Intelligent design

fKNbyz

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

• Wikipedia
• Conservapedia
• dKosopedia
• SourceWatch
• TalkDesign

Filed Links

1. 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?