2
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − == Evidence --> Support ==+ − This section contains no evidence and properly belongs under "support." The statement "...that there are certain irreducible complexities in organisms which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer" is not supported by the book quote. The book quote paraphrases 'as humans we can't experience evolution in molecular biology, so we don't ~know~ that it is true.' Ok, that's fine and it is the same statement of doubt placed on all science. Science doesn't prove anything, it just finds evidence to support hypotheses.+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − However, refuting proof of molecular evolution provides no evidence for intelligent design, it just leaves room for another explanation. This is the classic [[argument from ignorance]] and offers (at best) support. --[[User:Propro|Propro]] 16:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)+ + + + + + + + − + + − "obfuscate?!!" I had to look it up. Anybody else pick up the irony in that statement? Education is not a bad thing. In academia, you're allowed to say just about anything you want... but you have to support it with an argument if you want people to listen.--[[User:Propro|Propro]] 17:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT)+ + + + + − Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)+ − Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)+ − :With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)+ − :Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)+ + − :Dawkins is a known atheist, TmToulouse. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)+ − ::DunsScotus, I'm guessing your defition of "Ivory Tower snob" is anyone you can't understand. -'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 16:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)+ − == General ==+ − To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.+ − On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?+ + + − On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.+ − On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.+ − On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)+ + + + − :The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)+ − ::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST) − + + − + + + − :::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)+ − + − + + + − I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made. + − Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.+ + − Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)+ + + − If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)+ − I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)+ + + − + − + − There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)+ − I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)+ + − + − ==two issues==+ − Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)+ + − :If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)+ + + + + − == The Theory of Intelligent Design ==+ − I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)+ − :Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)+ − + − :Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)+ + + + + + + + + + − + − :It's not even a hypothesis. It's conjecture. It's a vague assertion inserted in a gap of understanding. It claims that a common ancestor species led to all extant life through the process of evolution, but at certian key points a "designer" of unspecified nature and origin used unspecified methods to "design" biological features on populations of divergent organisms that could not otherwise have emerged. It offers no actual mechanism (to qualify even as a hypothesis it must state exactly <i>how</i> the 'design' was implemented into a feature, not merely that a feature was 'designed'), it merely asserts that an unspecified mechanism had "design" intent behind it solely upon the basis of some people being unable to think of any means by which those aforementioned features could have emerged. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)+ − == BCE ==+ + + + + − how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?+ − :Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT) − This is answered on the commandments page, but essentially its because the Conservapedia founders believe that any term that doesn't mention Christ is Anti-Christian. I dont understand it either, but they make the rules... just seems like nitpicking to me. - Suricou+ + − == Other Intelligent Causes ==+ − In the statement:+ − "The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."+ − There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?+ − − : Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST) − − ::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit − − ::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT) − − :::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March − − ::::Why is it a tough sell? The design theorists all claim it ''could'' be a space alien and the Raelians all claim it ''is'' a space alien. Just seems odd to leave this fact out, especially since the Raelians are supporting intelligent design theory and not criticising it. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 14:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT) − − − − Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities: − * You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers − * You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper − Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − :Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − :: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − − :::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − (Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.) − − ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]]<sup>[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</sup> 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − :To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]]<sup>[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</sup> 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − == what is wrong with this sentence? == − − Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640] − − LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − − :Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − :Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]]<sup>[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</sup> − − :Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]]<sup>[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</sup> 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − :::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − :: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − :[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion: − − Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings − − '''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.''' − − [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − − : The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − : Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − :Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − :Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − : The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − − :CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − Please don't say that they're liars. Just don't go down this road. There are many evolutionsits who have lied about their findings of "missing links" on the human evolutionary chain. There ahs been a lot of "hand waiving" on evolution by atheists, deists, liberals and neo-marxists for years. − − We have seen this with "peer review" fraud by "denying articles on the basis of lack of peer review" for the Creation-Evolution Magazine for several years. THAT was fraud and Discovery Institute finally "broke" the peer review bubble troubling all of our "honest" evolutionists as shown in the movie: "Flock of Dodos." [[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 11 April 2007 (EDT) − − − − Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62. − − [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − − :Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − − Rivsta is a Theoretical Biology journal, not a research journal. ''<sup>personal remark removed</sup>'' Lol:)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT) − − − ID is bad science. It assumes a priori that something is true (that some intelligent designer fashioned life with intent) and then attempts to find some sort of evidence to support these claims. It is entirely contrary to fundamental scientific methodology. − − Furthermore, I would question the motive of people of faith who seek evidence of the hand of god within the origins of life. Christianity is predicated upon faith. You must profess a faith in God as your savior and to search for evidence to support that faith would seem to be a position that is contradictory and perhaps even heretical, no? − − == Impact Factor == − − :No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − :::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − − ::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − ::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] − − − :::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − − ::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − :Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − − :::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::::::Tmtoulouse, Why are you saying that Rivesta is not peer reviewed? Can you back that statement up? Secondly, who decides what IF number decides if a journal is a science journal. Is Tmtoulouse the decider? And who decides that IF number is even relevant in determining if a journal is a science journal. Again is it you? Please show me some authoritative source that gives a IF number cut off for something to be considered a science journal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − − (undent) In order to be a ''science'' journal you must contribute to ''science'' if none of the article you published receive even a cursory glance then you can't not say your journal is contributing to science. Rivista is not a respected journal, the editor is fringe, publishes mostly rants against the "establishment" and has as much peer review as a journal published by the DI. If you REALLY want to add the Rivista citation, then we need to link to sites criticizing Rivista, and this is not needed in the article. But, even if Rivista WAS a science journal, as has been pointed out all ready the paper published there is NOT about intelligent design and did not us ID "theory". So its an interesting, though moot point, about the reliability of Rivista as a journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT) − == Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==+ − − Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − − :My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − :If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − :The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::Duns, I swear on everything I hold dear, the DI does not want you supporting them in one breath and then quoting scripture in the next. They won't get what they want that way. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − ==Creationists== − − ::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − − :::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − :::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − :::So much for God not being the author of confusion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::::Well he is the source of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Great_Flood#On_Kant translation error] in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − ==Without Merit== − − Okay DunsScotus what is with out merit? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT) − − − ==Well's Centrioles paper== − − Whether or not ''Rivista'' is a credible journal is utterly irrelevant, since Well's hypothesis was in no way based on any theory of intelligent design. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT) − − == I found several articles in peer reviewed science journals which were ID == − − − − Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004. − − John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166. − − S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239. − − M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664. − − − D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315. − − − W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410. − − D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775. − − M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342. − − D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595. − − [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − − :Can you explain in your own words how each paper supports ID, or are you just taking the DI's word for it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT) − − − ::It will take me some time to review all of these, so I will get back to you. What I will look for is that they are published in a peer review science journal, address topics that are science and used Intelligent Design to make their conclusions. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT) − − :::Blast! Beat me to it. Obviously the one from Rivista di Biologia isn't legit, as said above. Behe, too, is obviously suspect. Also, the "Higher Taxonomic" etc. is already mentioned in the article as the one peer reviewed ID article. Perhaps you could read the other articles and explain how they support ID: I don't really feel like taking the Discovery Institute at face value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT) − − Conservative, I think it's impolite to revert until other people have looked at those and agreed.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT) − − ...aaaaand it's protected again.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT) − − :I'm familiar with the Behe/Snoke paper. Two minor details: one, it's an argument against evolution, not for ID. Two, what they actually managed to prove was that IC systems can evolve in a reasonable timeframe, which is the exact opposite of what they were going for. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::::Please see the summary of the above articles located here. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC here] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − − :::::I will NOT review these articles UNTIL the page is unprotected and returned to the consensus version. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT) − − :::::I'll take that as an admission that you are indeed just taking the DI's word for it, shall I? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT) − − Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004. − − W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410. − − D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775. − − M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342. − − The following papers are the ones that I am not immediately familiar with. JAD's work is out, the Axe work does NOT support intelligent design, the behe snoke paper also supports evolutionary theory. This is whats left. Anyone familiar with these works? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT) − − ==Lying for Jesus: the American Taliban== − − This page is a joke, this site is a joke. I am done. There are many people here that thing they can do something with this site, do not be fooled. I thought there was hope, there is not. Give up on it. Turn your back on it. These fascist are not worth your time. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT) − − == Kitzmiller trap. == − − The first paragrah used to say: − − ''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341].'' − − Now it says: − − ''Many design theorists leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[2]'' − − This phrasing is problematic, since it helps opponents of intelligent design, such as in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. They say that ID is repackaged creationism. To not fall into this trap all it is essential for the theory to leave the intelligent cause open. And that is exactly what all theorists do. When they speak as private person, and not as scientist, they often admit that they think that is is [[God]], but as theorists they '''all''' leave it open. And with good reason, because otherwise you kind of agree with the Kitzmiller party that intelligent design is not science but religous. I would strongly sugggest to revert the current version to the old version. [[User:Order| Order]] 25 March, 17:10 (AEST) − − The reason the question is not accessible by scientific investigation is because the designer is in the realm of the supernatural. Science is not capable of investigating the supernatural. − − Regardless of how you word it, the intelligent designer is the ultimate reason ID isn’t science because ID theory '''requires the intervention''' of this designer. A designer who, in the end, must be supernatural. This is one of the reasons that ID doesn’t get as much support as many of the editors here would like. − − Is it really right to change the wording to make this less apparent to the reader? [[User:Land Dweller| Land Dweller]] 26 March, 03:35 (EDT) − − So, you suggest to leave the Kitzmiller trap open because interlligent design cannot possibly be science, no matter how you word it? [[User:Order]] 27 March − − :The debate is between − :#Those who call ID a form of creationism and want it kept out of public schools − :#Those who call ID a legitimate topic of scientific discussion and want it to be allowed in public schools that wish to include it − − :Let's create an article (or section) on the [[Intelligent Design controversy]]. (Full disclosure: I'm "on probation" at Wikipedia for trying to create a neutral article there about this.) − − :We should present all the arguments (like E. Scott's) against; but also all the arguments for. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT) − − − ::The "old" version - ''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation'' − − ::This begs the question - ''why'' is the question of who/what the intelligent designer "not accessible" by scientific investigation? If it is a space alien why could science not investigate it? That "old" version does not make a lick of sense. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 13:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT) − − :Perhaps science has been defined so as to exclude consideration supernatural causes. But the [[scientific method]] as I originally learned it in school had no such limitation. It might be more accurate to say that [[physical science]] looks only at the [[natural world]] seen as being governed by [[natural law]]. − − :Scientific methods of investigation can be (and have been) used to examine the supernatural. I believe [[Harry Houdini]] spent a lot of time on this, revealing fraudulant [[spiritualist]]s and [[medium]]s who conducted fake [[seance]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::Fraudulent spiritualists and mediums are in no way supernatural. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT) − − User:Order, in answer to your Kitzmiller trap question, I like the old version of the statement − :''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation.'' for the reason stated below. − − It offers the reason why ID proponents make no attempt to identity the designer or to learn anything about the abilities, motives or mechanisms used by the designer or designers. If ID proponents openly discussed the nature of the designer (who they generally believe to be God), it would be obvious to everybody that ID is just a new form of creation science. I think the reader should be informed of this reason because it is an important aspect of ID. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT) − − :Can you supply a source for this assertion? Who (besides you) makes this argument? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::Sure, Ed. Although many prominent pro-evolution figures in the evolution creation debate believe ID is a new form of creationism, the only source I could easily find was Barbara Forrest’s expert report used in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. I couldn’t find a copy online, but here is a part of the first paragraph. − − ::"ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for the natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, my research reveals that ID is not science, but the newest variant of traditional American creationism. With only a few exceptions, it continues the usual complaints of creationists against the theory of evolution and comprises virtually all the elements of traditional creationism." − − ::[[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT) − − :::Oops! Somehow I turned on this boxed format. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT) − − − User:Miles, it’s true that it would be within the realm of science to investigate a space alien designer, but no prominent proponent of ID believes the designer is an alien. Nearly all of them believe it is God who is clearly supernatural. − − It does no good to say the designer is a space alien. If said alien possessed any irreducibly complex systems, such as an eye or immune system, then it too could not evolve through natural processes alone. You then have to investigate who designed the alien. Eventually you are trying to investigate a God. