Difference between revisions of "Intelligent design"

Latest revision as of 19:43, 18 September 2010

Overview

Intelligent design (or "ID") is a theory of creation which was put forward by advocates of creationism as a supposedly valid alternative to the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection when their previous effort, creation science, became non-viable.

ID also throws in a few scientific-sounding arguments (most notably that of "irreducible complexity") that are easily refuted by those with even a little knowledge in the relevant areas. ID advocates take no notice of such refutations and continue to present them to naive audiences as unanswered – thus qualifying ID as a form of denialism and therefore intellectually dishonest.

In its most carefully-phrased form, ID is creationism with any religion-based claims removed – basically a redress of the classical "argument by design" which has been debated for at least 2000 years (see Wikipedia), but stops short of the assertion that the "intelligent designer" is God.

Less-careful advocacy of ID often includes references to creationism or Christian doctrine, and implicitly or explicitly admits that ID is a re-dress of creationism and that their agenda has far more to do with spreading Christianity than with finding truth. The link between ID and creationism was established solidly at the Dover trial, and further confirming evidence pops up from time to time.

ID supporters are apparently driven by a belief that "Darwinism" (presented as if it were a rival religion) leads to evil – see, for example, the juxtaposition of science and Nazism in the creationist movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed – and that universal belief in Creationism is necessary in order to prevent this. These beliefs are apparently more important to them than the consideration of which belief is actually true, and adherents appear unswayed by the fact that this supposed connection is entirely manufactured.

See also: /objections

Conclusions

As with creationism in its other forms, ID's main purpose was (and remains) to insinuate religion into public school education in the United States. It has no real arguments to offer, its support derives exclusively from Christian ideological protectionism and evangelism, and its proponents have no interest in revising their own beliefs in the light of evidence new to them. It is a form of denialism.

As pointed out by Eliezer Yudkowsky: In the very unlikely event that consciousness was involved in the design of now-existing species, the existence of organisms designed well to exploit other well-designed organisms would argue strongly for multiple designers over a single designer. In the event that the designers are supernatural, this would support the likelihood of polytheism over monotheism and hence be an argument against all monotheisms including Christianity and Islam.

History

As a coherent theory, ID seems to have been created solely for the purpose of finding an argument which would be acceptable to fundamentalist Christians and yet would succeed where creationism, due to the illegality of teaching religion-based ideas as fact in US schools, had failed. ID was first put forward in 1987, in the wake of a US court decision ruling that creationism was based in religion and therefore could not be taught in US schools due to the separation of church and state. Existing works of Creationist literature (e.g. People and Pandas) were quickly modified to use the new phrase, and reprinted and promoted using language from which any religious taint had been carefully removed.

An apparently damning strategy paper generally referred to as The Wedge Document was written in 1998 by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. The paper does not appear to be anywhere on DI's web site (currently only available on the AntiEvolution web site - "concise and accurate information for those who wish to critically examine the antievolution movement"), although there is one reply (available only in PDF at present) dated 2005-12-19 on DI's site. (This PDF should probably be transcribed at some point for easier access.)

The Wedge paper makes it clear that ID was created – at least, from the point of view of the DI/CSC – solely for the purpose of "[seeing] intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science", regardless of its veracity.

Intelligent Design subsequently gained considerable momentum during the Bush II administration, whose support and anti-scientific tendencies it enjoyed.

In the wake of a 2005 court ruling in Dover, PA, direct creation advocates seem to have reluctantly abandoned ID and have now moved on to advocating "critical analysis of evolution" – a phrase which sounds very reasonable and fair on the surface (science encourages critical analysis of all its findings), but which is targeted exclusively at evolution and whose aim is to undermine its credibility rather than finding the best explanation for available evidence. They also continue to advocate "teaching the controversy", an effort also exclusively targeted at evolution.

Arguments

/claims: arguments put forward as supportive of ID

ID as the Default

ID treatises often spend considerable energy on attacking "Darwinism" and extolling the virtues of ID over those of evolution, rather than refining ID as a theory (e.g. attempting to determine the exact nature of the hypothesized interventions, at what points they happened, etc.), searching for evidence, making predictions by which ID might be confirmed, and so on.

These criticisms and debates often raise seemingly-valid objections to Darwinism, but do not present evidence that actually supports ID. It seems to be an article of faith among creationists that if alternative explanations can all be refuted, then "God did it" must be accepted as a satisfactory answer; this is of course nonsense, as "God did it" does not actually explain anything.

