Content deleted Content added
Reverted 1 edit by Bobwiley22 (talk): Please discuss on the talk page. (TW) |
m fixed lint errors – missing end tag |
||
| (47 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{short description|Relationship between intelligent design and science}}
{{Intelligent Design}}
The relationship between '''intelligent design and science''' has been a contentious one. [[Intelligent design]] (ID) is presented by its proponents as science and claims to offer an alternative to [[evolution]]. The [[Discovery Institute]], a politically conservative [[think tank]] and the leading proponent of intelligent design, launched a campaign entitled "Teach the Controversy", which claims that a controversy exists within the scientific community over evolution. The scientific community
=="Teach the Controversy"==
Line 6 ⟶ 7:
The intelligent design movement states that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved. The movement stresses the importance of recognizing the existence of this supposed debate, seeking to convince the public, politicians, and cultural leaders that schools should "[[Teach the Controversy]]".<ref>
{{
|author=Shaw, Linda
|work=Seattle Times
Line 12 ⟶ 13:
|url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002225932_design31m.html
|title=Does Seattle group "teach controversy" or contribute to it?
}}</ref> In fact, there is no such controversy in the [[scientific community]]; the [[scientific consensus]] is that life evolved.<ref>{{
|publisher=National Association of Biology Teachers
|url=http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp
|title=NABT's Statement on Teaching Evolution
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20060927160040/http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp
|archivedate=2006-09-27}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
|url = http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
|title = IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution
|publisher = The Interacademy Panel on International Issues
|date = June 21, 2006
|accessdate = 2008-10-17
|
|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20070927094546/http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
|archivedate = September 27, 2007
}} Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the [[United Kingdom]]'s [[Royal Society]].</ref><ref>From the world's largest general scientific society:
*{{Cite press release
|url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf
|publisher=[[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]
|title=Statement on the Teaching of Evolution
|date=February 16, 2006
|accessdate=2008-10-17
|
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20060221125539/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf
|archivedate=February 21, 2006
}}
*{{Cite press release
|url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml
|publisher=[[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]
Line 50 ⟶ 46:
|date=February 19, 2006
|accessdate=2008-10-17
|archive-date=2013-10-19
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131019171834/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml
|url-status=dead
}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book | last = Dixon | first = Thomas | title = Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction | url = https://archive.org/details/sciencereligionv00dixo_676 | url-access = limited | publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 2008 | ___location = Oxford | page = [https://archive.org/details/sciencereligionv00dixo_676/page/n118 102] | isbn = 978-0-19-929551-7}}</ref> Intelligent design is widely viewed as a [[stalking horse]] for its proponents' campaign against what they say is the [[Materialism|materialist]] foundation of science, which they argue leaves no room for the possibility of God.<ref>{{cite news |date=November 27, 2005
|first=Mark
|last=Coultan
Line 57 ⟶ 55:
|work=[[Sydney Morning Herald]]
|accessdate=2007-07-29
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.au.org/church-state/february-2005-church-state/featured/intelligent-design-creationism%E2%80%99s-trojan-horse-a
|title=Intelligent Design: Creationism's Trojan Horse
|
|publisher=Americans United for the Separation of Church and State
|accessdate=2011-10-28
|archive-date=2017-09-01
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170901114207/https://www.au.org/church-state/february-2005-church-state/featured/intelligent-design-creationism%E2%80%99s-trojan-horse-a
|url-status=dead
}}</ref>
==Neo-creationism==
{{Main|Neo-creationism}}
Advocates of intelligent design from a Christian standpoint seek to keep God and the Bible out of the discussion, and present intelligent design in the language of science as though it were a scientific hypothesis.<ref name=IDstatementOnCreator group="n">
"...intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer," and "...the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy". In: {{
|url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=565
|title=''Truth Sheet # 09-05 Does intelligent design postulate a "supernatural creator?''
|publisher=Discovery Institute
|
}}
</ref><ref name=Johnson-Touchstone group="n">{{cite journal |first=Phillip |last=Johnson |journal=Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity |date=July–August 1999 |quote=...the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion.... This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact. |url=http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/le_wedge.htm |title=The Wedge }}
</ref> However, among a significant proportion of the general public in the United States the major concern is whether conventional evolutionary biology is compatible with belief in God and in the Bible, and how this issue is taught in schools.<ref name="Time-15-Aug-2005"/> The public controversy was given widespread media coverage in the United States, particularly during the ''Kitzmiller v. Dover'' trial in late 2005 and after President [[George W. Bush]] expressed support for the idea of teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in August 2005. In response to Bush's statement and the pending federal trial, ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' magazine ran an eight-page cover story on the Evolution Wars in which they examined the issue of teaching intelligent design in the classroom.<ref name="TIME">
*{{
|url=http://ncse.com/news/2005/08/evolution-wars-time-00696
|title="The evolution wars" in Time
|publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]]
|date=August 11, 2005
|
}}
*{{
|last=Martin
|first=Justin D.
