Pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God
This article is about a specific pseudoscientific form of creationism. For generic arguments from "intelligent design", see Teleological argument. For the movement, see Intelligent design movement. For other uses of the phrase, see Intelligent design (disambiguation).
Not to be confused with Theistic evolution.
Part of a series on
Intelligent design
Watchmaker analogy
Concepts
Irreducible complexity
Specified complexity
Fine-tuned universe
Intelligent designer
Theistic science
Neo-creationism
Movement
Timeline
Wedge strategy
Politics
Kitzmiller v. Dover
Campaigns
Discovery Institute campaigns
"Teach the controversy"
Authors
Jonathan Wells
William A. Dembski
Phillip E. Johnson
Michael Behe
Organisations
Discovery Institute
Center for Science and Culture
Centre for Intelligent Design
International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID)
Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity
Truth in Science
Reactions
Jewish
Roman Catholic
Scientific bodies that explicitly reject intelligent design
Creationism
Category
v
t
e
Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]
Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to creation science and creationism, after the 1987 Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.[13] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,[14] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.[7] This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, which found that intelligent design was not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[15]
ID presents two main arguments against evolutionary explanations: irreducible complexity and specified complexity, asserting that certain biological and informational features of living things are too complex to be the result of natural selection. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible.
ID seeks to challenge the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[2][16] though proponents concede that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.[17] As a positive argument against evolution, ID proposes an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts, a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God.[1][n 2] ID proponents then conclude by analogy that the complex features, as defined by ID, are evidence of design.[18][n 3] Critics of ID find a false dichotomy in the premise that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design.[19][20]
^ abNumbers 2006, p. 373; "[ID] captured headlines for its bold attempt to rewrite the basic rules of science and its claim to have found indisputable evidence of a God-like being. Proponents, however, insisted it was 'not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins – one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution.' Although the intellectual roots of the design argument go back centuries, its contemporary incarnation dates from the 1980s"Numbers, Ronald L. (2006) [Originally published 1992 as The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism; New York: Alfred A. Knopf]. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (Expanded ed., 1st Harvard University Press pbk. ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-02339-0. LCCN 2006043675. OCLC 69734583.
^ abMeyer, Stephen C. (December 1, 2005). "Not by chance". National Post. Don Mills, Ontario: CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc. Archived from the original on May 1, 2006. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
^Boudry, Maarten; Blancke, Stefaan; Braeckman, Johan (December 2010). "Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience" (PDF). The Quarterly Review of Biology. 85 (4): 473–482. doi:10.1086/656904. hdl:1854/LU-952482. PMID 21243965. S2CID 27218269. Article available from Universiteit Gent
^Pigliucci 2010
^Young & Edis 2004 pp. 195–196, Section heading: But is it Pseudoscience?
^"CSC – Frequently Asked Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design?". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle: Discovery Institute. Retrieved July 15, 2018.
"Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell" (PDF). Seattle: Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center. 2004. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
"Intelligent Design". Intelligent design network. Shawnee Mission, Kan.: Intelligent Design network, inc. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
^ abForrest, Barbara (May 2007). "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals" (PDF). Center for Inquiry. Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 19, 2011. Retrieved August 6, 2007.
^Cite error: The named reference consensus was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^"An intelligently designed response". Nature Methods (Editorial). 4 (12): 983. December 2007. doi:10.1038/nmeth1207-983. ISSN 1548-7091.
^Cite error: The named reference Haught Witness Report was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Matzke was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy, pp. 31–33.
^Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy p. 32 ff, citing Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).
^"Media Backgrounder: Intelligent Design Article Sparks Controversy". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle: Discovery Institute. September 7, 2004. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
Johnson, Phillip E. (June 2002). "Berkeley's Radical". Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity (Interview). 15 (5). Interviewed by James M. Kushiner. Chicago: Fellowship of St. James. ISSN 0897-327X. Retrieved June 16, 2012. Johnson interviewed in November 2000.