Related Pages

index

creation: how things got here
- evolution by natural selection
- intelligent design

Hierarchy of non-scientific creation ideas:
- anti-Darwinism: opposing evolutionary ideas for the sake of taking them down, not because of a better model
- interventionist creation: not anti-scientific, but does not actually explain anything; just defers the question one more level and makes the situation unnecessarily more complicated (violating Occam's Razor)
- supernatural creation: anti-scientific by definition -- see /objections/supernatural

context

intelligent design was one of a series of attacks on "Darwinism" and science in general
intelligent design is an informal theory of creation
intelligent design's core argument (as differentiated from other direct creation theories) would seem to be the argument from design (a variant of the argument from incredulity), i.e. "How could anything so amazingly complicated and beautiful as the universe have come about by mere accident? There must have been a Designer!"

Links

This page is in need of updating. These links need to be checked and reorganized.

Reference

Projects

ResearchID (alt): wiki about ID research

Filed Links

redirect template:links/smw

News & Views

2006-07-30 (blog entry) I.D. is Bad Science on Its Own Terms by John Rennie
2006-02-12 (email/reply) Subject: Intelligent Design Gedanken experiment: writer's argument seems well-stated and convincing; Pournelle's reply seems evasive.
2005-10-27 (article) The Brontosaurus: Monty Python's flying creationism, by William Saletan: compares Michael Behe with Miss Anne Elk
2002-02-13 (article) Unintelligible Redesign by William Saletan: ID offers nothing testable, and only the unsupported assertion that something which seems designed must be designed.

Articles

The Other Intelligent Design Theories by David Brin: "Intelligent Design is only one of many "alternatives" to Darwinian evolution."
- Points out that the creation of "Intelligent Design" shows how scientific ideas such as openness to criticism, fair play in discussion, and respect for the contingent nature of truth have become accepted standards
- Refutes the implicit premise that ID is the only valid alternative to Darwinian evolution
- Takes some of ID's arguments to the next logical step (something ID proponents seem to carefully avoid doing)

Discussion

TruthMapping: ID is not scientific and therefore does not belong in science education

Humor

2003-01-22 "The Quixotic Message", or "No Free Hunch": humorously-phrased IDist viewpoints on various related issues, with supporting documentation

Video

Ken Miller on Intelligent Design: Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist from Brown University and a Roman Catholic, is a firm defender of evolution; the lecture begins with a short prayer. Miller reveals huge flaws in ID and shows the hypocrisy and inconsistency of its staunchest proponents. He also goes into the Dover trial in considerable detail.
"A War on Science" (episode of BBC's Horizon series): Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5

Comments

If it is necessary to invoke a deity in order to explain gaps in the theory of evolution, why does ID stop there? For example, scientists are still trying to explain how galaxies are held together when the force of gravity seems to be insufficient; the current theory is that dark matter is responsible, but most scientists will admit that this theory is a bit lame. Why aren't the ID people arguing that God must be holding the galaxies together? And then there's the whole area of quantum physics... --Woozle, 17:20, 23 January 2006
David Brin said (in Contrary Brin 2005-12-08), arguing that the repurposing of Creationism's arguments in the more scientific-sounding "Intelligent Design" guise, as cynical as it may seem, is actually a score for science:

Take a gander at so-called "Intelligent Design." Would they have retreated so far from older "Creationism"... using every trick to dress it up in scientific-sounding and rationalist language, eschewing every reference to religion and even dropping all mention of the age of the Earth/universe (!)... if they did not realize how deeply and strongly science and enlightenment still hold attraction to the American majority?