|
|year=2006
|title=Journalism and the Debate Over Origins: Newspaper Coverage of Intelligent Design
Line 105 ⟶ 96:
|pages=49–61
|doi=10.1207/s15328415jmr0501_3
|s2cid=143790478
}}
*{{
|last=Dingwall
|first=Robert
|
|year=2006
|title=Television wildlife programming as a source of popular scientific information: a case study of evolution
|journal=Public Understanding of Science
|volume=15
|issue=2
|pages=131–152
|doi=10.1177/0963662506060588
|s2cid=145375229
|url=https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00571087/file/PEER_stage2_10.1177%252F0963662506060588.pdf
}}
*{{
|url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0810time.asp
|title=Time for evolution wars
Line 127 ⟶ 122:
}}</ref><ref name=DeWolf>
{{
|url = http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Discovery%20Institute%20Article.pdf
|title = Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover
|author = DeWolf, David K
|
|journal =
|volume = 68
|issue = 1
|date = May 4, 2007
|
|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20071201001713/http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Discovery%20Institute%20Article.pdf
|archivedate = December 1, 2007
}}
</ref> The cover of the magazine featured a parody of [[The Creation of Adam]] from the [[Sistine Chapel]]. Rather than pointing at Adam, Michelangelo's God points at the image of a chimpanzee contemplating the caption reading "The push to teach 'intelligent design' raises a question: Does God have a place in science class?".<ref name="Chimp">
*{{
|first=John Angus
|last=Campbell
|authorlink=John Angus Campbell
|
|title=Does God have a place in class?: Intelligent design ignites great debate
|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/2920
Line 155 ⟶ 148:
|accessdate=2009-02-16
}}
*{{
|last=Wells
|first=Jonathan
|authorlink=Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)
|title=The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=H8yn0iaRRfoC&
|year=2006 |publisher=Regnery Publishing
|isbn=1-59698-013-3
|page=273
}}
*{{
|last=Hewlett
|first=Martinez
Line 171 ⟶ 164:
|editor=Robert B. Stewart
|title=Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue
|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MjKkFG8qVjcC&
|
|chapter=The Evolution Wars: Who Is Fighting with Whom about What?
|publisher=Fortress Press
Line 183 ⟶ 176:
|date=December 20, 2005
}}, [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 24 of 139|Ruling, p. 24]].</ref><ref name=ForrestMayPaper>
{{
|url=http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf
|title=Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals.
|first=Barbara
|last=Forrest
|author-link=Barbara Forrest
|
|publisher=[[Center for Inquiry]], Office of Public Policy
|___location=[[Washington, D.C.]]
|accessdate=2007-08-06
|
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110519124655/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf
|archivedate=2011-05-19
}}
</ref>
Line 205 ⟶ 195:
{{Main|Theistic science}}
[[empirical|Empirical science]] uses the [[scientific method]] to create ''[[a posteriori]]'' knowledge based on observation and repeated testing of hypotheses and theories. Intelligent design proponents seek to change this fundamental basis of science<ref name="Forrest2000">
{{
|last=Forrest
|first=Barbara
Line 211 ⟶ 201:
|journal=Philo
|volume=3
|
|issue=2
|pages=7–29
Line 218 ⟶ 207:
|accessdate=2007-07-27
|doi=10.5840/philo20003213
|url-access=subscription
}}</ref> by eliminating "[[Naturalism (philosophy)|methodological naturalism]]" from science<ref>{{cite book
|last=Johnson
|first=Phillip E.
|title=Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education
|url=https://archive.org/details/reasoninbalancec00john
|url-access=registration
|year=1995
|publisher=InterVarsity Press
|isbn=0-8308-1929-0
}}<nowiki>[Johnson positions himself as a "theistic realist" against "methodological naturalism".]</nowiki></ref> and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, [[Phillip E. Johnson]], calls "[[theistic realism]]".<ref name="Johnsonconversation" group="n">
{{
|url=http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/ratzsch.htm
|title=Starting a Conversation about Evolution
|
|authorlink=Phillip E. Johnson
|date=August 31, 1996
Line 235 ⟶ 227:
|quote=My colleagues and I speak of 'theistic realism'—or sometimes, 'mere creation'—as the defining concept of our [the ID] movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology.
|accessdate=2008-10-18
}}</ref> Some have called this approach "methodological supernaturalism", which means belief in a transcendent, nonnatural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, nonnatural deity.<ref>See, for instance: {{
|url=http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Vuletic.html
|title=Methodological Naturalism and the Supernatural
Line 241 ⟶ 233:
|last=Vuletic
|first=Mark I.
|
|work=Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise: An Interdisciplinary Conference
|publisher=University of Texas, Austin
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080114094157/http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Vuletic.html
|archivedate=2008-01-14}}</ref> Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena and that supernatural explanations provide a very simple and intuitive explanation for the origins of life and the universe.<ref name="Watanabe" group="n">{{cite web
|first=Teresa
|last=Watanabe
Line 256 ⟶ 246:
|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]
|quote=<nowiki>[Phillip E. Johnson quoted]:</nowiki> We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise.... We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.
|archive-date=2007-09-30
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930015101/http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?programs=CSCstories&command=view&id=613
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> Proponents say evidence exists in the forms of [[irreducible complexity]] and [[specified complexity]] that cannot be explained by natural processes.<ref name=DI-topquestions>
{{
|url=http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign
|title=Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design?
Line 263 ⟶ 256:
|accessdate=2007-05-13
}}</ref> They also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, saying that teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs. [[teach the controversy|Teaching both]], they argue, allows for the possibility of religious belief, without causing the state to actually promote such beliefs. Many intelligent design followers believe that "[[Scientism]]" is itself a religion that promotes [[secularism]] and [[materialism]] in an attempt to erase [[theism]] from public life, and they view their work in the promotion of intelligent design as a way to return religion to a central role in education and other public spheres. Some allege that this larger debate is often the subtext for arguments made over intelligent design, though others note that intelligent design serves as an effective proxy for the religious beliefs of prominent intelligent design proponents in their efforts to advance their religious point of view within society.<ref>
{{
|url=http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/world2.html
|title=Witnesses For The Prosecution
Line 276 ⟶ 269:
|page=18
}}</ref><ref group="n">
{{
|url=http://www.christianity.ca/news/social-issues/2004/03.001.html
|title=Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin
Line 287 ⟶ 280:
|quote=<nowiki>[Phillip E. Johnson quoted]:</nowiki> 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.
