Online Encyclopedia Search Tool

Your Online Encyclopedia

 

Online Encylopedia and Dictionary Research Site

Online Encyclopedia Free Search Online Encyclopedia Search    Online Encyclopedia Browse    welcome to our free dictionary for your research of every kind

Online Encyclopedia



Intelligent design

(Redirected from Intelligent Design)

Topics related to
Creationism

Creation (theology)
Creation beliefs
* Creation according to Genesis
* History of creationism
* Young Earth Creationism
* Old Earth Creationism
* Intelligent design
* Evolutionary creationism
Noah's ark
* Flood geology
* Deluge (mythology)
* Genealogies of Genesis
Creation vs. evolution debate
* Comparison of views
* Creation and evolution in public education

Intelligent design (ID) is the claim that empirical evidence points to the conclusion that life on earth was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents.

ID presents a case for "reasonable doubt" about the standard scientific model of evolution by natural selection. ID includes arguments that abiogenesis is impossible, that evolution cannot account for the complexity of life (particularly what biochemist Michael Behe has called "irreducible complexity") and that the universe is "fine tuned" for living things in a manner that must have been by design, though ID makes no explicit claims about the identity, motives, or methods of the intelligent designer(s). ID proponents argue that it is reasonable to infer intelligent causes when natural laws and causes provide no satisfactory explanation for how things have come about.

The phrase "Intelligent Design," was first widely publicized by legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson in his 1991 book Darwin on Trial , though earlier references can be found in creationist literature. Johnson's argument, and a key tenet of the ID movement, is that philosophical naturalism is false.

The Intelligent Design movement is an organized campaign to promote ID arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the United States. The hub of the movement is the Center for Science and Culture, a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank.

The overwhelming majority of professional scientists reject the ID arguments; organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education characterize ID as pseudoscience. The ID movement is largely associated with Conservative Christians, and in this connection ID is sometimes described as a revision of the argument from design made famous by William Paley in the early 19th century.

Contents

Summary of arguments in favor of Intelligent Design

Arguments for intelligent design can be broadly split into four categories:

  • Assertions that the theories of naturalistic abiogenesis and macroevolution cannot fully account for the observed irreducible complexity and variety of organic life.
  • The argument that just as it is reasonable to infer that an "irreducibly complex," functional, and interdependent machine was deliberately designed—a wristwatch, for example, implies a watchmaker— so it is reasonable to infer that "biological machines" that show similar characteristics were also designed.
  • Probability-based arguments that consider cosmological constants and other features of our universe that are "just right" for life, which conclude that a life-supporting universe is so exceedingly improbable it must be a product of deliberate design.
  • Arguments against philosophical naturalism, the assumption in science (and in intellectual life more generally) that any meaningful explanation describes (and is based upon) an empirically accessible material reality. Materialism of this sort rules out any explanations that depend on factors located outside of observable nature, including most concepts of an active creator God. ID proponents argue that a priori exclusion of supernatural possibilities amounts to an ideological prejudice that obstructs the genuine search for truth.

Summary of arguments against Intelligent Design

Principal criticisms of intelligent design (from agencies like the National Center for Science Education [1] http://www.natcenscied.org/ ) include:

  • The assertion that ID is not a scientific theory. ID lacks testability, makes no positive statements about Earth history, and offers no research program.
  • Claims that specific criticisms of biological evolution offered by ID advocates are flawed and misleading; most have been thoroughly refuted in the past, and ID proponents rarely acknowledge or address the body of science that contradicts their claims.
  • Many ID arguments rest on a misrepresentation of the theory of evolution. For example, a body part or organ that has a modern function did not necessarily have the same function in the past, as assumed in the "irreducible complexity" argument. Evolution works on chance and opportunity, with gill bones of mouth-less fishes evolving into jaws, fish air bladders becoming vertebrate lungs, and fin support structures becoming fingers and toes.
  • Arguments against the sufficiency of natural causes, also known as "God of the gaps" arguments, are historically prone to failure. The history of science shows that gaps in our knowledge are continuously filled.
  • The ID movement is motivated by religious and political ideology, rather than an objective search for scientific knowledge. It attempts to gain credibility with the public by appealing directly to politicians, church groups and local school boards, rather than presenting evidence to scientists.

