [[religion|religious]] argument which attempts to rebut the theory of [[evolution]], and, by extension, the facts that support it. Their position is generally that evolution through [[natural selection]] and physical forces and principles alone is not solely responsible for the current diversity of life on earth. Some ID proponents honestly acknowledge that their critique is informed by a rejection of the [[methodological naturalism]] by which [[physical science]] examines the world and consequently cannot be science.  Others are a bit more evasive.
  
ID maintains that certain aspects of the physical world, and more specifically, life, show signs of having been designed, and hence ''were'' designed. Although its adherents claim this leaves open the question of who the designer might be, this is clearly contradicted by the [[Wedge Document|wedge document]] which specifically states that the "intelligent designer" is the [[Christian]] [[god]].  Intelligent design is claimed by some believers in [[Old Earth Creationism]] to be the mechanism behind [[Theistic evolution]].<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/progressive.html</ref>  
+
ID maintains that certain aspects of the physical world, and more specifically, life, show signs of having been designed, and hence ''were'' designed. Although its adherents claim this leaves open the question of who the designer might be, this is clearly contradicted by the [[Wedge Document|wedge document]] which specifically states that the "intelligent designer" is the [[Christian]] [[god]].  Intelligent design is claimed by some believers in [[Old Earth Creationism]] to be the mechanism behind [[Theistic evolution]].<ref>[http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/progressive.html Link]</ref>  
  
 
''ID is "[[creation science]]" with a [[newspeak|new name]]''.
 
''ID is "[[creation science]]" with a [[newspeak|new name]]''.
Line 64: Line 64:
 
This precedent, and the correlation it establishes between religious rhetoric and the likelihood of any intelligent design policy being found unconstitutional, will be vitally important in heading off future school boards which attempt to teach intelligent design as "science."  Intelligent design's "wedge" appeal rests on its attempt to characterize itself as non-religious, after all.  Fortunately, the idea that intelligent design is non-religious is being rebutted on a practically daily basis... by its own proponents.
 
This precedent, and the correlation it establishes between religious rhetoric and the likelihood of any intelligent design policy being found unconstitutional, will be vitally important in heading off future school boards which attempt to teach intelligent design as "science."  Intelligent design's "wedge" appeal rests on its attempt to characterize itself as non-religious, after all.  Fortunately, the idea that intelligent design is non-religious is being rebutted on a practically daily basis... by its own proponents.
  
Consider a [[Kentucky]] schoolteacher who sought to teach intelligent design to her seventh grade [[biology]] class.  The teacher curiously taught the "scientific theory" as something practically indistinguishable from [[creationism]], complete with [[flood geology]] and [[young earth]] chronology.<ref>http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/intelligent-des-48.html</ref>  After being made aware of the same by the [[ACLU]], and the likely legal troubles the school board would face, it terminated its tacit approval of intelligent design.
+
Consider a [[Kentucky]] schoolteacher who sought to teach intelligent design to her seventh grade [[biology]] class.  The teacher curiously taught the "scientific theory" as something practically indistinguishable from [[creationism]], complete with [[flood geology]] and [[young earth]] chronology.<ref>[http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/intelligent-des-48.html Link]</ref>  After being made aware of the same by the [[ACLU]], and the likely legal troubles the school board would face, it terminated its tacit approval of intelligent design.
  
 
Additionally, leading light of intelligent design, [[Michael Behe]], is only able to publish his pro-intelligent design theories in one scientific journal - Philisophia Christi - the proceedings of the Evangelical Philosophy Society.<ref>Michael J. Behe, ''The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Breaking Rules'', Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Volume 3, Number 1, p. 165 (2001).  PDF on file with [[user:AmesG|RationalWiki user AmesG]].</ref>
 
Additionally, leading light of intelligent design, [[Michael Behe]], is only able to publish his pro-intelligent design theories in one scientific journal - Philisophia Christi - the proceedings of the Evangelical Philosophy Society.<ref>Michael J. Behe, ''The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Breaking Rules'', Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Volume 3, Number 1, p. 165 (2001).  PDF on file with [[user:AmesG|RationalWiki user AmesG]].</ref>

Revision as of 19:48, 5 June 2008

Pseudoscience Alert
This topic is a pseudoscience, and is not accepted by the scientific community as a valid discipline.
Although it may use scientific terminology, it does not use scientific methodology.
Remember: just because it sounds right doesn't mean it's actually right.