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070608233455/http://www.christianity.ca/news/social-issues/2004/03.001.html
|archivedate=2007-06-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://ebd10.ebd.csic.es/pdfs/DarwSciOrPhil.pdf
|title=Darwinism: Science or Philosophy
|accessdate=2007-07-23
Line 297 ⟶ 288:
|editor2-last=Hearn
|editor2-first=Virginia
|
|work=Darwinism: Scientific Inference or Philosophical Preference? (Symposium)
|publisher=The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Dallas Christian Leadership, and the C. S. Lewis Fellowship
|archive-date=2011-03-11
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110311170712/http://ebd10.ebd.csic.es/pdfs/DarwSciOrPhil.pdf
|url-status=dead
}}</ref>
Line 317 ⟶ 310:
|work=Science & Theology News
|publisher=The Free Republic
}}</ref> If the argument to give "equal time for all theories" were actually practiced, there would be no logical limit to the number of mutually incompatible supernatural "theories" regarding the origins and diversity of life to be taught in the public school system, including intelligent design parodies such as the [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]] "theory"; intelligent design does not provide a mechanism for discriminating among them. Philosopher of biology [[Elliott Sober]], for example, states that intelligent design is not falsifiable because "[d]efenders of ID always have a way out".<ref>{{cite journal
|last=Sober
|first=Elliott
|
|title=What is wrong with intelligent design?
|journal=Quarterly Review of Biology
Line 330 ⟶ 321:
|url=http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/what's%20wrong%20with%20id%20qrb%202007.pdf
|accessdate=2007-07-23
|doi=10.1086/511656
|pmid=17354991
|s2cid=44420203
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070724203356/http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/what's%20wrong%20with%20id%20qrb%202007.pdf
|archive-date=2007-07-24
|url-status=dead
}}</ref><ref>
{{
|url=https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070222155420.htm |title=What Is Wrong With Intelligent Design? |accessdate=2007-07-23 |date=February 23, 2007
|publisher=Science Daily
}}</ref> Intelligent design proponent [[Michael Behe]] concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment".<ref name="Time-15-Aug-2005">
{{cite magazine
|url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909,00.html
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050809001041/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909,00.html
|url-status=dead
|archive-date=August 9, 2005
|title=The Evolution Wars
|accessdate=2007-07-23
Line 345 ⟶ 342:
|first=Claudia
|date=August 7, 2005
|
}}</ref>
The inference that an intelligent designer created life on Earth, which advocate William Dembski has said could alternately be an "alien" life force,<ref name="Design Inference">William Dembski, 1998. ''The Design Inference''.</ref> has been compared to the ''[[A priori and a posteriori|a priori]]'' claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://edisk.fandm.edu/michael.murray/Providence.pdf
|title=Natural Providence (or Design Trouble)
Line 355 ⟶ 351:
|last=Murray
|first=Michael J.
|date=
|publisher=Franklin & Marshall College
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081217011413/http://edisk.fandm.edu/michael.murray/Providence.pdf
|archive-date=2008-12-17
|url-status=dead
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/NRCSEPosReID.html
|title=What is the position of the NRCSE on the teaching of intelligent design <nowiki>[ID]</nowiki> as an alternative to neo-Darwinian evolution in Nebraska schools?
Line 367 ⟶ 364:
|authorlink=William A. Dembski
|publisher=Creighton University
|archive-date=2016-04-11
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160411004102/http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/NRCSEPosReID.html
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable, observable or falsifiable, and it violates the principle of [[Occam's razor|parsimony]]. From a strictly [[empiricism|empirical]] standpoint, one may list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, but one must admit ignorance about exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids. <!--paraphrasing http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/22/mooney-c.html: "intelligent design advocates don't always articulate precisely what sort of intelligence they think is the designer, but God—defined in a very nebulous way—generally out-polls ''extraterrestrials'' as the leading candidate".-->
==Inter-faith outreach==
Supporters of intelligent design have also reached out to other faith groups with similar accounts of creation with the hope that the broader coalition will have greater influence in supporting science education that does not contradict their religious views.<ref name="Watanabe" group="n" /> Many religious bodies have responded by [[Level of support for evolution#Support for evolution by religious bodies|expressing support for evolution]]. The Roman Catholic Church has stated that religious faith is fully compatible with science, which is limited to dealing only with the natural world<ref>
{{
|url=http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p91.htm
|title=Catechetical Lecture at St. Stephan's Cathedral, Vienna
Line 383:
|quote=Purpose and design in the natural world, [has] no difficulty [...] with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory.