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT) − − :I think you are missing the point of ID's deliberate lack of identification of a designer. It makes an argument, based on [[irreducible complexity]], that life shows signs of having been designed. It stops there, because of legal requirements. − − :You seem to be saying (along with E. Scott) that ID advocates' motivation for advancing this scientific argument is "part and parcel" of the theory; and that therefore it is a religious argument and/or religous theory. Is this what you are saying? − − :::My point is to say the identity of the desiner is off limits to science is irrational and therefore does not belong in the article. Now, if they have proven the identity is supernatural or a diety, that might be different but so far those claims have not been proven. Otherwise you're basically saying "what goes up must come down, but it is beyond the realm of science to explain 'why'". it is also kind of crazy to suggest "I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science" [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::::In answer to your first statement: The existence of a designer is a part of the IC argument. It says natural evolution couldn’t do it so the designer did it. I don’t understand what you mean by “It stops there, because of legal requirements.” I think they stop there because acknowledging the supernatural nature of the designer makes it clear that ID is essentially religious. − − ::::In answer to you second statement: Yes. Since they specifically say that a supernatural designer (God), created the eye, the immune system, etc., ID falls outside realm of science. See my above quote from Barbara Forrest in my previous comment. − − ::::In answer to your third statement: I agree with you. It’s unscientific to say the designer is off limits to science. Nobody can scientifically prove the existence, or non existence, of a deity. I also agree that it makes no sense to say “I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science”. However I am not the one saying that. Footnote 2 in the Intelligent Design article refers to an IDEA website. They are supporters of ID and they say this under Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents. <blockquote>“The consensus of ID proponents is intelligent design theory does not allow one to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.”</blockquote> ID proponents make this statement even though this designer is required to make systems that are Irreducibly Complex, and it is acknowledged by some ID theorists that the designer is supernatural. − − ::::If the opponents of ID said the designer is beyond the limits of scientific inquiry, I would agree that that statement should be in Criticism of ID section. Since it's the proponents saying this, it is appropriate to put it in the main part of the article. − − ::::When I read User:Order’s comment about which statement he thought should be in the article, wrote a comment expressing preference for the first one. I didn’t intend for it to turn into a debate. − − ::::I agree with User:Ed Poor that there should be a separate section in the ID article about the criticisms and controversy surrounding ID. − − ::::I'm getting better at formatting now. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 20:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT) − − I am not married to the statement that the identity of the designer cannot be known. My point is that the article should not say that intelligent design, or intelligent design theorists, say that the intelligent cause is God. First. because they don't say it, they are carefully not saying it. Because they would otherwise fall into the Kitzmiller trap. Not sure if Conservapedia wants that during the next Dover trial the Kitzmillers point to Conserapedia and say: "Look even Conservapedia says it is religion. " [[User:Orer]] 31 March − − :Please don't mingle the presentation of the theory with the dismantling or criticism of the theory. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT) − − :: It was about the presentation all the time. [[User:Order]] 2 April − − ==Non-biological Intelligent Design== − I'm not a subject expert, so I'll help as best I can. But is Intelligent Design a theory that stands in opposition to Evolution? Does Intelligent Design attempt to explain the order that is found in the highest and lowest ends of our percerption? In other words, who designed the subatomic particles that are busy doing their thing so that I can exist? What about the galaxies? What part of Intelligent Design is philosophy and what part is science? − − ==Objections to ID== − − − Advocates of [[methodological naturalism]], vigorously oppose ID theory. Particular opposition comes from proponents of the materialistic [[Theory of evolution]]. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php] − − A sticking point for many of these opponents that ID leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open. Some arguments against ID are: − #that there could not be a designer without an [[infinite regress]] of designers. − #that it is illegitimate for ID proponents to conceal their religious beliefs about the Intelligent Designer − − − [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some proponents admit to believing the intelligent cause to be [[God]]. − ---- − The above was cut from the intro (by me). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT) − − I think a page devoted to Intelligent Design should at least discuss the main objection to ID (that I can see) which is that the supposedly intelligent designer included so many design flaws (eg the vertebrate eye). [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::It of course makes sense to include some of the objections if an idea/theory/thought is controversial. However, it's very important to keep the controversy separate from the presentation of the idea. Furthermore, this article should not evolve into an attempt to prove or disprove the theory. This should be a starting point for those who wish to research the idea further. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT) − − :::I agree, Everwill, there should be a neutral, straight forward presentation of the theory. Criticisms should be in a separate section of the article. I also believe it would be good to have a standard template for articles about scientific theories. It could include, but not be limited to, sections describing the theory, history of the theory, and criticisms of the theory. − − :::I don't know if this type of format will succeed at Conservapedia. Have you seen the article on The Theory of Evolution? What to you think of that format? [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT) − − :: Ed, I think another objection that should be in a Criticisms section of this article is the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, not only in the United States, but worldwide don't accept the validity of ID theory. − ::I stated my opinion about an appropriate format for articles about scientific theories. However, if the format and style used in the current version of the Theory of Evolution article remains as it is, then perhaps it should also apply to this article for the sake of consistency. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)+ + − :::Thanks for that valuable feedback. I left a note on your talk page, and I started [[Template:Scientific theory]] for you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)+ − ==is the watch analogy useful or misleading?==+ − I wonder if the watch analogy is useful or possibly instead misleading. A watch is not a biological entity nor does it reproduce. It reminds me of the Mount Rushmore analogy. Those seem like overly simplistic analogies and I wonder if some readers might find that insulting. I think there are better examples or analogies that those two. Just my opinion. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:22, 3 April 2007 (EDT)+ + − :I think the watch analogy works better for debunking the Big Bang, rather than evolution.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)+ + + − ::How about the Rosetta Stone, [[Stonehenge]], and the statues on Easter Island? Aren't they indicative of human influence, i.e., don't they show signs of having been designed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)+ + + − + − ::::A watch is an obvious example of human design (and note no one claims we cannot identify the identity of the watch making intelligent designer) but a watch is not a biological entity and I believe ID argues for a designer of biological entity. I'm not wanting to debate or cause a stir, it just seems overly simplistic and is not comparing apples with apples yet it implies the opposite. If you are in a watch making factory and see a stray cat in the warehouse do you assume a human designer as you do with the watches? + + + − ::::When I read the watch analogy my reaction was sort of "who are you trying to fool?" (and I believe in ID). I wish we had something better to use but I don't have any suggestions yet. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)+ + − :::: Is the point not that the "great designer", or whatever it is to be called, is infinitely more powerful/intelligent than mankind and as such is capable of infinitely greater complexity of construction? Our puny earthling brains cannot comprehend the intelligence behind the design involved in the universe and so we need to reduce the argument to something which we can relate to comfortably. How are we supposed to understand something (even the idea behind it) if we can't contextualise the argument to something more suiting our own intelligences? We can conceive of designing and creating a watch. The "great designer" is infinitely greater than us, therefore he could conceive of and create the universe. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)+ − :::::When you add what you said Airdish, with "The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation" I get even more unanswered questions. Anyhow, the watch analogy bothers me but it does not bother anyone else and I am cool with that. Thanks for everyone's opinions. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)+ − :::::For me, that's the fundamental problem with ID: Who is the Intelligent Designer? It seems that it still requires a leap of faith and a belief in a higher power. Which, to me, is indistinguishable from religion. I should probably stop now, I'm not here to try to convince you or anyone else away from ID. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − ::::::Well I am not a fan of what I would call the modern intelligent design movement, at least not the version being sold by the [[Discovery Institute]]. Before they came along I and millions of others already know who created the Heavens and Earth and I don't need their "theories" or bacteria speak to justify my faith. So their "it could be a space alien" and "you cannot say or talk about the intelligent designer, but ID is science and not faith" is all less than honest hogwash to me. They claim it could be a space man but the seconed you point out the Raelians truly believe they are in contact with space men they clam up. I am not a Raelian nor do I think the Raelians are on to something, I am just making a point of how absurd some of the modern intelligent design movement leaders claims are. Obviously the "it could be a space alien" is not meant to be taken seriously. But it makes them famous and lines their pockets with plenty of gold so oh well. I just hope the article accurately describes ID without using their clever and less than honest portrayals and arguments. If you believe God created All, why not just say it in the first place is what I have to say to the modern ID movement. But this article sure is better than the Wiki article. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)+ + + + + + − + + + − ==Here, Hear==+ − I hope it's not a waste of bandwidth, but I just want to praise the format of this [[Intelligent_Design|article]]. I have no idea if the content is any good or not, but this should be a template for all controversial subjects. I bashed my brains out at Wikipedia arguing --- not for or against Intelligent Design --- but for something resembling readable and fair. I can't shower you with enough praise for taking this simple and adult stance. I doesn't matter if Intelligent Design is baloney or not. (Let the reader make up his own mind ... because he already has made it up anyway.) + + + + + + + − State the premise. Seperate the discourse into pro's and con's and move on. No more tears. Perfect. Thank you for drawing breath. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − == Creationist vs. Scientists ==+ − Suggest that you add to the begining: The problem between the two sides may be largely a matter of semantics. What scientists call the Universal Force, we call God. What we call Intelligent Design they call Chaos Theory.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 10:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT) − + + − + + − ::: For a start: 'Force' and 'energy' is something different. But that's aside. Forces are deterministic, and chaos, according to Chaos theory, actually as well. Chaos theory says that you cannot predict the behavior, if you allow for inaccurate measurements, but it doesn't say that its non-deterministic or probabilistic. 'The energy that brought forth the universe' is at best a deistic belief, since it doesn't need an interventionist god. At worst it is just a curently unexplained physical force, like the weak electromagnetic force was hundered years ago. Not sure if you feel worshipping such a force; and you obey its laws if you believe in it or not. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 20:45 (AEST)+ − ::::In science the Universal Force is the energy that brought forth the Universe. In this case force does means energy and energy is not deterministic. If science would admit to a deistic god that would be a start but my question would then be if there is'nt an interventionist god who broke the Universal Force into the strong force, weak force, and electromagnitism.Chaos theory has also not been shown to to deterministic. For science to say that we should not believe in God but in the Universal Force is just semantics.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)+ − + − + − + − :::*'Energy' is something different than 'force'. They are two different words, meaning something different. Your 'force'-speak sounds very much like New Age and Star Wars. Maybe that's what attracts you to it. But it's weasel language blurring the important difference between force and energy, and obscuring the deterministic nature of both. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 11:15 (AEST)+ − ==Statements and Analogies==+ − + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Its 2007 wake up
{{protect|CPWebmaster}}
{{pp-protected}}
{{featured article}}{{otheruses}}
{|align="right"
|{{Intelligent Design}}
|-
|{{creationism2}}
|}
<!--The references in the introduction are particularly lengthy and numerous - HTML comments (like this one) have been used to make this a little easier to navigate-->
'''Intelligent design''' is the proposition that certain features of the [[universe]] and of [[life|living things]] can be better explained by an [[intelligent designer|intelligent cause]] rather than natural processes such as [[natural selection]].<!--
REFERENCE
--><ref name=DIposition>Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign Questions about Intelligent Design]: What is the theory of intelligent design? "''The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.''"<br>• [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1136 Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell] Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA)<br>• [http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ Intelligent Design] Intelligent Design network.</ref><!--
TEXT
--> It is a modern form of the [[Teleological_argument|teleological argument]] (an argument for the existence of God), framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer.<!--
REFERENCE
--><ref>"ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer.""this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley" (the [[teleological argument]]) "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God." [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 24 of 139|Ruling]], [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]], December, 2005<Br>"intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer." "the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy.", [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=565 Discovery Institute Truth Sheet # 09-05 ''Does intelligent design postulate a “supernatural creator?”''] (pdf)</ref><!--
TEXT
--> Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the [[Discovery Institute]],<!--
REFERENCE
--><ref><cite>"Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes."</cite> [[Barbara Forrest]], 2005, testifying in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]] trial. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6pm.html Kitzmiller Dove Testimony, Barbara Forrest]<br>• "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=3a7c120f2a6b4972&ex=1160107200 Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive] Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005.<br>• [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16371res20050916.html Who is behind the ID movement?] Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", [[American Civil Liberties Union]].<br>• "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&id=2745 The Evolution of George Gilder] Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, July 27 2005.<br>• [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=602 "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents," Science & Religion Guide] Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file)<br>• "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute." [http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/116/5/1134 Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action] Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation.</ref><ref name="aaas_pr">[http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/issues/peerreview.shtml Intelligent Design and Peer Review] American Association for the Advancement of Science.</ref><!--
TEXT
--> believe the designer to be the [[Abrahamic God]],<!--
REFERENCE
--><ref>"the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 26 of 139|Ruling]], [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]], December, 2005</ref><!--
TEXT
--> and claim that intelligent design is a [[Science|scientific]] [[theory]] that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the [[evolution]] and [[origin of life]].<!--
REFERENCE
--><ref>Stephen C. Meyer, 2005. Ignatius Press. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1780 The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories]. See also [[Darwin's Black Box]]. </ref>
<!--TEXT-->
The overwhelming [[scientific consensus|consensus]] in the [[scientific community]] is that intelligent design is not science;<!-- PLEASE NOTE that the scientific community never "states" anything, it only makes considerations through scientific consensus --><!--
REFERENCE
--><ref name=unscientific>See: 1) [[List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design]] 2) [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 83 of 139|Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83]]. 3) The Discovery Institute's [[A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism]] petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 600 scientists" as of [[August 20]], [[2006]]. A four day [[A Scientific Support for Darwinism]] petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml firmly rejects ID]. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators [http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes]. [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8408_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp List of statements from scientific professional organizations] on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.</ref><!--
TEXT
--> The [[National Science Teachers Association]] and others have termed it [[pseudoscience]],<!--
REFERENCE
--><ref>"for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." [http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/fall2005/mu.pdf Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design] David Mu. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.<br>• National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "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." [http://www.nsta.org/pressroom&news_story_ID=50794 National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush] National Science Teachers Association Press Release [[August 3]] [[2005]] <br>• [http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/116/5/1134#B1 Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action] Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.</ref><!--
TEXT
--> and some have termed it [[junk science]].<!--
REFERENCE
--><ref><cite>"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."</cite> H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.[http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't.] <br>• Also, [[Robert T. Pennock]] Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. <br>• [http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11553 Junk science] Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.