Intelligent Design Theory, sometimes called Intelligent Design (or simply "design", or "ID") is a religious argument which attempts to rebut the theory of evolution, and, by extension, the facts that support it. Their position is generally that evolution through natural selection and physical forces and principles alone is not solely responsible for the current diversity of life on earth. Some ID proponents honestly acknowledge that their critique is informed by a rejection of the methodological naturalism by which physical science examines the world and consequently cannot be science. Others are a bit more evasive.

ID maintains that certain aspects of the physical world, and more specifically, life, show signs of having been designed, and hence were designed. Although its adherents claim this leaves open the question of who the designer might be, this is clearly contradicted by the wedge document which specifically states that the "intelligent designer" is the Christian god. Intelligent design is claimed by some believers in Old Earth Creationism to be the mechanism behind Theistic evolution.[1]

ID is "creation science" with a new name.

Scientists dismiss Intelligent Design as being pseudoscience.

Contents

Wedge Strategy and the "Trojan Horse" of Creationism

Intelligent design has been strongly pushed by the Discovery Institute as part of the wedge strategy as outlined in the wedge document in their attempt to create a scientific sounding version of creationism. It has been roundly rejected by most scientists on the grounds that it has no peer-reviewed publications of any standards, and has produced no positive evidence for its claims. The wedge strategy itself is to create a public furor over the concept of "teaching the controversy". In the real scientific world, of course, there is no such controversy over the facts and theories underlying modern concepts of evolution.

To date, intelligent design has been introduced into exactly one school district - and there, it tore apart the community, cost the school board millions of dollars, and was eventually thrown out after the Kitzmiller trial. Although intelligent design is always a "Trojan Horse" for creationism - that is to say, creationism with a new name and a few obfuscating principles - there is a sliding scale of how egregious and visible the disguise is. Some people actually believe it to be real science (albeit erroneously), while others use it as a clear pretext for teaching creationism.

In the Kitzmiller case, the disguise was patently obvious. "Intelligent design proponents," there, sought to have the book Of Pandas and People, a creationist screed, taught as part of a new "intelligent design" curriculum at the local Dover public high school. ID supporters hoped to prove at trial that the book was legitimate science, and not creationism. However, there was one slight problem - the book was a book about creationism, with the words "creator," "creationism," etc., merely replaced with "designer," "intelligent design," etc., by a basic word-processor "find/replace" function, a ruse made obvious by spelling errors (like "cdesign proponentsists") which made the hatchet-job glaringly obvious.[2]

Scope and definition

The Theory of evolution by natural selection deals only with the question of how organisms develop and form new species. Logically it can have nothing to say about the origin of the universe or the origin of life.

It appears that some of the more, shall we way, scientifically minded believers in ID attempt to constrain themselves similarly and claim no more than God somebody is controlling evolution.

Others however go further and claim that Id explains not only the origin of life but even the origin of the universe. This expansion in the claimed scope of the theory is probably caused by to two things:

  • If you see ID as a code word for "God" then the temptation to ascribe all of existence to "ID" is very strong.
  • There is a common misconception among fundamentalists about what evolution actually is. For many, any scientific theory is an example of evolution and, to compete, ID must be capable of including anything which they erroneously believe evolution includes.

There is also a difference of opinion about what is actually involved biologically in ID. Again, for the more scientifically-minded it is simply evolution which is guided by God and common descent is fully accepted. For the more fundamentalist believers it is equivalent to progressive creationism in which complete new species are periodically created by God someone.

It is patently absurd for something which is presented as a scientific theory to be so lacking in any clear definition of scope and definition. (A reader who takes a close look the pro-ID description of the film Expelled:Leader's Guide will notice a number of these contradictions.)

The contradictions exist as a consequence of the fact that ID attempts to include so many creationist ideas under the guise of science.

Scientific Evaluation

Method

An outstanding issue of Intelligent Design is what mechanism the hypothesized "designer"[3] uses to initiate design diversity. According to the theory of evolution, this mechanism is genetic mutation resulting from environmental stresses and point mutations caused by the cellular chemical environment. As of this time Intelligent Design supporters have yet to offer a plausible mechanism to which diversity can be attributed that differentiates from the mechanisms listed by the theory of evolution. As such the claims by Intelligent Design proponents have yet to offer any empirical evidence to support the claim of a designer.