}}</ref>—a position described by the term ''[[theistic evolution]]''.<ref>
{{
|url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum
|title=The Creation/Evolution Continuum
Line 391:
|date=December 7, 2000
|publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]]
}}</ref> While some in the Roman Catholic Church reject Intelligent design for various philosophical and theological reasons,<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.ncccusa.org/pdfs/evolutionbrochurefinal.pdf
|title=Science, Religion, and the Teaching of Evolution in Public School Science Classes
Line 398 ⟶ 397:
|last=Resseger
|first=Jan (Chair)
|
|work=Committee on Public Education and Literacy
|publisher=[[National Council of Churches]]
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070711004309/http://www.ncccusa.org/pdfs/evolutionbrochurefinal.pdf
|archive-date=2007-07-11
|url-status=dead
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/IDTHG.html
|title=Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem
Line 413 ⟶ 412:
|publisher=Creighton University
|format=Reprint
|archive-date=2016-04-11
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160411004103/http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/IDTHG.html
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> others, such as [[Christoph Schönborn]], [[Archbishop of Vienna]], have shown support for it.<ref name="Matt Young, Taner Edis">{{cite book |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=hYLKdtlVeQgC&q=archbishop+of+Vienna+intelligent+design&pg=PR7 |first1=Matt|last1=Young|first2=Taner|last2=Edis|authorlink2=Taner Edis |title=Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism |publisher=Rutgers, The State University |quote=An influential Roman Catholic cardinal, Cristoph Schonborn, the archbishop of Vienna, appeared to retreat from John Paul II's support for evolution and wrote in ''The New York Times'' that descent with modification is a fact, but evolution in the sense of "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" is false. Many of Schonborn's complaints about Darwinian evolution echoed pronouncements originating from the Discovery Institute, the right-wing American think tank that plays a central role in the ID movement (and whose public relations firm submitted Schonborn's article to the Times). |accessdate=2010-12-02 |isbn = 978-0-8135-3872-3 |date = 2006 |orig-year=2003}}</ref><ref name="Ronald L. Numbers">{{cite book |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=GQ3TI5njXfIC&q=archbishop+of+Vienna+intelligent+design&pg=PA395 |first=Ronald L. |last=Numbers |title=The creationists: from scientific creationism to intelligent design |publisher=[[Random House]] |quote=Miffed by Krauss's comments, officers at the Discovery Institute arranged for the cardinal archbishop of Vienna, Cristoph Sconborn (b. 1945), to write an op-ed piece for the Times dismissing the late pope's statement as "rather vague and unimportant" and denying the truth of "evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense-an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." The cardinal, it seems, had received the backing of the new pope, Benedict XVI, the former Joseph Ratzinger (b. 1927), who in the mid-1980s, while serving as prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, successor to the notorious Inquisition, had written a defense of the doctrine of creation against Catholics who stressed the sufficiency of "selection and mutation." Humans, he insisted, are "not the products of chance and error," and "the universe is not the product of darkness and unreason. It comes from intelligence, freedom, and from the beauty that is identical with love." Recent discoveries in microbiology and biochemistry, he was happy to say, had revealed "reasonable design." |accessdate=2010-12-02 |isbn = 978-0-674-02339-0 |year = 2006}}</ref><ref name="Parliamentary Assembly">{{cite book |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=imUrkSP_5sUC&q=archbishop+of+Vienna+intelligent+design&pg=PA66 |title=Parliamentary Assembly, Working Papers: 2007 Ordinary Session |publisher=Council of Europe Publishing |quote=Christoph Schonborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, published an article in ''The New York Times'' stating that the declarations made by Pope John Paul II could not be interpreted as recognising evolution. At the same time, he repeated arguments put forward by the supporters of the intelligent design ideas. |accessdate=2010-12-02 |isbn = 978-92-871-6368-4 |date = 2008-04-25}}</ref> The arguments of intelligent design have been directly challenged by the over 10,000 [[clergy]] who signed the [[Clergy Letter Project]]. Prominent scientists who strongly express religious faith, such as the astronomer [[George Coyne]] and the biologist [[Kenneth R. Miller|Ken Miller]], have been at the forefront of opposition to intelligent design. While creationist organizations have welcomed intelligent design's support against [[naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]], they have also been critical of its refusal to identify the designer,<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/is-idm-christian
|title=Intelligent design: is it intelligent; is it Christian?
