Intelligent Design

From PhiloWiki

Were the universe, the Earth, and man all created through the process of Intelligent Design?

The Intelligent Design Movement believes that the Earth is billions of years old, and that Genesis is not literal. Evolution is a limited and flawed process that required God to assist at crucial junctures, in particular to enable macro-evolution.

Atheists are really at their wild-eyed best on the question of where/how did life originate. They must explain how earth’s early atmosphere developed simple prebiotic molecules (without intelligent design), which merged into a prebiotic soup (without intelligent design), which gave rise to more complex prebiotic molecules (without intelligent design), which eventually developed into biomolecules (without intelligent design), which became protocells (without intelligent design), which developed into simple cell (without intelligent design), which merged together to become bacteria (without intelligent design), which eventually developed into human beings with consciousness (and morality) who sit at computers and debate these issues.

The Argument from Design is summarized as:

1. All things that display order and complexity are the products of intelligent design.
2. The Universe displays order and complexity.
3. Therefore the Universe is a product of intelligent design.

God guides evolution

How long will Darwin continue to repose on his high but perilous pedestal? I am beginning to wonder. Few people doubt the principle of evolution. The question at issue is: are all evolutionary advances achieved exclusively by the process of natural selection? That is the position of the Darwinian fundamentalists, and they cling to their absolutist position with all the unyielding certitude with which Southern Baptists assert the literal truth of the Book of Genesis, or Wahabi Muslims proclaim the need for a universal jihad against ‘the Great Satan’. At a revivalist meeting of Darwinians two or three years ago, I heard the chairman, the fiction-writer Ian McEwan, call out, ‘Yes, we do think God is an old man in the sky with a beard, and his name is Charles Darwin.’ I doubt if there is a historical precedent for this investment of so much intellectual and emotional capital, by so many well-educated and apparently rational people, in the work of a single scientist. And to anyone who has studied the history of science and noted the chances of any substantial body of teaching – based upon a particular hypothesis or set of observations – surviving the erosion of time and new research intact, it is inevitable that Darwinism, at least in its fundamentalist form, will come crashing down. The only question is: when?

The Ayatollah of Atheism and Darwin’s Altars from Discovery Institute  Paul Johnson

God created the Earth thousands of years ago

The modern concept of intelligent design has been simply formulated as the belief that certain biological lines of evidence (e.g., the 'irreducible complexity' of features such as the bacterial flagellum) are evidence for a designer and against blind naturalistic processes...

The Intelligent Design Movement’s motivation appears to be the desire to challenge the blind acceptance of the materialistic, godless, naturalistic philosophy of Darwinian evolution. They confront many of the philosophical underpinnings of today's evolutionary thinking. As a movement, they are unwilling to align themselves with Biblical creationism.

AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement from Answers in Genesis  Carl Wieland

In [the theistic evolution] system God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians.

10 Dangers of theistic evolution from Answers in Genesis  Werner Gitt

Intelligent Design is just wishful thinking

Smith's work in geology supports my argument that the earth is flat," you say, misrepresenting Smith's work. When Smith responds with a denunciation of your misuse of her work, you respond, saying something like: "See what a controversy we have here? Professor Smith and I are locked in a titanic scientific debate. We should teach the controversy in the classrooms." And here is the delicious part: you can often exploit the very technicality of the issues to your own advantage, counting on most of us to miss the point in all the difficult details.

Show Me the Science from The Edge  Daniel C. Dennett

Given the copious evidence for evolution, it seems unlikely that it will be replaced by an alternative theory. But that is exactly what intelligent-design creationists are demanding. Is there some dramatic new evidence, then, or some insufficiency of neo-Darwinism, that warrants overturning the theory of evolution?

The question is worth asking, but the answer is no. Intelligent design is simply the third attempt of creationists to proselytize our children at the expense of good science and clear thinking.