The principal arguments for Intelligent Design

Irreducible complexity

The term "irreducible complexity" was coined by biochemist Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box. The irreducible complexity argument holds that evolutionary mechanisms cannot account for the emergence of complex cellular systems. ID advocates argue that cellular machines must therefore have been deliberately engineered by some form of intelligence.

"Irreducible Complexity" is defined by Behe as "a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning" (Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference). According to the theory of evolution, genetic variations occur randomly, and the environment selects variants that have the highest fitness. Change occurs in a gradual, stepwise manner, and is able to create complex structures from simpler beginnings. Most ID advocates accept that evolution through mutation and natural selection occurs, but assert that it cannot account for irreducible complexity, because none of the parts of an irreducible system would be functional or advantageous until the entire system is in place.

Behe uses the example of a mousetrap to illustrate this concept. A mousetrap consists of several interacting pieces -- the base, the catch, the spring, the hammer -- all of which must be in place for the mousetrap to work. The removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Likewise, biological systems require multiple parts working together in order to function. Natural selection could therefore not create them from scratch by successive, slight modifications, because the selectable function is only present when all parts are assembled. Behe's original examples of irreducibly complex mechanisms included the bacterial flagellum of E. coli, the blood clotting cascade, cilia, and the adaptive immune system.

Specified complexity

The ID argument of specified complexity was developed by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski. Dembski uses specified complexity to denote a property that makes living things unique. He claims that specified complexity is present when there exists a large amount of specified information. The following examples demonstrate the concept of specified information:.

  • High information, low specificity. For example, the 10-letter structure "dkownl el." According to Shannon’s theory of information, a random string of letters contains the highest possible information content, because it cannot be compressed into a smaller string. However, the random nature makes the string without meaning, and thus non-specified according to Dembski. (Note that “meaning” does not play a role in Shannon information theory.)
  • High specificity, low information. For example, the 10-letter structure "aaaaaaaaaa." The sequence has low information because it can be compressed into a smaller string, namely “10 a’s” . However, because it conforms to a pattern it is highly specified.
  • Specified information. For example, the 10-letter structure "I love you". This has both high information content, because it cannot be compressed, and specificity, because it conforms to a pattern (grammar and syntax). In this case, the pattern it conforms to is that of a meaningful English phrase, one of a selection of strings which together make up a small fraction of all possible arrangements. In living things, the “pattern” that molecular sequences conform to is that of a functional biological molecule, which make up only a small fraction of all possible molecules.

Dembski defines complex specified information (CSI) as something containing a large amount of specified information, which has a low probability of occurring by chance. He defines this probability as 1 in 10150, which he calls the universal probability bound. Anything below this bound has CSI. The terms "specified complexity" and "complex specified information" are used interchangably.

Dembski and other proponents of ID assert that specified complexity cannot come about by natural means, and is therefore a reliable indicator of design.

The improbability of a life-supporting universe

ID proponents use the argument that we live in a "finely-tuned universe." They propose that the natural emergence of a universe with all the features necessary for life is wildly improbable. Thus, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular outcome. This assessment of probabilities is rejected by most scientists and statisticians - see Fine-tuned_universe for an explanation.

Criticisms of ID Arguments

Irreducible Complexity

Critics of ID argue that the IC argument assumes that the present function of a system must have been the one that it was selected for. But the concept of cooption, in which existing features become adapted for new functions, has long been a mainstay of biology. Many purported IC structures have functional subsystems that are used elsewhere. ID advocates have often reacted to this by trying to define an "IC core", or by changing the number of parts required for an IC system. Critics have claimed that these instances of "moving the goal posts" show that IC is not a clear concept that can be objectively applied.