<!-- End of quotation --> </ref><!--
TEXT
--> The [[United States National Academy of Sciences|U.S. National Academy of Sciences]] has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of [[supernatural]] intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by [[experiment]], do not generate any predictions, and propose no new [[hypothesis|hypotheses]] of their own.<!--
REFERENCE
--><ref> National Academy of Sciences, 1999 [http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/25.html Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition]
<!-- End of quotation --> </ref>
In ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'' (2005), a [[United States federal courts|United States federal court]] ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the [[Establishment Clause of the First Amendment|Establishment Clause]] of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]]. [[United States district court|United States District Judge]] [[John E. Jones III]] ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.<!--
REFERENCE
--><ref>[[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion|Ruling]], [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]], Case No. 04cv2688. [[December 20]] [[2005]]</ref><!--
TEXT
--> During the trial, intelligent design advocate [[Michael Behe]] testified under oath that no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.<!--
REFERENCE
--><ref name=kitzruling_pg88> [[Wikisource: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]]<!-- End of quotation --><br />Pieret, John, [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/kitzmiller.html The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines], TalkOrigins Archive. (A response to a criticism of Jones' decision)</ref><!--
TEXT-->
== Arguments ==
==Overview==
Intelligent design (ID) is presented as an alternative to [[natural science|natural]] explanations for the development of life. It stands in opposition to conventional [[biology|biological]] science, which relies on the [[scientific method]] to explain [[life]] through observable processes such as [[mutation]] and [[natural selection]]. However, intelligent design has no scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed scientific journals or similar to support it.<ref name=kitzruling_pg88> [[Wikisource: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>
The stated purpose of intelligent design is to investigate whether or not existing [[empiricism|empirical]] evidence implies that [[life on Earth]] must have been designed by an [[intelligence (trait)|intelligent]] agent or agents. [[William A. Dembski]], one of intelligent design's leading proponents, has stated that the fundamental claim of intelligent design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."<ref>Dembski. The Design Revolution. pg. 27 2004 </ref> In a leaked Discovery Institute memo, commonly known as the [[Wedge strategy|Wedge Document]], however, the supporters of the movement were told, "We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design. Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."<ref name=wedge1>Though intelligent design proponents say publicly the purpose of ID is to search for design, they've stated a very different goal to their constituency:
<br>•<cite>"We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."</cite> [http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf The Wedge Strategy] [[Discovery Institute]], [[Center for Science and Culture|Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture]]. 1998 (PDF file)
<br>That the stated purpose of intelligent design is merely a scientific pretense covering a religious agenda is widely believed:
<br>•<cite>"members of the national ID movement insist that their attacks on evolution aren’t religiously motivated, but, rather, scientific in nature." ... "Yet the express strategic objectives of the Discovery Institute; the writings, careers, and affiliations of ID’s leading proponents; and the movement’s funding sources all betray a clear moral and religious agenda."</cite> [http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10084 Inferior Design] Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, [[August 10]] [[2005]] '
<br>•<cite>"ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief."</cite> [http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/experts/Forrest_expert_report.pdf Expert Witness Report] [[Barbara Forrest]] [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]], April 2005. (PDF file) </ref>
Proponents of intelligent design look for [[scientific evidence|evidence]] of what they term "signs of intelligence": [[physical property|physical properties]] of an object that point to a designer (''see'': [[teleological argument]]). For example, if an archeologist finds a statue made of stone in a field, he may, ID proponents argue, justifiably conclude that the statue was designed and then reasonably seek to identify the statue's designer. He would not, however, be justified in making the same claim if he found an irregularly shaped boulder of the same size. Design proponents argue that living systems show great complexity, from which they infer that some aspects of life have been designed.