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==Overview==
-[[Intelligent design]] (or "ID") is a [[direct creation]] [[informal theory|theory]] which is often proposed as a valid alternative to the [[scientific theory]] of [[evolution]], a.k.a. [[Darwinism]]. It is essentially [[creationism]], but with any falsifiable claims (e.g. the [[creation of the earth]] being specifically pegged at approximately 4000 BC) removed, and only the claim of an "intelligent designer" &ndash; who might be God, but whose nature is left carefully unspecified and could just as easily be some form of extraterrestrial intelligence &ndash; remains.
+[[Intelligent design]] (or "ID") is a [[informal theory|theory]] of [[creation]] which was put forward by advocates of [[creationism]] as a supposedly valid alternative to the [[scientific theory]] of [[evolution by natural selection]] when their previous effort, [[creation science]], became non-viable.
-ID is, then, basically a redress of the classical "argument by design" which has been debated for at least 2000 years (see {{Wikipedia|Teleological argument}}), but stops before the assertion that God must be the intelligent being involved.
+ID also throws in a few scientific-sounding [[/claims|arguments]] (most notably that of "[[irreducible complexity]]") that are easily refuted by those with even a little knowledge in the relevant areas. ID advocates take no notice of such refutations and continue to present them to naive audiences as unanswered &ndash; thus qualifying ID as a form of [[denialism]] and therefore [[intellectually dishonest]].
-Intelligent Design treatises often spend considerable energy on criticizing [[Darwinism]] and debating the merits of ID [[Evolution vs. Intelligent Design|over those of Evolution]], rather than refining ID as a theory (e.g. attempting to determine the exact nature of the hypothesized interventions, at what points they happened, etc.). These criticisms and debates often raise valid (although not unanswerable) objections to Darwinism, but do not (despite the ID adherents' apparent belief to the contrary) present evidence actually in support of ID.
+In its most carefully-phrased form, ID is [[creationism]] with any [[religion]]-based claims removed &ndash; basically a redress of the classical "[[argument by design]]" which has been debated for at least 2000 years (see {{Wikipedia|Teleological argument}}), but stops short of the assertion that the "intelligent designer" is [[God]].
-===Scientific Claims===
-ID does make the following [[falsifiable]] claims:
-: {{arg.point|Certain organisms display what ID proponents call "irreducible complexity", i.e. organs which they claim would not function properly if even a small percentage of their components were absent or not functioning properly, and therefore these organs ''could not have evolved''.}}
-:: {{arg.point|The flagellum, which is actually a molecular motor with "about 50 parts"}}
-:: {{arg.counter|This argument of ID is essentially making a [[scientific prediction]], falsification of which proves that the theory is wrong as stated. The prediction is that the flagellum would be useless without all (or most) of its parts. Dr. Kenneth Miller answers this by showing a sample organism which is missing 40 of the 50 parts and yet still functions "perfectly".}}
-: {{arg.point|Life could not have evolved by chance, according to mathematician Dr. [[William Dembski]] of [[Southern Baptist Theological Seminary]], due to the vast improbability of functioning sequences of DNA happening to occur out of all the [[Vast|vastness (philosophy)]] number of possible alternatives.}}
-:: {{arg.counter|This is based on two mistaken understandings:}}
-::: {{arg.error|The probability of any given genome (DNA sequence for an organism) happening to occur is the same as that of any other genome, i.e. they happen at random.}}
-:::: {{arg.check|This would only be true if each organism had been first created in something close to its present form. The theory of evolution posits that the genomes for each species evolved gradually over millions of years, starting from the shortest possible strands which could reproduce and gradually being edited over the eons by [[natural selection]] &ndash; adding on a bit here, trimming a bit there &ndash; until we arrive at all the different organisms there are today. Hence DNA sequences (like any engineering project, or like writing) tend to follow certain patterns which are a [[vanishingly small]] subset of [[Library of Mendel|all the possible patterns]]. Genomes which actually work as organisms are an even smaller subset of genomes which are constructed mainly of patterns in common use.}}
-::: {{arg.error|The DNA sequences found in organisms today were each created in their entirety, like a hand of cards being dealt, for the first organism to use them. There are only a [[vanishingly small]] number of "hands" (out of all the Vast number of ''possible'' hands) which might work as organisms, and the misunderstanding seems to be that we have from the beginning of life until now to "deal out" functioning organisms from a well-shuffled deck.}}