Secondly, the IC argument assumes that a necessary part of a system has always been necessary. But something which is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary. For example, one of the clotting factors that Behe listed as a part of the IC clotting cascade was later found to be absent in whales http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=9678675
, demonstrating that it isn't essential for a clotting system.

Thirdly, computer simulations of evolution also demonstrate that IC can evolve -- see, for example, this article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1
2736677&dopt=Abstract
, discussing computer models showing the possibility of developing irreducible complexity through evolutionary algorithms, and this article http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html , discussing recent research regarding the origin of the eye from "light sensitive cells in the brain."

And finally, evolutionary pathways have been elucidated for IC systems such as the immune system http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/Evolving_Immunity.html and the flagellum http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum_background.html . If IC is a reliable barrier to evolution, it should not be possible to construct such pathways.

ID advocates respond by saying that proposed models for the evolution of IC structures are not detailed enough, or cannot be tested. They also dismiss computer simulations as biologically unrealistic.

Specified Complexity

The conceptual soundness of Dembski's SC/CSI argument is strongly disputed by critics of ID. First, specified complexity, as originally defined by Leslie Orgel, is precisely what Darwinian evolution is proposed to create. It is not enough for Dembski to take a property of living things and arbitrarily declare it to be a reliable indicator of design; he must also provide compelling reasons why no natural processes could create such a property.

Additionally, Dembski confuses the issue by using "complex" as most people would use "improbable". He defines CSI as anything with a less than 1 in 10150 chance of occurring naturally. But this renders the argument a tautology. CSI cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature. To demonstrate this, Dembski would need to show that a biological feature really did have an extremely low probability of occurring naturally by any means, an enormously difficult (perhaps impossible) task that would require definitively ruling out all potential theories, including those that may not have been thought of yet. In general, Dembski does not attempt to do this, but instead simply takes the existence of CSI as a given, and then proceeds to argue that it is a reliable indicator of design.

The Center for Science and Culture and the "Wedge" strategy

Main Article: Center for Science and Culture

The intelligent design movement is centered around the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), formerly known as the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, which was founded in 1996. The CSC is affiliated with the conservative Christian thinktank, the Discovery Institute.

In their effort to gain widespread acceptance of their views, the CSC fellows devised the "wedge strategy", and produced an internal memo now known as the Wedge Document http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html , which was inadvertently leaked to the public. The Wedge Document serves as the unofficial manifesto of the ID movement; it outlines the movement's goal to exploit perceived discrepancies within evolutionary theory in order to discredit evolution and scientific materialism in general. Much of the strategy is directed toward the broader public, as opposed to the professional scientific community. The stated "governing goals" of the CSC's wedge strategy are "1. To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies" and "2. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Critics of ID argue that the wedge strategy demonstrates that the ID movement is motivated by religion and political ideology.

ID and scientific peer review

To underscore the allegedly pseudoscientific nature of ID, George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington looked through thousands of scientific journals in the mid-1990s, searching for any articles on intelligent design or creation science—he found none. More recent surveys have also failed to find articles on these subjects in the primary scientific literature. By contrast, many articles have been published in peer reviewed science journals that specifically deny the claims of ID (for example, Lenski et al. 2003 The evolutionary origin of complex features. Nature 423:139-44 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1
2736677&dopt=Abstract
.)

ID proponents argue that findings in support of ID are generally excluded from the mainstream scientific discourse because ID arguments challenge the principles of naturalism and uniformitarianism that are accepted as fundamental by the mainstream scientific community. Thus, they claim, research that points toward an intelligent designer is often rejected simply because it deviates from these dogmatically held beliefs, without regard to the merits of any specific claims.

To date, the intelligent design movement has succeeded at publishing one article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, although that journal has subsequently disowned the paper. The author is Stephen C. Meyer, Program Director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, the major organization promoting ID. The journal issued a public statement http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html explaining that the Meyer paper did not go through the journal's approved peer review process and does not meet the scientific standards of the journal.

