Intelligent design
Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, not an unguided process such as natural selection. Though publicly ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature without regard to who or what the designer might be, in statements to their constituents and supporters, nearly all state explicitly that they believe the designer to be the Christian God.
Adherents of ID claim it stands on equal footing with the current scientific theories regarding the origin of life and the origin of the universe. [1] This claim has not been accepted by the scientific community and ID does not constitute serious research in biology. Despite ID sometimes being referred to popularly and in the media as "Intelligent Design Theory," it is not a scientific theory and it is regarded by the mainstream scientific community as creationist pseudoscience or junk science[2]. The National Academy of Sciences has said that ID "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own. [3] Critics argue that ID proponents try to find gaps within current evolutionary theory and fill them in with speculative beliefs, and that ID in this context may ultimately amount to the "God of the gaps." [4]
Both the Intelligent Design concept and the associated movement have come under considerable criticism. [5] This criticism is regarded by advocates of ID as a natural consequence of philosophical naturalism which precludes by definition the possibility of supernatural causes as rational scientific explanations. As has been argued before in the context of the creation-evolution controversy, proponents of ID make the claim that there is a systemic bias within the scientific community against proponents' ideas and research based on the naturalistic assumption that science can only make reference to natural causes.
Media organizations often focus on other qualities that the designer(s) in "Intelligent Design Theory" might have in addition to intelligence, e.g., "higher power"[6], "unseen force"[7], etc.
Intelligent Design in summary
Intelligent Design is presented as an alternative to purely naturalistic forms of the theory of evolution. Its putative main purpose is to investigate whether or not the empirical evidence necessarily implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents. For example, William Dembski, one of ID's leading proponents, has stated that the fundamental claim of ID is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."
Proponents of ID claim that they look for evidence of what they call signs of intelligence — physical properties of an object that necessitate "design". The most common cited signs being considered include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity. Many design proponents believe that living systems show one or more of these, from which they infer that life is designed. This stands in opposition to mainstream explanations of systems, which attempt to explain the natural world exclusively through impersonal physical processes such as random mutations and natural selection. ID proponents claim that while evidence pointing to the nature of an "Intelligent Designer" may not be observable, its effects on nature can be detected. Dembski, in Signs of Intelligence claims "Proponents of Intelligent Design regard it as a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes. Note that Intelligent Design studies the effects of intelligent causes and not intelligent causes per se." In his view, questions concerning the identity of a designer fall outside the realm of the idea.
Critics call ID religious dogma repackaged in an effort to return creationism into public school science classrooms and note that ID features notably as part of the campaign known as Teach the Controversy. While the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, adaptation and speciation through natural selection, the "Intelligent Designer" in ID is neither observable nor repeatable. Critics argue this violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. Indeed, ID proponent Behe concedes "You can't prove Intelligent Design by experiment". [8]
Critics say ID is attempting to redefine natural science.[9] They cite books and statements of principal ID proponents calling for the elimination of "methodological naturalism" from science[10] and its replacement with what Johnson calls "theistic realism"[11], and what critics call "methodological supernaturalism", which means belief in a transcendent, non-natural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, non-natural deity. Natural science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation alone (sometimes called empirical science). Critics of ID consider the idea that some outside intelligence created life on Earth to be a priori (without observation) knowledge. ID proponents cite some complexity in nature that cannot yet be fully explained by the scientific method. (For instance, abiogenesis, the generation of life from non-living matter, is not yet understood scientifically, although the first stages have been reproduced in the Miller-Urey experiment.) ID proponents infer that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically. Since the designer cannot be observed, critics continue, it is a priori knowledge.
This allegedly a priori inference that an intelligent designer (a god or an alien life force[12]) created life on Earth has been compared to the a priori claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids[13] [14]. In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable, observable, or falsifiable, and it violates Occam's Razor as well. From a strictly empirical standpoint, one may list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, but must admit ignorance about exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids.
Origins of the concept
For millennia, philosophers have argued that the complexity of nature's "design" that operates for complex purposes indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator. The first recorded arguments for a natural designer come from Greek philosophy. The philosophical concept of the 'Logos' is typically credited to Heraclitus (c. 535 - c. 475 B.C.E.), a Pre-Socratic philosopher, and is briefly explained in his extant fragments. Plato (c. 427 - c. 347 B.C.E.) posited a natural 'demiurge' of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the formator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. Aristotle (c. 384 – 322 B.C.E.) also develops the idea of a natural formator of the cosmos, often referred to as the 'Prime Mover' in his work Metaphysics. Cicero (c. 106 - c. 43 B.C.E.) stated, "The divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature," in de Natura Deorum.
The use of this line of reasoning as applied to a supernatural designer has come to be known as the teleological argument for the existence of God. The most notable forms of this argument were expressed by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica[15] (thirteenth century), design being the fifth of Aquinas' five proofs for God's existence, and William Paley in his book Natural Theology (nineteenth century) where he makes his watchmaker analogy. The modern concept of Intelligent Design is distinguished from the teleological argument in that ID does not identify the agent of creation, and its proponents seek to take the debate into the realm of science rather than just philosophy.
The phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American and in an 1868 book. It was coined in its present sense in Humanism, a 1903 book by Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller: "It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design."
