Intelligent Design is the most recent form of creationism to develop, but its roots go back much further. It is based upon the idea that the existence of God can be deduced from the intricate design in the universe, a view popularized by William Paley's famous Watchmaker Analogy in his 1802 book Natural Theology.
Intelligent Design is the most recent form of creationism, but its roots are very old. Intelligent Design is based upon the idea that we can deduce the existence of God from the existence of design in the universe, a view popularized by William Paley's Watchmaker Analogy in his 1802 book
Natural Theology. According to Paley, if you came across a watch on a beach, you would not assume that …
One of the most significant ways in which Intelligent Design is revealed as being political and ideological rather than scientific is by the methods used by Intelligent Design apologists. In science, researchers are expected to provide substantial evidence in support of their claims and to show how their explanations do a better job than the alternatives. Intelligent Design, in contrast, invests all its time attacking evolution and little to no time coming up with anything better.
Intelligent Design is, like all other creationist movements, more about politics and religion than about science. Where Intelligent Design differs is that it was originally and deliberately conceived in explicitly political terms whereas earlier creationist movements tended to acquire political goals and principles over time. This is very important to understand because it reveals as false the pretensions of Intelligent Design apologists that they are involved in a scientific enterprise.
Understanding the critiques of evolution that come from Intelligent Design is critical to understanding Intelligent Design itself. This is because Intelligent Design ultimately doesn't amount to much more than an assault on naturalistic, materialistic evolution. Intelligent Design was created to find a foundation for attacking evolution that sounded more rational than traditional creationism, but it hasn't grown beyond most of the fundamental problems behind all forms of creationism.
Intelligent Design is almost entirely based upon criticism of evolution and science - it has nothing of substance to offer itself. Because of this need for something to criticize, it sometimes occurs that Intelligent Design supporters will need to create something to attack, otherwise they simply have nothing at all to say.
The Intelligent Design movement wouldn't exist today without the efforts and influence of Phillip Johnson, a retired lawyer who decided that cultural and political secularism could be combatted through the development of a new form of creationism. If you listen closely to what he says, you'll notice him admitting that his agenda is culture, not science.
Defenders of Intelligent Design insist that it is a program of scientific inquiry, not religious faith. Evidence makes it clear, however, that in addition to being bad science and bad theology, Intelligent Design is a political program designed to overturn naturalistic science. It is further supported by important leaders in the Christian Reconstructionist movement.
Defenders of Intelligent Design insist that the 'designer' they have in mind need not be their God. Anyone or anything could, in theory, be the 'designer.' What about Satan? If the identity of the designer is left open, isn't it just as likely that some evil being like Satan designed life? I doubt that any defenders of Intelligent Design would agree with this.
The immediate focus and target of defenders of Intelligent Design is evolution; the long-term target is, they admit, is methodological naturalism and materialism in science. Their ultimate goal, which they only rarely admit to openly, are reason and modernity themselves.
It's surely possible to mount an intellectually and ethically credible defense of Intelligent Design, but I haven't found any religious conservatives actually do it. It is ironic that Intelligent Design it defended in a dishonest manner because it was created in order to 'restore' morality to a secular America. If this is any indication of what they have in mind, they can keep it.
It's standard for defenders of Intelligent Design to insist that it's not a religious, and certainly not a Christian, belief system. It's valid science, they tell everyone, and any religious or Christian implications which one might draw from it is purely incidental. It's a nice fairy tale, but it has no basis in truth. The most prominent advocates of Intelligent Design make this clear.
Is there anyone in the world who can construct a competent, serious, and honest defense of Intelligent Design? I suppose it's possible, but I've never encountered such a person. Everyone single defense of Intelligent Design that I've ever seen, bar none, has been a reason to question the mental competence of the author.
Science does not tolerate dishonesty very well. There will always be scientists who try to cheat and commit fraud, but they are all found out eventually. In the scientific process, only honest work survives over the long term. Perhaps this is part of why defenses of pseudoscience are so often dishonest in their rhetoric and claims.
Christian Right advocates of Intelligent Design have always intended it as a means for injecting more theism and Christianity into American culture. This makes their agenda appear far more benign than it really is: they want more Christianity in American culture because, in the end, they want to replace America's secular institutions with a theocratic regime under their control.
The fact that Intelligent Design is a program for promoting a conservative, evangelical form of Christianity is undeniable. It's not even reasonable to say that it's a generally religious movement that promotes a general form of monotheism. Why? Because Intelligent Design advocates are clear in their defense of Jesus Christ and the New Testament as foundations for their beliefs.
One of the refreshing things about Judge Jones' decision in the Dover trial was his reference to the infamous 'Wedge' strategy of Intelligent Design supporters. Far from being a scholarly and scientific research program, Intelligent Design was conceived from the outset as a means for injecting more religion, theism, and Christianity into schools and American culture generally.
A common argument from defenders of Intelligent Design is that some biological systems could not do their job if any parts were removed and, therefore, couldn't possibly have evolved naturally - therefore, they must have been designed. Such a system is, however, sub-optimal at best. Well designed systems shouldn't be easy to break and should have redundancies.
Most scientists recognize that Intelligent Design is essentially religious, lacking even rudimentary scientific merit. Many supporters of Intelligent Design must recognize it, too, because they haven't been able to produce any scientific research and haven't contributed anything to our understanding of biology and life.
Intelligent Design is founded upon two principles: science cannot explain the complexity and intricacy of the universe and, therefore, that those aspects of the universe point to the existence of God. This does not result in necessarily rejecting all of evolutionary theory, but they do argue that the naturalistic foundations of evolution are inadequate to explain the development of life.
Not making an independent case for one's own theory but rather focusing on undermining another theory may not be good science, but it is a good legal strategy. This shouldn't be surprising, because the one person most responsible for the development of the Intelligent Design movement is Philip Johnson, a law school professor and recognized authority on criminal law.
Intelligently Design is a creationist movement which did not simply evolve into one with political goals - unlike other creationist movements, it started out that way very explicitly and deliberately. Nevertheless, Intelligent Design does share many of the basic social and political presuppositions and goals as those of other creationist groups.
Although not heard quite as often today, calls for "Balanced Treatment" were once a fundamental aspect of creationist attempts to insert their beliefs into science classes across the country. Through such efforts they hoped that not only would scientific creationism receive more widespread acceptance, but also that evolution would slowly wither away and die.
In this American Scientist magazine book review, Yale biologist Robert Dorit identifies six fallacies that plague Behe's book.
Early "intelligent design" argument made by Thomas Aquinas, from Summa Theologica I, 2, 3.
Michael Behe's book
Darwin's Black Box claims that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex" -- that in order to evolve, multiple parts would have to arise simultaneously. But is it true?
Creationists argue that the fundamental constants of nature are so precisely tuned that an intelligent designer was required to create the universe. Do they have a case?
This list of papers has been collected in response to Michael Behe's claim that the scientific literature is virtually silent on the topic of molecular evolution.
Many creationists resort to the "intelligent design" argument - but how scientific is it, really?
Alleges that natural selection does not explain the evolution of complexity and examines the "logic" behind intelligent design.
Scholarly and popular resources about intelligent design and philosophical theism.