Intelligent design proponents say that although evidence pointing to the nature of an "intelligent cause or agent" may not be directly [[observation|observable]], its effects on nature can be detected. Dembski, in ''Signs of Intelligence'', states: "Proponents of intelligent design regard it as a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes. Note that intelligent design studies the ''effects'' of intelligent causes and not intelligent causes ''per se''." In his view, one cannot test for the identity of influences exterior to a closed system from within, so questions concerning the identity of a designer fall outside the realm of the concept. However, no rigorous test that can identify these effects has yet been proposed.<ref> "...the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims..." [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8408_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory] [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]], 2002.</ref><ref>[[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 70 of 139|Kitzmiller v. Dover page 70]], [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]], December 2005. page 70</ref>
According to a 2005 Harris poll, ten percent of adults in the United States view human beings as "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them".<ref>[http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581 Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God] The Harris Poll #52, July 6 2005.</ref> Although some polls commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support, these polls have been criticized as suffering from considerable flaws, such as having a low response rate (248 out of 16,000), being conducted on behalf of an organization with an expressed interest in the outcome of the poll, and containing leading questions.<ref name="Polling_for_ID">{{cite web | url = http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/polling/ | title = Polling for ID | accessdate = 2007-02-16 | last = Mooney | first = Chris | date = 2003-09-11 | work = Doubt and About | publisher = Committee for Skeptical Inquiry}}</ref>
===Origins of the concept===
Philosophers have long debated whether the complexity of nature indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator. The first recorded arguments for a natural designer come from [[Greek philosophy]]. In the 4th century BC, [[Plato]] posited a natural "[[demiurge]]" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]''. [[Aristotle]] also developed the idea of a natural creator of the cosmos, often called the "[[Cosmological argument|Prime Mover]]," in his work ''[[Metaphysics (Aristotle)|Metaphysics]]''. In ''De Natura Deorum'', or "''On the Nature of the Gods''" (45 BC), [[Cicero]] stated that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature."<ref>[[Cicero]], ''De Natura Deorum'', [http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/nd.shtml Latin Library].</ref>
The use of this line of reasoning as applied to a supernatural designer has come to be known as the [[teleological argument]] for the existence of [[God]]. The most notable forms of this argument were expressed in the 13th century by [[Thomas Aquinas]] in his ''[[Summa Theologica|Summa Theologiae]]'',<ref>[[Thomas Aquinas]], ''[[Summa Theologica|Summa Theologiae]]''. "[http://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS%20Subjects/Philosophyofreligion/fiveways.htm Thomas Aquinas' 'Five Ways']" in ''faithnet.org.uk''. He [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 2: context#Page 24 of 139|framed the argument]] as a [[syllogism]]: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer.</ref> design being the fifth of Aquinas' five proofs for God's existence, and by [[William Paley]] in his book ''Natural Theology'' (1802).<ref>[[William Paley]], ''[http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/p/pd-modeng/pd-modeng-idx?type=header&id=PaleyNatur Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity]'', 1809, London, Twelfth Edition.</ref> Paley used the [[watchmaker analogy]], which is still used in intelligent design arguments. In the early 19th century, such arguments led to the development of what was called [[natural theology]], the study of [[biology]] as a search to understand "the mind of God." This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens that ultimately led to [[Charles Darwin|Darwin's]] theory of [[Origin of Species|the origin of species]]. Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in [[theistic evolution]], who consider modern science and the theory of [[evolution]] to be fully compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer.
Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern development of natural theology which seeks to change the basis of science and undermine evolution theory. As evolutionary theory has expanded to explain more phenomena, the examples that are held up as evidence of design have changed. But the essential argument remains the same: complex systems imply a designer. Examples offered in the past included the eye (optical system) and the feathered wing; current examples are mostly [[biochemical]]: protein functions, blood clotting, and bacterial [[flagella]] (see [[irreducible complexity]]).
The earliest known version of the particular line of reasoning that would come to be called "intelligent design" began, according to [[Barbara Forrest|Dr Barbara Forrest]], "in the early 1980s with the publication of ''The Mystery of Life's Origin'' (MoLO 1984) by creationist chemist [[Charles Thaxton|Charles B. Thaxton]] with Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen. Thaxton worked for Jon A. Buell at the [[Foundation for Thought and Ethics]] (FTE) in Texas, a religious organization that published MoLO."<ref>Dr Barbara Forrest. [http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/11/8448/52824 Know Your Creationists: Know Your Allies] </ref>
Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific [[intelligent designer|agent of creation]] — it merely states that one (or more) must exist. Although intelligent design itself does not name the designer, the personal view of many proponents is that the designer is the [[Christianity|Christian]] god.<ref name=dembski_logos>Dembski: <cite>"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,"</cite> [http://touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=49 Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999]</ref><ref name=wedge1/><ref name=wedge2>Phillip Johnson: <cite>"''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.''"</cite> Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca. [http://www.christianity.ca/news/social-issues/2004/03.001.html Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin]. <cite>"''This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy.''"</cite> Johnson 1996. World Magazine. [http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/world2.html Witnesses For The Prosecution]. <cite>"''So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the [[Wedge strategy|"wedge" strategy]]: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do.''"</cite> Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. [http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.5docs/15-5pg40.html Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson]</ref> Whether this was a genuine feature of the concept or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]] court ruling held the latter to be the case.
===Origins of the term===
Though unrelated to the current use of the term, the phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of ''Scientific American'' and in an 1850 book by [[Patrick Edward Dove]].<ref>[[Patrick Edward Dove|Dove, Patrick Edward]], The theory of human progression, and natural probability of a reign of justice. London, Johnstone & Hunter, 1850. LC 08031381 "Intelligence-Intelligent Design."</ref> The term is also used in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the [[British Association for the Advancement of Science]] by [[William Paley|Paleyite]] botanist [[George James Allman]]
<blockquote>No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible—in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design.<ref>'The British Association', ''The Times'', Saturday, [[20 September]] [[1873]]; pg. 10; col A. </ref></blockquote>
The term can be found again in ''Humanism'', a 1903 book by one of the founders of classical [[pragmatism]], [[Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller|F.C.S. Schiller]]: "It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design." A derivative of the term appears in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) in the article on the [[Teleological argument|''Telological argument for the existence of God'']] : "Stated most succinctly, [the argument] runs: The world exhibits [[teleological]] order (design, adaptation). Therefore, it was produced by an intelligent designer." The term "intelligent design" was also used in the early 1980s by Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] as part of his promotion of [[panspermia]].<ref>'Evolution according to Hoyle: Survivors of disaster in an earlier world', By Nicholas Timmins, ''The Times'', Wednesday, [[13 January]] [[1982]]; pg. 22; Issue 61130; col F. </ref>
The predominant modern use of the term began after the [[Supreme Court of the United States]], in the case of [[Edwards v. Aguillard]] (1987), ruled that [[creationism]] is unconstitutional in public school science curricula. [[Stephen C. Meyer]], cofounder of the [[Discovery Institute]] and vice president of the [[Center for Science and Culture]], reports that the term came up in 1988 at a conference he attended in [[Tacoma, Washington]], called ''Sources of Information Content in DNA''.<ref>William Safire. The New York Times. [[August 21]] [[2005]].[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/magazine/21ONLANGUAGE.html?position=&ei=5090&en=f2de0d764cc7e0e8&ex=1282276800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1132902202-gyP0H4EZfG7IeNHPMWlcBw On Language: Neo-Creo] </ref> He attributes the phrase to [[Charles Thaxton]], editor of ''[[Of Pandas and People]]''. In drafts of the book ''Of Pandas and People'', the word 'creationism' was subsequently changed, almost without exception, to ''intelligent design''. The book was published in 1989 and is considered to be the first intelligent design book.<ref>National Association of Biology Teachers. [http://www.nabt.org/sub/evolution/panda1.asp A Reader's Guide to Of Pandas and People] National Center for Science Education. [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8442_1_introduction_iof_pandas__11_23_2004.asp Of Pandas and People, the foundational work of the Intelligent Design movement] </ref> The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar [[Phillip E. Johnson]] following his 1991 book ''[[Darwin on Trial]]'', which advocated redefining science to allow claims of supernatural creation.<ref>"Although science has made great progress by limiting itself to explaining only through natural causes, Johnson would have us allow the occasional supernatural intervention for those phenomena that cause problems for his particular theology. Though he has no objection to natural explanations for how fluids pass through a cell membrane, we need to leave room for a "whimsical creator" (p. 31) or God’s "inscrutable purpose" (p. 71) to explain the origin of life or the origin of complex body plans. Confusing unsolved with unsolveable[sic], he wishes us to stop seeking natural causes for these phenomena. Johnson wishes to take us back to an earlier, less scientifically productive time when science had to wait for religious approval before daring to explain something that was religiously sensitive." [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/resources/165252685546.asp Darwin On Trial: A Review] by Eugenie C. Scott. [[NCSE]]</ref> Johnson, considered the "father" of the [[intelligent design movement]], went on to work with Meyer, becoming the program advisor of the [[Center for Science and Culture]] in forming and executing the [[wedge strategy]].