Wilgoren, Jodi (August 21, 2005). "Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive". The New York Times. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
Downey 2006
^Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science Page 69 and s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#H. Conclusion p. 136.
^Meyer, Stephen C.; Nelson, Paul A. (May 1, 1996). "Getting Rid of the Unfair Rules". Origins & Design (Book review). Colorado Springs, Colo.: Access Research Network. Retrieved May 20, 2007.
Johnson, Phillip E. (May–June 1996). "Third-Party Science". Books & Culture (Book review). Vol. 2, no. 3. Archived from the original on February 19, 2014. Retrieved June 16, 2012. The review is reprinted in full by Access Research Network [archived February 10, 1999].
Meyer, Stephen C. (2000). "The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories". Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe: Papers Presented at a Conference Sponsored by the Wethersfield Institute, New York City, September 25, 1999. Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute. Vol. 9. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. ISBN 978-0-89870-809-7. LCCN 00102374. OCLC 45720008. Retrieved December 1, 2014.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science, p. 68. "lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology."
See also Hanna, John (February 13, 2007). "Kansas Rewriting Science Standards". The Guardian. London. Associated Press. Archived from the original on February 16, 2007. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
^Giberson, Karl W. (April 21, 2014). "My Debate With an 'Intelligent Design' Theorist". The Daily Beast. New York: The Newsweek Daily Beast Company. Retrieved May 14, 2014.
^Cite error: The named reference SM 07 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science, p. 64.
^McDonald, John H. "A reducibly complex mousetrap". Retrieved February 28, 2014.
Ussery, David (December 1997). "A Biochemist's Response to 'The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution'" (Book review). Archived from the original on March 4, 2014. Retrieved February 28, 2014. Originally published in Bios (July 1998) 70:40–45.
Cite error: There are <ref group=n> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=n}} template (see the help page).
and 20 Related for: Intelligent design information
Intelligentdesign (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about...
The intelligentdesign movement is a neo-creationist religious campaign for broad social, academic and political change to promote and support the pseudoscientific...
timeline of intelligentdesign outlines the major events in the development of intelligentdesign as presented and promoted by the intelligentdesign movement...
goal'; also known as physico-theological argument, argument from design, or intelligentdesign argument) is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally...
Following political controversy, creation science was reformulated as intelligentdesign and neo-creationism. Mainline Protestants and the Catholic Church...
The IntelligentDesign network, inc. (commonly IDnet or IntelligentDesign Network) is a nonprofit organization formed in Kansas to promote the pseudoscientific...
creation science, neo-creationism, and intelligentdesign, argue that the idea of life being directly designed by a god or intelligence is at least as...
The intelligentdesign movement has conducted an organized campaign largely in the United States that promotes a pseudoscientific, neo-creationist religious...
bodies explicitly rejecting intelligentdesign). In the push by intelligentdesign advocates to introduce intelligentdesign in public school science classrooms...
Centre for IntelligentDesign is an advocacy group, headquartered in Scotland that promotes the pseudoscientific principle. of intelligentdesign. The Centre...
evolution hearings in favor of introducing intelligentdesign and arranged a government-sponsored intelligentdesign conference in Istanbul.[citation needed]...
principle." The modern form of a design argument is put forth by intelligentdesign. Proponents of intelligentdesign often cite the fine-tuning observations...
view of religion. It originated in opposition to the teaching of intelligentdesign in public schools in the United States. According to adherents, Pastafarianism...
Alister McGrath, Francisco J. Ayala, and Francis Collins are critics of intelligentdesign. Young Earth creationists including Ken Ham prefer to criticize theistic...
American biochemist and an advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligentdesign (ID). He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University...
2005 saying that "Intelligentdesign isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligentdesign should be taught...
This is a list of works addressing the subject or the themes of intelligentdesign. Ashton, John F, ed. (2001). In Six Days : Why Fifty Scientists Choose...
such as "design by an intelligent designer", and after 1987 this was rebranded as "intelligentdesign", promoted by the intelligentdesign movement which...