This article is not available on-line from this journal, but a copy is on the Discovery Institute site:

  • The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

A critical review of it is available on the Panda's Thumb website:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html

Hypotheses about the intelligent designer

Although the Intelligent Design movement is often portrayed as a variant of Bible-based Creationism, ID arguments are formulated in secular terms; they do not cite Biblical evidence of creation, nor do they require that their adherents accept the Bible’s accounts or even the existence of a creator god. ID avoids claims about the identity of the designer or the mechanism of the design process, though proponents do make claims about the moment or moments in history at which the designer’s intervention occurred, usually assuming the designer to be available and capable at every place and time.

The key arguments in favor of the different variants of ID are so broad that they can be adopted by any number of communities that seek an alternative to evolutionary thought, including those that support non-theistic models of creation although the designers might be different. For example, the notion of an “intelligent designer” is compatible with the materialistic hypotheses that life on Earth was introduced by an alien species, or that it emerged as a result of panspermia, but would not be with the designer(s) of the "fine-tuned" universe.

Likewise, ID claims can support a variety of theisitic notions. Some proponents of creationism and intelligent design reject the hellenic Christian concept of omnipotence and omniscience on the part of the creator, and ascribe to Open Theism or Process theology. ID researchers that hold to the proposition of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God as the designer may face an additional burden of proof beyond the claims of the ID movement, by having to additionally demonstrate that the designs themselves are flawless and anticipate all eventualities. Existing evidence poses many difficult challenges for the advocates of omniscient, omnipotent design, for example:

  • the poor ability of the human body to repair spinal cord injuries
  • the inability of the human body to grow replacement limbs
  • the failure to anticipate the demands of a plentiful, sedentary lifestyle leaving the human body vulnerable to chronic diseases such as type II diabetes and atherosclerosis
  • using the same genetic code for various species making it dangerously easy to transmit viruses across species' barriers
  • the requirement of a lower temperature for mammalian spermatogenes that results in the carrying of the testicles externally in a more vulnerable position

Some of these ID researchers would instead argue that when compared to that of an all-knowing God, our own knowledge is insignificant, and so features that may appear flawed to us, are more rightly considered perfect.

Hypotheses regarding the number of designers

Critics of ID argue that proponents of ID propose "An intelligent agent," including the assumtion of singularity, which has not been defended, and that ID proponents should assert monotheism, polytheism and pantheism as equally reasoned.

The assumption of fewer-than-two-gods has long been unnoticed and unquestioned. It is part of the William Paley watchmaker story.

   If one finds a finely crafted watch... one would
        assume it was created by a multitude
                whereas Paley
        assumed it was created by a single individual. 

Proponents of ID respond that ID makes no claims as to the identity or number of designers, because it claims only to show evidence of design. Therefore, ID can be used to support any belief system regarding the identity or number of designer(s). However, while intelligent design makes it reasonable to assert that there was a designer, Occam's razor makes it unreasonable and unneccessary to assume more than one designer where one is sufficient to explain the phenomena. Monotheism is therefore the most parsimonious form of Intelligent Design. Multiple designers might be the simplest explanation, if the variant of the theory being considered requires the intervention of design at multiple places and times, such as the beginning of the universe and at specific points in the evolution of life. In human experience, the development of complex design requires an accumulative cultural progression to develop the design tools and the technology for implementation of design, even when the final design is done by one person. A designer that exists outside of a culture and history fully capable of design and implemenation is a more complex phenomena and not a simpler explanation. A progression to complexity is far simpler and more likely than instantaneous fully formed and cohesively integrated complexity, under current natural laws.