==Concepts==
===Irreducible complexity===
{{main|Irreducible complexity}}
In the context of intelligent design, irreducible complexity was put forth by [[Michael Behe]], who defines it as "a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."<ref>Behe, Michael (1997): ''Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference'' [http://www.apologetics.org/machines.html]</ref>
Behe uses the [[analogy]] 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. Removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Intelligent design advocates assert that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selectable function is present only when all parts are assembled. Behe's original examples of alleged<ref>Irreducible complexity of these examples is disputed; see Kitzmiller, pp. 76–78, and [http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/01/ken_miller_webc.html Ken Miller Webcast] </ref><ref>The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" Kenneth R. Miller Brown University[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref> irreducibly complex biological mechanisms instead include the bacterial [[flagellum]] of ''[[E. coli]]'', the [[blood clotting]] cascade, [[cilia]], and the adaptive [[immune system]].
:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Critics point out<ref> John H. McDonald's "[http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html reducibly complex mousetrap]"</ref><ref>David Ussery, "[http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html A Biochemist's Response to 'The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution']"</ref> that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially. They argue that something which is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary as other components change. Furthermore, they argue, evolution often proceeds by altering preexisting parts or by removing them from a system, rather than by adding them. This is sometimes called the "scaffolding objection" by an analogy with scaffolding, which can support an "irreducibly complex" building until it is complete and able to stand on its own.<ref>For example, [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/5770/97 Bridgham ''et al.'']showed that gradual evolutionary mechanisms can produce complex protein-protein interaction systems from simpler precursors. {{cite journal| author =Bridgham ''et al.'' | year =2006| title = Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation| journal =Science| volume =312 | issue =5770 | pages =97–101}}</ref>
Behe himself has since confessed to "sloppy prose," and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."<ref>{{cite news | last = Orr | first = H. Allen | title = Devolution | publisher = [[The New Yorker]] | date = 2005-05-30 | url = http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact }} This article draws from the following exchange of letters in which Behe admits to sloppy prose and non-logical proof: {{cite web | last = Behe | first = M. | coauthors = Dembski, Wells, Nelson, Berlinski | title = Has Darwin met his match? Letters - An exchange over ID | publisher = [[Discovery Institute]] | date = 2003-03-26 | url = http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&id=1406 | format = HTML | accessdate = 2006-11-30 }}</ref> Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; however, in the Dover trial, the court held that "Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."<ref>[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#4._Whether_ID_is_Science Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 64]</ref>
::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)
===Specified complexity===
{{main|Specified complexity}}
The intelligent design concept of "specified complexity" was developed by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian [[William Dembski]]. Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and specified, simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes. He provides the following examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A [[Shakespearean]] [[sonnet]] is both complex and specified."<ref>Dembski. Intelligent Design, p. 47 </ref> He states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as [[DNA]].
Dembski defines complex specified information as anything with a less than 1 in 10<sup>150</sup> chance of occurring by (natural) chance. Critics say that this renders the argument a [[Tautology (logic)|tautology]]: Complex specified information (CSI) cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature.