Line 422 ⟶ 423:
|date=February 4, 2006
|publisher=[[Answers in Genesis]]
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070805055205/http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/is-idm-christian
|archive-date=August 5, 2007
|url-status=dead
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue10/index.shtml#more_than_id
|title=More Than Intelligent Design
Line 433 ⟶ 436:
|work=Facts for Faith
|publisher=Reasons to Believe
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071011225836/http://reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue10/index.shtml#more_than_id
|archive-date=2007-10-11
|url-status=dead
}}</ref><ref>{{cite press release
|url=http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/intelligent_design.php
|archive-url=https://archive.today/20100117163505/http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/intelligent_design.php
|url-status=dead
|archive-date=2010-01-17
|title=The "Intelligent Design" Distraction
|accessdate=2007-07-20
Line 440 ⟶ 449:
|publisher=Harun Yahya International
}}</ref> and have pointed to previous failures of the same argument.<ref>
{{
|url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp
|title=AiG's views on the Intelligent Design Movement
Line 451 ⟶ 460:
Rabbi [[Natan Slifkin]] directly criticized the advocates of intelligent design as presenting a perspective of God that is dangerous to religion.<ref name="Slifkin">Natan Slifkin (2006). ''The Challenge of Creation'' (New York: Yashar Books) 288 ff.</ref> Those who promote it as parallel to religion, he asserts, do not truly understand it. Slifkin criticizes intelligent design's advocacy of teaching their perspective in biology classes, wondering why no one claims that God's hand should be taught in other secular classes, such as history, physics or geology. Slifkin also asserts that the intelligent design movement is inordinately concerned with portraying God as "in control" when it comes to things that cannot be easily explained by science, but not in control in respect to things which ''can'' be explained by scientific theory.<ref name="Slifkin" /> Kenneth Miller expressed a view similar to Slifkin's: "[T]he struggles of the Intelligent Design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures—rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God.<ref>
{{
|author=Miller, Kenneth
|chapter=The Flagellum Unspun
|title=Debating Design
|url=https://archive.org/details/debatingdesignfr00demb
|url-access=limited
|editor1=Dembski, William
|editor2=Ruse, Michael
|publisher=Cambridge University Press
|year=2004
|page=[https://archive.org/details/debatingdesignfr00demb/page/n112 95]
}}</ref>
Intelligent design also has advocates from an Islamic standpoint who believe that, while life may have developed in stages over time, human beings are uniquely created by Allah and not evolved from our common ancestor with apes. It is from Adam and Hawwa (Eve) that humanity is said to have originated from.<ref>
{{cite web
| url=http://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio301/content/iscrst.htm
| title=Islam Creation Story
| accessdate=2019-02-24
| publisher=Northern Arizona University
}}</ref>
==Defining science==
Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science |quote= knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method '''. . .''' such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena |publisher=Merriam-Webster |title=Online dictionary |accessdate=2009-05-22}}</ref>
The [[United States National Academy of Sciences|U.S. National Academy of Sciences]] has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the [[scientific method|methods of science]]."<ref>
{{
|publisher=National Academy of Sciences
|year=1999
|url=http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25
|title=Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences
|doi=10.17226/6024
|pmid=25101403
|isbn=978-0-309-06406-4
|edition=Second
|author1=National Academy of Sciences (US)
}}
</ref>
The U.S. [[National Science Teachers Association]] and the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] have termed it [[pseudoscience]].<ref group="n">National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators {{cite press release
|quote=We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science....It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom.
|url=http://
|title=National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush
|publisher=National Science Teachers Association
|date=August 3, 2005
|access-date=September 8, 2021
|archive-date=September 8, 2021
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210908170615/https://old.nsta.org/about/pressroom.aspx?id=50794
|url-status=dead
}}</ref><ref name=harvard>
{{
|quote=For most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a [[creationist]] [[pseudoscience]]".
|url=http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/wp-content/themes/hsr/pdf/fall2005/mu.pdf
|title=Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design
|
|journal=Harvard Science Review
|volume=19
Line 496 ⟶ 520:
|date=Fall 2005
}}</ref><ref name="aaas" group="n">
{{
|quote = Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory.
|url = http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/per/per26.pdf
|title = Professional Ethics Report
|publisher = [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]
|year = 2001
|
|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20110103072800/http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/per/per26.pdf
|archivedate = 2011-01-03
}}
Line 512 ⟶ 534:
Others in the scientific community have concurred,<ref group="n">
{{
|quote=But many scientists regard 'intelligent design' as pseudoscience, and say that it is being used as a Trojan Horse to introduce the teaching of creationism into schools
|last1= Gura
Line 518 ⟶ 540:
|title= Evolution critics seek role for unseen hand in education
|journal= Nature
|
|volume= 416
|page= 250
Line 525 ⟶ 546:
|pmid=11907537
|issue=6878
|bibcode= 2002Natur.416..250G
|doi-access= free
}}
</ref>
and some have called it [[junk science]].<ref group="n">{{cite journal
|url= |title=Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action
|journal=Journal of Clinical Investigation
|volume=116
Line 558 ⟶ 578:
|pmc=1451210
}}
*{{
|quote=Biologists aren't alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they're alarmed because intelligent design is junk science.
|
|last=Orr
|magazine=The New Yorker
|
|url=http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/05/30/050530fa_fact
|title=Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't
}}
*[[Robert T. Pennock]] Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.
*{{
|url=http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11553
|title=Junk science
|
|last=Bergin
|work=[[World (magazine)|World]]
|volume=21
|issue=8
|date=February 25, 2006
|access-date=February 3, 2012
|archive-date=January 7, 2012
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120107132058/http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11553
|url-status=dead
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite book
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kHeQhdNQvrUC&q=intelligent+design+junk-science&pg=PA210
|first=Dan
|last=Agin
Line 590 ⟶ 614:
</ref>
For a theory to qualify as scientific,<ref group="n">
{{
|last=Gauch, Jr.
|first=Hugh G.
Line 599 ⟶ 623:
|isbn=0-521-01708-4
}} Discusses principles of induction, deduction and probability related to the expectation of consistency, testability, and multiple observations. Chapter 8 discusses parsimony (Occam's razor)</ref><ref>
{{
|last=Elmes
|first=David G.
|
|author3=Roediger, Henry L. |title=Research Methods in Psychology
|edition=8th
Line 609 ⟶ 634:
|isbn=0-534-60976-7
|chapter=Chapter 2
|url-access=registration
|url=https://archive.org/details/researchmethodsi00el
}} Discusses the scientific method, including the principles of falsifiability, testability, progressive development of theory, dynamic self-correcting of hypotheses, and parsimony, or "Occam's razor".</ref><ref name="kitzruling_pg64" group="n">{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
Line 626 ⟶ 653:
*'''Provisional''' or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few 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 that it lacks consistency,<ref>See, e.g., {{
|
|title=The Dream World of William Dembski's Creationism
|work=Skeptic
Line 636 ⟶ 663:
|publisher=Talk.reason
|url=http://talkreason.com/articles/Skeptic_paper.cfm
}}</ref> violates the principle of parsimony,<ref group="n">Intelligent design fails to pass Occam's razor. Adding entities (an intelligent agent, a designer) to the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events. See, e.g., {{
|
|chapter=How Not to Detect Design–Critical Notice: William A. Dembski ''The Design Inference''
|editor=Robert T. Pennock
|title=Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives
|url=https://archive.org/details/intelligentdesig00robe |url-access=registration |publisher=MIT Press
|year=2001
|pages=[https://archive.org/details/intelligentdesig00robe/page/597 597–616]
}}</ref> is not scientifically useful,<ref group="n">See, e.g., {{
|first=Jill E.