Evidence

Proponents of the Intelligent Design hypothesis such as Michael Behe promote theories such as Irreducible complexity as evidence for their ideas. Irreducible Complexity posits that there are certain organs and structures found in nature that have no convincing gradual evolutional pathway, and are too complex to have come about in whole by chance. These ideas are hotly disputed (or dismissed as non-science) by scientists, but regardless of their truth value they do not constitute evidence for an intelligent designer. Proponents of intelligent design make an assumption unwarranted by the evidence in that their logic goes along the lines of "The origins and diversity of the species cannot be accounted for evolution and natural selection alone, therefore there must have been a designer involved."

The very lack of positive, scientific evidence suggesting that there is a designer involved in creating life begs the question of how the design hypothesis came about. Opponents of the design hypothesis would suggest that proponents are religiously motivated, and that their ideas are not about understanding how life came to exist but rather about promoting a particular religious world view as espoused in the Wedge Document.

Periodicity

There has also been no attempt to specify the periodicity of the miraculous interventions by the hypothesized "Intelligent Designer". In other words, the philosophy does not state if the miraculous interventions take place annually, monthly, daily or only when the designer feels that miraculous intervention is necessary.

Falsifiability

Actually God did intelligently design a creature for the cage, only it was designed in such a way that it could get out of the cage.

ID proponents have yet to demonstrate that their idea is even remotely scientific by identifying what they believe could falsify it.

In fact, we await with interest any submission from supporters of this concept which would elevate it to the realms of science. Our article Disproving Intelligent Design remains embarrassingly blank.

Abiogenesis

Slightly better educated supporters of ID sometimes complain that that Theory of Evolution lacks any mention of, or generally accepted hypothesis about, abiogenesis. It is of interest however that versions of ID which pretend to be science also lack any such mechanism - though the unstated assumption is that it was god what dun it.

The objection also betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, which itself does not state a creator. It merely states what happens after some form of life is extant.

Legality in Education

For the main article on this important issue, please see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

No appellate precedent exists by which to judge the legality of teaching intelligent design in public schools. However, in the landmark district federal court case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge John E. Jones III ruled that given that the policy of teaching intelligent design was supported by religious rhetoric, it amounted to a teaching of religion by the state, in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Intelligent design was "religion" because, in the legal language applied, a reasonable person (based on the events surrounding the policy's adoption) could have concluded that it had the purpose or effect of establishing a particular religion. In short, when a school board tries to teach intelligent design, the level of religious rhetoric is directly related to the likelihood of its unconstitutionality under the Lemon v. Kurtzmann test.

This precedent, and the correlation it establishes between religious rhetoric and the likelihood of any intelligent design policy being found unconstitutional, will be vitally important in heading off future school boards which attempt to teach intelligent design as "science." Intelligent design's "wedge" appeal rests on its attempt to characterize itself as non-religious, after all. Fortunately, the idea that intelligent design is non-religious is being rebutted on a practically daily basis... by its own proponents.

Consider a Kentucky schoolteacher who sought to teach intelligent design to her seventh grade biology class. The teacher curiously taught the "scientific theory" as something practically indistinguishable from creationism, complete with flood geology and young earth chronology.[4] After being made aware of the same by the ACLU, and the likely legal troubles the school board would face, it terminated its tacit approval of intelligent design.

Additionally, leading light of intelligent design, Michael Behe, is only able to publish his pro-intelligent design theories in one scientific journal - Philisophia Christi - the proceedings of the Evangelical Philosophy Society.[5]

And finally, the "movie" Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed, which bills itself as describing how intelligent design is systematically excluded from academia for no other reason than bias, describes intelligent design in its own advertisements as "creationism."[6]

See also

And finally, this, which neatly sums up the Intelligent Design movement:

Intelligence.png

References and Notes

  1. Link
  2. PBS, "NOVA: Judgment Day, Intelligent Design on Trial."
  3. Should we capitalize "designer", since we all know who they think He is?
  4. Link
  5. Michael J. Behe, The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Breaking Rules, Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Volume 3, Number 1, p. 165 (2001). PDF on file with RationalWiki user AmesG.
  6. See our article on Expelled.
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support