-:::: {{arg.check|Again, the patterns started out being relatively simple, and gradually evolved into the complex forms we see today.}}
-::::: {{arg.info|A ''legitimate'' question to ask is [[origin of life|how that first pattern could have been created]], since the "simplest pattern capable of copying itself" would seem to be quite complicated, but that discussion is outside the realm of [[evolution by natural selection]] (EbNS) &ndash; though not at all outside the realm of [[science]], and theories have been proposed which make use of many of the mechanisms found in EbNS.}}
-Behe and Dembski argued that there had to be an intelligent, deliberate influence in order to overcome these obstacles they thought they saw, but they would seem to have been clearly in error; one can only think that it is intellectual dishonesty which compels them (and other ID supporters) to continue making the case for ID without answering these points.
+Less-careful advocacy of ID often includes references to [[creationism]] or [[Christian doctrine]], and implicitly or explicitly admits that ID is a re-dress of creationism and that their agenda has far more to do with spreading [[Christianity]] than with finding truth. The link between ID and [[creationism]] was established solidly at the Dover trial, and further confirming evidence pops up from time to time.
-====Supernatural?====
-It's not clear whether they were specifically arguing for a ''[[supernatural]]'' influence. Regardless of whether there was some kind of intelligent force at work in the process of [[evolution]], there are two possible ways it could operate:
-* via means detectable to us
-* via means undetectable to us
-In the former case, we should be able to verify that either known scientific laws (of physics, probability, or whatever) are being violated. If they are not being violated, then there is obviously no influence outside of the laws which [[Darwinist]]s believe are at work. So we should expect to see some violation of the laws of nature as we presently understand them.
+ID supporters are apparently driven by a belief that "[[Darwinism]]" (presented as if it were a rival religion) leads to evil  &ndash; see, for example, the juxtaposition of science and [[Nazi]]sm in the creationist movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' &ndash; and that universal belief in [[Creationism]] is necessary in order to prevent this. These beliefs are apparently more important to them than the consideration of which belief is actually [[true]], and adherents appear unswayed by the fact that this supposed connection is entirely manufactured.
-In the latter case, then by ''definition'' we will see no variance from expected behavior according to natural law, as we could detect that. The most we might find is natural laws operating in ways we do not yet understand.
+''See also: [[/objections]]''
+===Conclusions===
+As with [[creationism]] in its other forms, ID's main purpose was (and remains) to insinuate [[religion]] into [[public school education in the United States]]. It has no real arguments to offer, its support derives exclusively from Christian [[ideological protectionism]] and [[evangelism]], and its proponents have no interest in revising their own beliefs in the light of evidence new to them. It is a form of [[denialism]].
-The whole case for claiming anything is supernatural is logically inconsistent, and a [[fake explanation]]. To say a given phenomenon involves the supernatural is to be claiming that it not only operates by laws we do not currently understand, but by laws that we will ''never'' come to understand merely by studying the phenomenon. This is quite a claim to make without huge amounts of evidence that the laws of nature we currently understand are being violated &ndash; and even in that case, history has shown repeatedly that we do eventually come to understand seemingly inexplicable phenomena once we have identified them.
+As [http://lesswrong.com/lw/kr/an_alien_god/ pointed out] by [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]: In the very unlikely event that consciousness was involved in the design of now-existing species, the existence of organisms designed well to exploit other well-designed organisms would argue strongly for multiple designers over a single designer. In the event that the designers are supernatural, this would support the likelihood of [[polytheism]] over [[monotheism]] and hence be an argument against all monotheisms including [[Christianity]] and [[Islam]].
-In order to make a serious case for the supernatural, one would have to (1) show clearly a phenomenon which was not explained by our present science, (2) wait many years for repeated failures to make any headway whatsoever in studying it.
+===History===
+As a coherent theory, ID seems to have been created solely for the purpose of finding an argument which would be acceptable to [[fundamentalist Christian]]s and yet would succeed where [[creationism]], due to the [[separation of church and state|illegality]] of teaching [[religion]]-based ideas as fact in US schools, had failed. ID was first put forward in 1987, in the wake of a [[wikipedia:Edwards v. Aguillard|US court decision]] ruling that [[creationism]] was based in [[religion]] and therefore could not be taught in US schools due to the [[separation of church and state]]. Existing works of Creationist literature (e.g. ''People and Pandas'') were quickly modified to use the new phrase, and reprinted and promoted using language from which any religious taint had been carefully removed.