|last=Schneider
Line 652 ⟶ 679:
|url=http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/schneider/evolution.htm
|quote=Q: Why couldn't intelligent design also be a scientific theory? A: The idea of intelligent design might or might not be true, but when presented as a scientific hypothesis, it is not useful because it is based on weak assumptions, lacks supporting data and terminates further thought.
|
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20060902030147/http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/schneider/evolution.htm
|archivedate=2006-09-02
}}</ref> is not falsifiable,<ref group="n">The designer is not falsifiable, since its existence is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. The designer being beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can be neither supported nor undermined by observation, making intelligent design and the argument from design analytic ''a posteriori'' arguments. See, e.g., {{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
Line 664 ⟶ 690:
}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 22 of 139|Ruling, p. 22]] and [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 77 of 139|p. 77]].</ref> is not empirically testable,<ref group="n">That intelligent design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that it violates a basic premise of science, naturalism. See, e.g., {{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
Line 679 ⟶ 705:
|accessdate=2007-07-19
|date=September 9, 2005
|publisher=The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity
|
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20051007161950/http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf
|archivedate=October 7, 2005
}} The September 2005 statement by 38 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel laureates]] stated that: "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent".</ref><ref group="n">
{{
|url=http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html
|title=Intelligent Design is not Science: Scientists and teachers speak out
|accessdate=2009-01-09
|
|publisher=[[University of New South Wales]]
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20060614003243/http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html
Line 698 ⟶ 721:
Critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the [[Daubert Standard]],<ref>
{{
|url=http://pharyngula.org/index/science/comments/creationism_and_the_daubert_test/
|title=Creationism and the Daubert test?
Line 710 ⟶ 733:
In ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', using these criteria and others mentioned above, Judge Jones [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion|ruled that]] "... we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
At the Kitzmiller trial, philosopher [[Robert T. Pennock]] described a common approach to distinguishing science from non-science as examining a theory's compliance with [[methodological naturalism]], the basic method in science of seeking natural explanations without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Pennock | first1 = Robert T | year = 2007 | title = Can't philosophers tell the difference between science and religion?: Demarcation revisited
|first1=Stephen C.
|last1=Meyer
|
|date=May 1, 1996
|url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1685
Line 720 ⟶ 743:
}}
*{{cite web
|
|last=Johnson
|date=August 31, 1996
|url=http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/ratzsch.htm
Line 729 ⟶ 753:
}}
*{{cite web
|
|last=Meyer
|date=December 1, 2002
|publisher=Ignatius Press
Line 755 ⟶ 780:
|date=February 13, 2007
|accessdate=2007-05-20
|archive-date=2016-03-04
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304120124/http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=389188
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> Additionally, philosopher of science [[Larry Laudan]] and [[cosmologist]] [[Sean M. Carroll|Sean Carroll]] argue against any ''a priori'' criteria for distinguishing science from pseudoscience.<ref>{{Cite book |last= Laudan |first= Larry |authorlink= Larry Laudan |editor1-last= Cohen |editor1-first= R.S. |editor2-last= Laudan |editor2-first= L. |title= Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis: Essays in Honor of Adolf Grünbaum |series= Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science |volume= 76 |year=1983 | publisher=D. Reidel |___location=Dordrecht |isbn=90-277-1533-5 |pages=111–127 |chapter=The Demise of the Demarcation Problem |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AEvprSJzv2MC&q=Demise}}</ref><ref>Carroll, Sean. "What Questions Can Science Answer?". 2009. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/07/15/what-questions-can-science-answer {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191111141759/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/07/15/what-questions-can-science-answer/ |date=2019-11-11 }}</ref> Laudan, as well as philosopher Barbara Forrest, state that the content of the hypothesis must first be examined to determine its ability to solve empirical problems.<ref name="laudan">{{cite journal | last1 = Laudan | first1 = Larry | year = 1990 | title = Normative Naturalism | journal = Philosophy of Science | volume = 57 | issue = 1| pages = 44–59 | jstor=187620 | doi=10.1086/289530| s2cid = 224840606 }}</ref><ref name="forrest">Forrest, Barbara. "Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection." ''Philo'', Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall-Winter 2000), pp. 7–29 http://www2.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/bforrest/ForrestPhilo.pdf {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120328004533/http://www2.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/bforrest/ForrestPhilo.pdf |date=2012-03-28 }}</ref> Methodological naturalism is therefore an ''a posteriori'' criterion due to its ability to yield consistent results.<ref name="laudan"/><ref name="forrest"/>
==Peer review==
The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design being accepted as valid science. The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article supporting ID in a scientific journal, and has failed to publish peer-reviewed research or data supporting ID.<ref name="kitzruling_pg87">{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
Line 769 ⟶ 795:
