Difference between revisions of "Intelligent design"

Revision as of 00:05, 12 June 2007

Overview

Intelligent design (or "ID") is a direct creation 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" – who might be God, but whose nature is left carefully unspecified and could just as easily be some form of extraterrestrial intelligence – remains.

ID is, then, basically a redress of the classical "argument by design" which has been debated for at least 2000 years (see Wikipedia), but stops before the assertion that God must be the intelligent being involved.

Intelligent Design treatises often spend considerable energy on criticizing Darwinism and debating the merits 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.). 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.

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 theists and yet would not be as easily disproven and discredited as creationism has been.

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.

Links

Reference

Articles

2005-10-27 The Brontosaurus: Monty Python's flying creationism, by William Saletan: compares Michael Behe with Miss Anne Elk
2002-02-13 Unintelligible Redesign by William Saletan: ID offers nothing testable, and only the unsupported assertion that something which seems designed must be designed.
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 I.D. is Bad Science on Its Own Terms by John Rennie

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

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: @@
-[[Intelligent design]] (or "ID") is a theory of [[Creation]] which is often proposed as a valid alternative to the theory of [[Evolution]]. It is a somewhat updated and secularized version of [[creationism]].{{seed}}
 ==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|Teleological argument}}), but stopping before the assertion that God must be the intelligent being involved.
+[[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.
+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.
+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.
+===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 theists and yet would not be as easily disproven and discredited as [[creationism]] has been.
-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.).
-===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.)
-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.
+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]] is an [[informal theory]] of [[creation]]
 * [[Evolution vs. Intelligent Design]]
 * [[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!"
+==Links==
-==Reference==
+===Reference===
 * {{Wikipedia|Intelligent design}}
 * [http://www.talkdesign.org/ TalkDesign]
-==Links==
 ===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
@@ Line 26: / Line 28: @@
 ===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]
 ===Humor===
 * '''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
 ==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}}
+{{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}}