-===Origin: The Wedge Document===
-As a coherent theory, ID seems to have been created solely for the purpose of finding an argument which would be acceptable to Christians and yet would succeed where [[creationism]], due to the [[separation of church and state|illegality]] of teaching [[religion]]-based ideas as fact in US schools, had failed.
 An apparently damning strategy paper generally referred to as [http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html The Wedge Document] was written in 1998 by the [http://www.discovery.org/ Discovery Institute]'s [http://www.discovery.org/csc/ Center for Science and Culture]. The paper does not appear to be anywhere on DI's web site (currently only available on the [http://www.antievolution.org/ AntiEvolution] web site - "concise and accurate information for those who wish to critically examine the antievolution movement"), although there is one [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2101 reply] (available only in PDF at present) dated 2005-12-19 on DI's site. (This PDF should probably be transcribed at some point for easier access.)
@@ Line 39: / Line 23: @@
 The Wedge paper makes it clear that ID was created &ndash; at least, from the point of view of the DI/CSC &ndash; solely for the purpose of "[seeing] intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science", regardless of its veracity.
-==Related Articles==
+Intelligent Design subsequently gained considerable momentum during the [[Bush II administration]], whose support and [[Bush II anti-science|anti-scientific tendencies]] it enjoyed.
-* [[Intelligent Design]] is an [[informal theory]] of [[creation]]
-* [[Evolution vs. Intelligent Design]]
+In the wake of a 2005 [[wikipedia:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|court ruling in Dover, PA]], [[direct creation]] advocates seem to have reluctantly abandoned ID and have now moved on to advocating "[[critical analysis of evolution]]" &ndash; a phrase which sounds very reasonable and fair on the surface ([[science]] encourages critical analysis of ''all'' its findings), but which is targeted exclusively at [[evolution by natural selection|evolution]] and whose aim is to undermine its credibility rather than finding the best explanation for available evidence. They also continue to advocate "[[teaching the controversy]]", an effort also exclusively targeted at evolution.
-* [[Intelligent Design]]'s core argument (as differentiated from other [[direct creation]] theories) would seem to be the [[argument from design]], i.e. "How could anything so amazingly complicated and beautiful as the universe have come about by mere accident? There ''must'' have been a Designer!"
+===Arguments===
+* [[/claims]]: arguments put forward as supportive of ID
+====ID as the Default====
+ID treatises often spend considerable energy on [[anti-Darwinism|attacking "Darwinism"]] and extolling the virtues of ID over those of evolution, rather than refining ID as a theory (e.g. attempting to determine the exact nature of the hypothesized interventions, at what points they happened, etc.), searching for evidence, making predictions by which ID might be confirmed, and so on.
+These criticisms and debates often raise seemingly-valid [[/claims|objections]] to Darwinism, but do not present evidence that actually supports ID. It seems to be an article of faith among creationists that if alternative explanations can all be refuted, then "God did it" must be accepted as a satisfactory answer; this is of course nonsense, as "God did it" [[fake explanation|does not actually ''explain'' anything]].
+==Related Pages==
+===index===
+* [[creation]]: how things got here
+** [[evolution by natural selection]]
+** [[intelligent design]]
+* Hierarchy of non-scientific creation ideas:
+** [[anti-Darwinism]]: opposing evolutionary ideas for the sake of taking them down, not because of a better model
+** [[interventionist creation]]: not [[anti-scientific]], but [[fake explanation|does not actually explain anything]]; just defers the question one more level and makes the situation unnecessarily more complicated (violating [[Occam's Razor]])
+** [[supernatural creation]]: [[anti-scientific]] by definition -- see [[/objections/supernatural]]
+===context===
+* [[intelligent design]] was one of a series of [[anti-Darwinism|attacks on "Darwinism"]] and [[anti-science|science in general]]
+* [[intelligent design]] is an [[informal theory]] of [[creation]]
+* [[intelligent design]]'s core argument (as differentiated from other [[direct creation]] theories) would seem to be the [[argument from design]] (a variant of the [[argument from incredulity]]), i.e. "How could anything so amazingly complicated and beautiful as the universe have come about by mere accident? There ''must'' have been a Designer!"
 ==Links==