Intelligent design, by appealing to a [[supernatural]] agent, directly conflicts with the [[principle]]s of [[science]], which limit its inquiries to [[empirical]], observable and ultimately [[falsifiable|testable]] [[data]] and which require explanations to be based on empirical [[Scientific method|evidence]]. Dembski, Behe and other intelligent design proponents say bias by the scientific community is to blame for the failure of their research to be published.<ref name="main">[http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php Free Speech on Evolution Campaign Main Page] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060806232139/http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php |date=2006-08-06 }} [[Discovery Institute]], [[Center for Science and Culture]].</ref> Intelligent design proponents believe that their writings are rejected for not conforming to purely naturalistic, non-supernatural mechanisms rather than because their research is not up to "journal standards", and that the merit of their articles is overlooked. Some scientists describe this claim as a [[conspiracy theory]].<ref>
{{
|url=http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/creation/bush_intelligent_design_2005.html
|title=The President and the teaching of evolution
Line 775 ⟶ 801:
|last=Hawks
|first=John
|
|publisher=John Hawks Weblog
|authorlink=John D. Hawks
}}</ref> [[Michael Shermer]] has rebutted the claim, noting "Anyone who thinks that scientists do not question Darwinism has never been to an evolutionary conference." He noted that scientists such as [[Joan Roughgarden]] and [[Lynn Margulis]] have challenged certain Darwinist theories and offered explanations of their own and despite this they "have not been persecuted, shunned, fired or even expelled. Why? Because they are doing science, not religion."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html#part1|title=Skeptic » eSkeptic » Thursday, April 17th, 2008|work=Skeptic.com|date=17 April 2008 }}</ref> The issue that supernatural explanations do not conform to the [[scientific method]] became a sticking point for intelligent design proponents in the 1990s, and is addressed in the [[wedge strategy]] as an aspect of science that must be challenged before intelligent design can be accepted by the broader scientific community.
Critics and advocates debate over whether intelligent design produces new research and has legitimately attempted to publish this research. For instance, the [[John Templeton Foundation|Templeton Foundation]], a former funder of the Discovery Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that it asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, but none were ever submitted. Charles L. Harper Jr., foundation vice-president, said: "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review".<ref>
{{
|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html?ex=1291352400&en=feb5138e425b9001&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
|title=Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker
Line 792 ⟶ 817:
}}</ref>
The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html |title=Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington |
{{
|author=Meyer, S.C.
|year=2004
Line 803 ⟶ 828:
|url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=549
|accessdate=2007-05-10
}}</ref> The article was a [[literature review]], which means that it did not present any new research, but rather culled quotations and claims from other papers to argue that the [[Cambrian explosion]] could not have happened by natural processes. The choice of venue for this article was also considered problematic, because it was so outside the normal subject matter (see [[Sternberg peer review controversy]]<ref group="n">The [[Sternberg peer review controversy]] and several similar academic disputes are the subject of the 2008 documentary "[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]".</ref>). Dembski has written that "perhaps the best reason [to be skeptical of his ideas] is that intelligent design has yet to establish itself as a thriving scientific research program."<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.designinference.com/documents/2001.03.ID_as_nat_theol.htm
|title=Is Intelligent Design a Form of Natural Theology?
Line 814 ⟶ 837:
|year=2001
|publisher=Design Inference Website
|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120729130930/http://www.designinference.com/documents/2001.03.ID_as_nat_theol.htm
|archive-date=2012-07-29
|url-status=dead
}}</ref>
In a 2001 interview, Dembski said that he stopped submitting to peer-reviewed journals because of their slow time-to-print and that he makes more money from publishing books.<ref>
{{
|url=http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i17/17a00801.htm
|title=Darwinism Under Attack
Line 831 ⟶ 855:
In the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover trial]], the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing.<ref>[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 88 of 139|Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science]]</ref> There, intelligent design proponents cited just one paper, on simulation modeling of evolution by Behe and [[David Snoke]],<ref>
{{
|last=Behe
|first=Michael J
Line 844 ⟶ 868:
|pages=2651–2664
|issn=0961-8368
|doi=10.1110/ps.04802904
|pmid=15340163
Line 856 ⟶ 878:
|date=December 20, 2005
}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 88 of 139|4: whether ID is science]]</ref> [[Michael Lynch (geneticist)|Michael Lynch]] called the conclusions of the article "an artifact of unwarranted biological assumptions, inappropriate mathematical modeling, and faulty logic".<ref>
{{
|last=Lynch
|first=Michael
Line 870 ⟶ 892:
|pmid=16131652
|pmc=2253472
}}</ref> In sworn testimony, however, Behe said: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".<ref>''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', October 19, 2005, AM session [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html Kitzmiller Testimony, Behe]</ref> As summarized by the judge, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his claims of intelligent design or irreducible complexity. In his ruling, the judge wrote: "A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory".<ref name="kitzruling_pg87" />
The Discovery Institute has published lists of articles and books which they say support intelligent design and have been peer-reviewed, including the two articles mentioned above. Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, stating that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Rather, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with peer review that lacks [[impartiality]] and [[rigour|rigor]],<ref group="n">{{cite journal
|last=Brauer
|first=Matthew J.
|
|author3=Gey Steven G.
|year=2005
|title=Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution
Line 884 ⟶ 906:
|url=http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/83-1/p%201%20Brauer%20Forrest%20Gey%20book%20pages.pdf
|accessdate=2007-07-18
|quote=ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly "peer-reviewed" journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of "peer review" that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows.