The phrase then lay unused for nearly a century. "The term intelligent design came up in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Wash., called Sources of Information Content in DNA," claims Stephen C. Meyer, co-founder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture, who was present at the phrase's re-creation, which he attributes to Of Pandas and People editor Charles Thaxton. The phrase appeared in the first edition Of Pandas and People in 1989, which is considered the first modern Intelligent Design book. The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial. Johnson went on to work with Meyers, becoming the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture and is considered the "father" of the Intelligent Design movement.
Religion and leading ID proponents
Intelligent design arguments are carefully formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer. Phillip E. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments which are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the designer. Johnson emphasizes "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion" and that "after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact... only then can "biblical issues" be discussed."[16] Johnson explicitly calls for ID proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having ID identified "as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message."[17] Though not all ID proponents are motivated by religious fervor, the majority of the principal ID advocates (including Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen C. Meyer) are Christians and have stated that in their view the designer of life is God. The preponderance of leading ID proponents are evangelical Protestants.
The conflicting claims made by leading ID advocates as to whether or not ID is rooted in religious conviction are the result of their strategy. For example, William Dembski in his book The Design Inference [18] lists a god or an "alien life force" as two possible options for the identity of the designer. However, in his book Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology Dembski states that "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ." [19] Dembski also stated "ID is part of God's general revelation..." "Not only does Intelligent Design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ." [20].
Phillip Johnson states the foundation of intelligent design is the Bible's Book of John, specifically, John 1:1: "Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? When I preach from the Bible, as I often do at churches and on Sundays, I don't start with Genesis. I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." [21]
Defining Intelligent Design as science
Intelligent design proponents often claim that their position is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution. This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science, is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:
- Consistent (internally and externally)
- Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
- Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
- Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
- Based upon controlled, repeated experiments
- Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
- Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
- Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.
Typical objections to defining Intelligent Design as science are:
In light of its adherence to the standards of the scientific method, Intelligent Design can not be said to follow the scientific method. There is no way to test its conjectures, and the underlying assumptions of Intelligent Design are not open to change.
Intelligent design critics further point out that intelligent design does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence used by United States federal courts and most state courts as set forth in a decision by the United States Supreme Court. In its 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals opinion, the United States Supreme Court articulated a set of criteria for the admissibility of scientific expert testimony, in effect developing their own demarcation criteria. The four Daubert criteria are:
- The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
- The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
- There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.
- The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.
Intelligent design also fails to meet the legal definition of science on each of the four criteria.
ID as a movement
The Intelligent design movement is an organized campaign to promote ID arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the United States. The movement claims ID exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy, and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism. ID movement proponents allege that science, by relying upon naturalism, demands an adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that dismisses out of hand any explanation that contains a supernatural cause.
Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the Intelligent Design movement and its unofficial spokesman stated that the goal of Intelligent Design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept:
- "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."[27]
- "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."[28]
- "So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do."[29]
At the 1999 "Reclaiming America for Christ Conference" Johnson described the movement thusly: "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science." ..."Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?" ..."I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." [30]
The Intelligent Design movement is largely the result of efforts by the conservative Christian think tank the Discovery Institute, and its Center for Science and Culture. The Discovery Institute's wedge strategy and its adjunct, the Teach the Controversy campaign, are campaigns intended to sway the opinion of the public and policymakers. They target public school administrators and state and federal elected representatives to introduce Intelligent Design into the public school science curricula and marginalize mainstream science. The Discovery Institute operates on a $4,000,000 budget [31] and receives financial support from 22 foundations, at least two-thirds of which state explicitly religious missions. The institute's CSC was founded largely with funds provided by Howard Ahmanson Jr., who has stated a goal of "the total integration of biblical law into our lives."[32] A CSC mission statement proclaimed its goal is to "unseat not just Darwinism, but also Darwinism's cultural legacy".
Critics note that instead of producing original scientific data to support ID’s claims, the Discovery Institute has promoted ID politically to the public, education officials and public policymakers. Also oft mentioned is that there is a conflict between what leading ID proponents tell the public through the media and what they say before their conservative Christian audiences, and that the Discovery Institute as a matter of policy obfuscates its agenda. This they claim is proof that the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only Intelligent Design creationism, but the religious worldview that undergirds it.[33]
Richard Dawkins, biologist and professor at Oxford University, compares "Teach the controversy" with teaching flat earthism, perfectly fine in a history class but not in science. "If you give the idea that there are two schools of thought within science, one that says the earth is round and one that says the earth is flat, you are misleading children." [34]
Underscoring claims that the ID movement is more social and political enterprise than a scientific one, Intelligent Design has been in the center of a number of controversial political campaigns and legal challenges. These have largely been attempts to introduce Intelligent Design into public school science classrooms while concurrently portraying evolutionary theory as a theory largely scientifically disputed; a "theory in crisis." The most often cited example of this "theory in crisis" is the Discovery Institutes petition "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism."[35] Since 2001 this petition has generated signatures from 400 scientists from around the world, which unfortunately only contains 73 biologists. An unfunded project, The Four Day Petition, "A Scientific Support For Darwinism"[36] was organized in September and October of 2005. That petition generated 8040 verified scientists signatures, representing a 1,200% increase over the Discovery Institutes at a rate 640,000% faster. A more amusing effort, Project_Steve, received over 500 signatures from scientists named Steve. Despite a consensus in the scientific community that ID lacks merit and ID proponents have yet to propose an actual scientific hypothesis. These campaigns and cases are discussed in depth in the Intelligent design movement article.