+{{notice.need-update|These links need to be checked and reorganized.}}
 ===Reference===
-* {{Wikipedia|Intelligent design}}
+* {{wikipedia}}
+* {{conservapedia}}
+* {{dkosopedia}}
+* {{sourcewatch}}
 * [http://www.talkdesign.org/ TalkDesign]
+===Projects===
+* [http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Main_Page ResearchID] ([http://www.researchid.org/wiki/Main_Page alt]): wiki about ID research
+===Filed Links===
+{{links.tagged}}
+===News & Views===
+* '''2006-07-30''' (blog entry) [http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=i_d_is_bad_science_on_its_own_terms&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 I.D. is Bad Science on Its Own Terms] by John Rennie
+* '''2006-02-12''' (email/reply) [http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail400.html#Sunday Subject: Intelligent Design Gedanken experiment]: writer's argument seems well-stated and convincing; [[Jerry Pournelle|Pournelle]]'s reply seems evasive.
+* '''2005-10-27''' (article) [http://www.slate.com/id/2128755/ The Brontosaurus:] Monty Python's flying creationism, by William Saletan: compares Michael Behe with Miss Anne Elk
+* '''2002-02-13''' (article) [http://www.slate.com/id/2062009/ Unintelligible Redesign] by William Saletan: ID offers nothing testable, and only the unsupported assertion that something which ''seems'' designed must ''be'' designed.
 ===Articles===
-* '''2005-10-27''' [http://www.slate.com/id/2128755/ The Brontosaurus:] Monty Python's flying creationism, by William Saletan: compares Michael Behe with Miss Anne Elk
-* '''2002-02-13''' [http://www.slate.com/id/2062009/ Unintelligible Redesign] by William Saletan: ID offers nothing testable, and only the unsupported assertion that something which ''seems'' designed must ''be'' designed.
 * [http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n02_other_ID_theories.html The Other Intelligent Design Theories] by [[David Brin]]: "Intelligent Design is only one of many "alternatives" to Darwinian evolution."
 ** Points out that the creation of "Intelligent Design" shows how [[scientific]] ideas such as [[openness to criticism]], [[fair play]] in discussion, and respect for the [[contingent nature of truth]] have become accepted standards
 ** Refutes the implicit premise that ID is the only valid alternative to Darwinian evolution
 ** Takes some of ID's arguments to the next logical step (something ID proponents seem to carefully avoid doing)
-===Blog Entries===
-* '''2006-07-30''' [http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=i_d_is_bad_science_on_its_own_terms&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 I.D. is Bad Science on Its Own Terms] by John Rennie
 ===Discussion===
 * TruthMapping: ID is not scientific and therefore does not belong in [http://www.truthmapping.com/viewtopic.php?id=410 science education]
@@ Line 61: / Line 75: @@
 * '''2003-01-22''' [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/hunch/hunch.html "The Quixotic Message", or "No Free Hunch"]: humorously-phrased IDist viewpoints on various related issues, with supporting documentation
 ===Video===
+* [[youtube:JVRsWAjvQSg|Ken Miller on Intelligent Design]]: [[Kenneth R. Miller]], a cell biologist from [[Brown University]] and a [[Roman Catholic]], is a firm defender of evolution; the lecture begins with a short prayer. Miller reveals huge flaws in ID and shows the hypocrisy and inconsistency of its staunchest proponents. He also goes into the Dover trial in considerable detail.
 * "A War on Science" (episode of BBC's ''Horizon'' series): [[youtube:yAnIoXPLMdo|Part 1]] [[youtube:ajcKn-qO3g8|Part 2]] [[youtube:MsrmlST5sP4|Part 3]] [[youtube:QTAC3h6gbKw|Part 4]] [[youtube:MqSgr-Jladk|Part 5]]
 ==Comments==
 * If it is necessary to invoke a deity in order to explain [[wikipedia:God of the gaps|gaps]] in the theory of evolution, why does ID stop there? For example, scientists are still trying to explain how galaxies are held together when the force of gravity seems to be insufficient; the current theory is that [[Wikipedia:dark matter|dark matter]] is responsible, but most scientists will admit that this theory is a bit lame. Why aren't the ID people arguing that God must be holding the galaxies together? And then there's the whole area of quantum physics... --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]], 17:20, 23 January 2006
 * [[David Brin]] said (in [http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2005/12/response-to-our-anonymous-modernist.html#113416439173168516 Contrary Brin 2005-12-08]), arguing that the repurposing of Creationism's arguments in the more scientific-sounding "Intelligent Design" guise, as cynical as it may seem, is actually a score for science:
 {{quoteon}}Take a gander at so-called "Intelligent Design." Would they have retreated so far from older "Creationism"... using every trick to dress it up in scientific-sounding and rationalist language, eschewing every reference to [[religion]] and even dropping all mention of the age of the Earth/universe (!)... if they did not realize how deeply and strongly [[science]] and [[The Enlightenment|enlightenment]] still hold attraction to the American majority?{{quoteoff}}