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090326080549/http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/83-1/p%201%20Brauer%20Forrest%20Gey%20book%20pages.pdf
|archive-date=2009-03-26
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters. <ref group="n">
{{
|url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html
|title=Index to Creationist Claims
Line 896 ⟶ 920:
|quote=With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical.
}}</ref> Critics also state that even if these papers could be accepted as cases of support for intelligent design passing peer review, the output from the ID community is still fairly minuscule, especially when compared to the number of peer reviewed articles supporting evolution.<ref group="n">
{{
|url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html
|title=Index to Creationist Claims
Line 905 ⟶ 929:
|quote=Even by the most generous criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement is very low, especially considering the long history and generous funding of the movement. The list of papers and books above is not exhaustive, but there is not a lot else. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID peer-review.
}}</ref> Critics state that publishing material is not enough; that scientific ideas must withstand scrutiny and be built upon and that any papers supporting ID have not led to any productive work.<ref group="n">
{{
|url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html
|title=Index to Creationist Claims
Line 917 ⟶ 941:
==Intelligence as an observable quality==
The phrase ''intelligent design'' makes use of an assumption of the quality of an observable [[intelligence (trait)|intelligence]], a concept that has no [[scientific consensus]] definition. William Dembski, for example, has written that "Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature". The characteristics of intelligence are assumed by intelligent design proponents to be [[observation|observable]] without specifying what the criteria for the [[measurement]] of intelligence should be. Dembski, instead, asserts that "in special sciences ranging from [[forensics]] to [[archaeology]] to [[SETI]] (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), appeal to a designing intelligence is indispensable".<ref>
{{
|title=Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences
|series=Intelligent Design?
Line 924 ⟶ 948:
|url=http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
|accessdate=2007-07-18
|
|work=[[Natural History (magazine)|Natural History]]
}}</ref> How this appeal is made and what this implies as to the definition of intelligence are topics left largely unaddressed. [[Seth Shostak]], a researcher with the [[SETI Institute]], disputed Dembski's comparison of SETI and intelligent design, saying that intelligent design advocates base their inference of design on complexity—the argument being that some biological systems are too complex to have been made by natural processes—while SETI researchers are looking primarily for [[Artificial creation|artificial]]ity.<ref>
{{
|title=SETI and Intelligent Design
|first=Seth
Line 934 ⟶ 957:
|url=http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_intelligentdesign_051201.html
|accessdate=2007-07-18
|
|publisher=[[Space.com]]
|quote=In fact, the signals actually sought by today's SETI searches are not complex, as the ID advocates assume. [...] If SETI were to announce that we're not alone because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of artificiality
Line 942 ⟶ 964:
Critics say that the design detection methods proposed by intelligent design proponents are radically different from conventional design detection, undermining the key elements that make it possible as legitimate science. Intelligent design proponents, they say, are proposing both searching for a designer without knowing anything about that designer's abilities, parameters, or intentions (which scientists do know when searching for the results of human intelligence), as well as denying the very distinction between natural/artificial design that allows scientists to compare complex designed artifacts against the background of the sorts of complexity found in nature.<ref group="n">"For human artifacts, we know the designer's identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer's abilities, needs, and desires. With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer's identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies".—{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
Line 949 ⟶ 971:
As a means of criticism, certain [[scientific skepticism|skeptics]] have pointed to a challenge of intelligent design derived from the study of [[artificial intelligence]]. The criticism is a counter to intelligent design claims about what makes a design intelligent, specifically that "no preprogrammed device can be truly intelligent, that intelligence is irreducible to natural processes".<ref>
{{
|url=http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-03/intelligent-design.html
|title=Darwin in Mind: Intelligent Design Meets Artificial Intelligence
Line 955 ⟶ 977:
|last=Edis
|first=Taner
|
|work=Skeptical Inquirer
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20011018142820/http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-03/intelligent-design.html
|archivedate=2001-10-18}}</ref> This claim is similar in type to an assumption of [[Cartesian dualism]] that posits a strict separation between "mind" and the material [[Universe]]. However, in studies of artificial intelligence, while there is an implicit assumption that supposed "intelligence" or [[creativity]] of a [[computer program]] is determined by the capabilities given to it by the computer [[programmer]], artificial intelligence need not be bound to an inflexible system of rules. Rather, if a computer program can access [[randomness]] as a function, this effectively allows for a flexible, creative, and adaptive intelligence. [[Evolutionary algorithms]], a subfield of machine learning (itself a subfield of artificial intelligence), have been used to mathematically demonstrate that randomness and selection can be used to "evolve" complex, highly adapted structures that are not explicitly designed by a programmer. Evolutionary algorithms use the Darwinian metaphor of random mutation, selection and the survival of the fittest to solve diverse mathematical and scientific problems that are usually not solvable using conventional methods. Intelligence derived from randomness is essentially indistinguishable from the "innate" intelligence associated with biological organisms, and poses a challenge to the intelligent design conception that intelligence itself necessarily requires a designer. [[Cognitive science]] continues to investigate the nature of intelligence along these lines of inquiry. The intelligent design community, for the most part, relies on the assumption that intelligence is readily apparent as a fundamental and basic property of complex systems.<ref>
{{
|url=http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1136
|title=Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell
Line 966 ⟶ 987:
|year=2007
|publisher=Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
}}</ref>{{failed verification|date=February 2012}}
==Notes==
Line 976 ⟶ 997:
[[Category:Intelligent design|science]]
[[Category:Creationist objections to evolution]]
[[Category:Religion and science]]
| |||