See also


Further reading

Pro-ID

  • Michael J. Behe. Darwin's Black Box : The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, New York: Free Press, 1996. ISBN 0684834936. Argues that several exquisite biochemical mechanisms could not have arisen by a sequence of random mutations and selection.
  • Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer. Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute), Ignatius Press 2000, ISBN 0898708095
  • William A. Dembski. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, InterVarsity Press 1999. ISBN 0830815813
  • William A. Dembski, James M. Kushiner. Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, Brazos Press, 2001, ISBN 1587430045
  • William A. Dembski, John Wilson. Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, ISI Press, 2004. ISBN 1932236317
  • William A. Dembski, Charles W. Colson. The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design. Inter Varsity Press. 2004, ISBN 0830823751. This Charles W. Colson is the born-again Watergate convict.
  • Phillip E. Johnson. Darwin on Trial, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991.
  • Phillip E. Johnson. Defeating Darwinism by opening minds, Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997.
  • Phillip E. Johnson. Evolution as dogma: the establishment of naturalism, Dallas, Tex.: Haughton Pub. Co., 1990
  • William Paley. Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/p/pd-modeng/pd-modeng-idx?type=header&id=PaleyNatur , London: 12th edition, 1809. Online in full.
  • Geoffrey Simmons, William Dembski. What Darwin Didn't Know, Harvest House Publishers, 2004, ISBN 0736913130
  • Thomas Woodward. Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design, Baker Books, 1993, ISBN 0801064430

Anti-ID

  • Barbara Carroll Forrest, Paul R. Gross: Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (2003) ISBN 0195157427 History of ID and critique.
  • Matt Young, Taner Edis eds.: Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism, Rutgers University Press (2004). ISBN 081353433X Anthology by scientists.
  • Robert Pennock ed.: Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, MIT Press (2002). ISBN 0262661241 Comprehensive anthology including IDT advocates.
  • Niall Shanks: God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory, Oxford University Press (2004). ISBN 0195161998 Philosopher/biologist concludes the ID movement threatens scientific and democratic values inherited from the Enlightenment.
  • Mark Perakh: Unintelligent Design, Prometheus (Dec 2003). ISBN 1591020840 Distinguished physicist, the mathematical claims of IDT.
  • Kenneth R. Miller: Finding Darwin's God, HarperCollins (1999). ISBN 0060930497 A cell biologist and devout Christian critiques Intelligent Design Theory and advocates theistic evolution.
  • Robert Pennock: Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism, MIT Press (1999). ISBN 0262661659 Early critique of IDT - compare to similar more recent.
  • National Academy of Sciences: Science and Creationism, National Academies Press (1999). ISBN 0309064066 The collective scientific mainstream speaks on anti-evolution.
  • Ernst Mayr: One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, Harvard University Press (1993). ISBN 0674639065 Explanation of and tiny fraction of evidence behind mainstream evolutionary theory.

External links

Pro-ID

  • Intelligent Design network, inc. http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
  • Intelligent Design FAQ (for ID) http://www.arn.org/id_faq.htm
  • Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center, ID/evolution student community http://www.idurc.org
  • Discovery Institute http://www.discovery.org
    • Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture http://www.discovery.org/csc/
  • CreationWiki http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/

Anti-ID

  • Talk Origins Archive http://www.talkorigins.org
  • Talk Design Archive http://www.talkdesign.org
  • Talk Reason.org http://www.talkreason.org
  • The Pandas Thumb http://www.pandasthumb.org
  • EvoWiki http://www.evowiki.org
  • Resolution disparaging ID and ID politics, by the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml
  • National Center for Science Education resources on ID http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=8
    • "Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by Most Scientists http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/996_intelligent_design_not_accep_9_10_
      2002.asp
  • Entry about Intelligent Design in "The Skeptic's Dictionary" by Robert Todd Carroll http://www.skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html
  • Michael Wong's Analysis of Intelligent Design http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/IntelligentDesign.shtml
  • Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/ by the Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences, addressing the issue of intelligent design in the guise of creationism.

Young-Earth creationist comment on ID

  • AiG’s (Answers in Genesis') views on the Intelligent Design Movement http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp

Neutral

  • Entry about Intelligent Design in "The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" by Kenneth Einar Himma http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/design.htm
  • "The Crusade Against Evolution," a somewhat critical history of the Intelligent Design movement, supplemented by a pro-Intelligent Design article by George Guilder of the Discovery Institute http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html




Last updated: 02-21-2005 00:46:18
Last updated: 03-18-2005 11:16:12