Intelligent design

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.

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.

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!"

Reference

• Wikipedia
• TalkDesign

Links

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)

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?