The Case Against Intelligent Design from The Edge  Jerry Coyne

The ID hypothesis, that we, or a few key steps in the evolution of life, are products of purposeful design is not scientific. There is no way to test it. It cannot be confirmed experimentally. The statement that life is too complex to have happened by chance and that we are somehow fundamentally incapable to understand how reflects a deeply unscientific attitude, a put-down of human reason. The uncertainties of today are tomorrow's new science.

Who Designed the Designer? from The Edge  Mark Gleiser

Although this argument is arranged in logical form, its conclusion is only true if its premise—all things that display order and complexity are the products of intelligent design—is true, and this is where the problem lies. For example, mineral crystals display order and complexity due to the nature of the underlying configuration of the molecules, atoms and ions whose arrangement is responsible for their various geometric forms.

Are crystals the product of an artificer—the god Vulcan, perhaps? The answer is no, they are not. Crystals form as a result of non-conscious natural processes. Thus it can be seen that things which display order and complexity are not necessarily the product of intelligent design, Indeed, our criteria for intelligent design is based on the nature of human artefacts that we know are the products of intelligent design. However, we can't be certain that the Universe is the product of intelligent design just because it displays order and complexity.

Is Creationism the Answer? from Investigator Magazine

With their slick Web sites, pseudo-academic conferences and savvy public relations, the proponents of "intelligent design" -- a "theory" that challenges the validity of Darwinian evolution -- are far more sophisticated than the creationists of yore. Rather than attempt to prove that the world was created in six days, they operate simply by casting doubt on evolution, largely using the time-honored argument that intelligent life could not have come about by a random natural process and must have been the work of a single creator. They do no experiments and do not publish in recognized scientific journals. Nevertheless, this new generation of anti-evolutionists, arguing that children have a "right to question" scientific truths, has had widespread success in undermining evolutionary theory...

It also violates principles of common sense. In fact, the breadth and extent of the anti-evolutionary movement that has spread almost unnoticed across the country should force American politicians to think twice about how their public expressions of religious belief are beginning to affect education and science. The deeply religious nature of the United States should not be allowed to stand in the way of the thirst for knowledge or the pursuit of science. Once it does, it won't be long before the American scientific community -- which already has trouble finding enough young Americans to fill its graduate schools -- ceases to lead the world.

God and Darwin from Washington Post editorial

Meyer and Wells took the typical intelligent design line: Biological life contains elements so complex - the mammalian blood-clotting mechanism, the bacterial flagellum - that they cannot be explained by natural selection. And so, the theory goes, we must be products of an intelligent designer. Creationists call that creator God, but proponents of intelligent design studiously avoid the G-word - and never point to the Bible for answers. Instead, ID believers speak the language of science to argue that Darwinian evolution is crumbling.

The debate's two-on-two format, with its appearance of equal sides, played right into the ID strategy - create the impression that this very complicated issue could be seen from two entirely rational yet opposing views. "This is a controversial subject," Meyer told the audience. "When two groups of experts disagree about a controversial subject that intersects with the public-school science curriculum, the students should be permitted to learn about both perspectives. We call this the 'teach the controversy' approach."

Since the debate, "teach the controversy" has become the rallying cry of the national intelligent-design movement, and Ohio has become the leading battleground. Several months after the debate, the Ohio school board voted to change state science standards, mandating that biology teachers "critically analyze" evolutionary theory. This fall, teachers will adjust their lesson plans and begin doing just that. In some cases, that means introducing the basic tenets of intelligent design. One of the state's sample lessons looks as though it were lifted from an ID textbook. It's the biggest victory so far for the Discovery Institute. "Our opponents would say that these are a bunch of know-nothing people on a state board," says Meyer. "We think it shows that our Darwinist colleagues have a real problem now."

But scientists aren't buying it. What Meyer calls "biology for the information age," they call creationism in a lab coat. ID's core scientific principles - laid out in the mid-1990s by a biochemist and a mathematician - have been thoroughly dismissed on the grounds that Darwin's theories can account for complexity, that ID relies on misunderstandings of evolution and flimsy probability calculations, and that it proposes no testable explanations.

The Crusade Against Evolution from Wired Magazine  Evan Ratliff