Difference between revisions of "Intelligent design"
m (→The Wedge Document: ...for easier access) |
(→Overview: teleological argument) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Intelligent Design]] (or "ID") is a theory of [[Creation]] which is often proposed as a valid alternative to the theory of [[Evolution]].{{seed}} | [[Intelligent Design]] (or "ID") is a theory of [[Creation]] which is often proposed as a valid alternative to the theory of [[Evolution]].{{seed}} | ||
==Overview== | ==Overview== | ||
| − | The basic premise of ID seems to be that there are some things which evolution can't explain and that therefore these things must be the result of intervention by an intelligent entity -- which might be God, but could just as easily be some form of extraterrestrial intelligence. | + | The basic premise of ID seems to be that there are some things which evolution can't explain and that therefore these things must be the result of intervention by an intelligent entity -- which might be God, but could just as easily be some form of extraterrestrial intelligence. This would seem to be basically a redress of the classical "argument by design" which has been debated for at least 2000 years (see {{Wikipedia|Teleological argument}}), but stopping before the assertion that God must be the intelligent being involved. |
| − | As a coherent theory, ID seems to have been created solely for the purpose of finding an argument which would be acceptable to theists and yet would not be as easily dismissed as is [[Creationism]] (see The Wedge Document below). | + | As a coherent theory, ID seems to have been created solely for the purpose of finding an argument which would be acceptable to theists and yet would not be as easily dismissed as is [[Creationism]] (see The Wedge Document below). Most of the discussion of Intelligent Design appears to center around the debate over its merits [[Evolution vs. Intelligent Design|versus 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.). |
| − | |||
| − | Most of the discussion of Intelligent Design appears to center around the debate over its merits [[Evolution vs. Intelligent Design|versus 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.). | ||
===The Wedge Document=== | ===The Wedge Document=== | ||
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.) | 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.) | ||
Revision as of 22:20, 23 January 2006
Intelligent Design (or "ID") is a theory of Creation which is often proposed as a valid alternative to the theory of Evolution.
|
This page is a seed article. You can help Issuepedia water it: make a request to expand a given page and/or donate to help give us more writing-hours!
|
Overview
The basic premise of ID seems to be that there are some things which evolution can't explain and that therefore these things must be the result of intervention by an intelligent entity -- which might be God, but could just as easily be some form of extraterrestrial intelligence. This would seem to be basically a redress of the classical "argument by design" which has been debated for at least 2000 years (see Wikipedia), but stopping before the assertion that God must be the intelligent being involved.
As a coherent theory, ID seems to have been created solely for the purpose of finding an argument which would be acceptable to theists and yet would not be as easily dismissed as is Creationism (see The Wedge Document below). Most of the discussion of Intelligent Design appears to center around the debate over its merits versus 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.).
The Wedge Document
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.