::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)
The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument is strongly disputed by the scientific community.<ref>Nowak quoted. Claudia Wallis. Time Magazine, [[15 August]] [[2005]] edition, page 32 [http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1090909,00.html Evolution Wars] </ref> Specified complexity has yet to be shown to have wide applications in other fields as Dembski asserts. John Wilkins and [[Wesley R. Elsberry|Wesley Elsberry]] characterize Dembski's "explanatory filter" as ''eliminative'', because it eliminates explanations sequentially: first regularity, then chance, finally defaulting to design. They argue that this procedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because the asymmetric way it treats the different possible explanations renders it prone to making false conclusions.<ref>John S. Wilkins and Wesley R. Elsberry. Biology and Philosophy, 16: 711–724. 2001. [http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1023/A:1012282323054 The Advantages of Theft over Toil: The Design Inference and Arguing from Ignorance] </ref> Richard Dawkins, another critic of intelligent design, argues in ''[[The God Delusion]]'' that allowing for an intelligent designer to account for unlikely complexity only postpones the problem, as such a designer would need to be at least as complex <ref>{{cite book|author=Richard Dawkins|title=The God Delusion|year=2006|id=ISBN 0-618-68000-4}}</ref>
::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)
===Fine-tuned universe===
{{main|Fine-tuned universe}}
Intelligent design proponents also raise occasional arguments outside biology, most notably an argument based on the concept of the [[Fine-tuned universe|fine-tuning of universal constants]] that make matter and life possible, and allegedly are not attributable to chance. These include the values of [[fundamental physical constants]], the relative strength of [[nuclear force]]s, [[electromagnetism]], [[gravity]] between [[fundamental particles]], as well as the ratios of masses of such particles. Intelligent design proponent and [[Center for Science and Culture]] fellow [[Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer)|Guillermo Gonzalez]] argues that if any of these values were even slightly different, the universe would be dramatically different, with many [[chemical elements]] and features of the universe like [[galaxies]] being impossible to form.<ref>{{cite book|author=Guillermo Gonzalez|title=The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery|year=2004|id=ISBN 0-89526-065-4}}</ref> Thus, proponents argue, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular outcome. Scientists almost unanimously have responded that this argument cannot be tested and is not scientifically productive. Some scientists argue that even when taken as mere speculation, these arguments are poorly supported by existing evidence.<ref>The Panda's Thumb. [http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/privileged_plan_4.html review of The Privileged Planet]</ref> Some intelligent design proponents have posited that the evolution of life, particularly complex forms of life represent a decrease of [[entropy]] and a violation of the [[second law of thermodynamics]]. Critics of ID assert that this is a misapplication of [[thermodynamic]] principles.<ref>{{cite news | last = Sewell | first = Granville | title = Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure | url = http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9128 | work = The American Spectator | date = 2005-12-28 | accessdate = 2007-02-16}}</ref><ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html Entropy, Disorder and Life]</ref><ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3122 Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure]</ref> [[Victor J. Stenger]] and other critics say both intelligent design and the [[Anthropic principle#Variants of the anthropic principle|weak form]] of the [[anthropic principle]] are essentially a [[Tautology (logic)|tautology]]; in his view, these arguments amount to the claim that life is able to exist because the universe is able to support life.<ref>[http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf#search=%22Fine%20tuned%20universe%22 Is The Universe Fine-Tuned For Us?] Victor J. Stenger. University of Colorado. (PDF file)</ref><ref>[http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/ant_encyc.pdf The Anthropic Principle] Victor J. Stenger. University of Colorado. (PDF file)</ref><ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/full/443145a.html Our place in the Multiverse] Joseph Silk. Nature, Volume 443 Number 7108, September 14 2006.</ref> The claim of the improbability of a life-supporting universe has also been criticized as an [[argument by lack of imagination]] for assuming no other forms of life are possible. Life as we know it might not exist if things were different, but a different sort of life might exist in its place. A number of critics also suggest that many of the stated variables appear to be interconnected and that calculations made by mathematicians and physicists suggest that the emergence of a universe similar to ours is quite probable.<ref>''See, e.g.,'' Gerald Feinberg and Robert Shapiro, "A Puddlian Fable" in Huchingson, ''Religion and the Natural Sciences'' (1993), pp. 220–221</ref>
===Intelligent designer===
{{main|Intelligent designer}}
Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent they posit. Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene. Though Dembski in ''The Design Inference'' speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements, the authoritative description of intelligent design<ref>"The theory of Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.''" Discovery Institute. What is Intelligent Design? [http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign Questions About Intelligent Design] </ref> explicitly states that the ''universe'' displays features of having been designed. Acknowledging the [[paradox]], Dembski concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."<ref>Dembski. [http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-the_ac.html The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendence and Immanence] </ref> The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the [[Christianity|Christian]] god, to the exclusion of all other religions.<ref name=dembski_logos/>
Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics go so far as to argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science. For example, Jerry Coyne, of the [[University of Chicago]], asks why a designer would "give us a pathway for making vitamin C, but then destroy it by disabling one of its enzymes" and why he or she would not "stock oceanic islands with reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and freshwater fish, despite the suitability of such islands for these species." Coyne also points to the fact that "the flora and fauna on those islands resemble that of the nearest mainland, even when the environments are very different" as evidence that species were not placed there by a designer.<ref>Jerry Coyne. [[The New Republic]], [[August 22]] 2005. [http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050822&s=coyne082205 The Case Against Intelligent Design] </ref> Previously, in ''[[Darwin's Black Box]]'', Behe had argued that we are simply incapable of understanding the designer's motives, so such questions cannot be answered definitively. Odd designs could, for example, "have been placed there by the designer... for artistic reasons, to show off, for some as-yet undetectable practical purpose, or for some unguessable reason." Coyne responds that in light of the evidence, "either life resulted not from intelligent design, but from evolution; or the intelligent designer is a cosmic prankster who designed everything to make it look as though it had evolved."<ref>Jerry Coyne: “The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name:
The Case Against Intelligent Design” in ''The New Republic'', Aug 22 & 29, 2005 issue, p. 21-33. Available at
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050822&s=coyne082205 </ref>
Asserting the need for a designer of complexity also raises the question "What designed the designer?"<ref>Dr. Donald E. Simanek. [http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/empty.htm Intelligent Design: The Glass is Empty] </ref> Intelligent design proponents say that the question is irrelevant to or outside the scope of intelligent design.<ref>IDEA <cite>"One need not fully understand the origin or identity of the designer to determine that an object was designed. Thus, this question is essentially irrelevant to intelligent design theory, which merely seeks to detect if an object was designed... Intelligent design theory cannot address the identity or origin of the designer - it is a philosophical / religious question that lies outside the domain of scientific inquiry. Christianity postulates the religious answer to this question that the designer is God who by definition is eternally existent and has no origin. There is no logical philosophical impossibility with this being the case (akin to [[Aristotle]]'s 'unmoved mover') as a religious answer to the origin of the designer..."</cite> FAQ: Who designed the designer? [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1147 FAQ: Who designed the designer?] </ref> Richard Wein counters that the unanswered questions a theory creates "must be balanced against the improvements in our understanding which the explanation provides. Invoking an unexplained being to explain the origin of other beings (ourselves) is little more than [[Begging the question|question-begging]]. The new question raised by the explanation is as problematic as the question which the explanation purports to answer."<ref>Richard Wein. 2002. [http://www.talkreason.org/articles/choc_nfl.cfm#unembodied Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates] </ref> Dawkins sees the claim that the designer does not need to be explained, not as a contribution to knowledge, but as a [[thought-terminating cliché]].<ref name=Rosenhouse> [http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/designer.html Who Designed the Designer?] Jason Rosenhouse. Creation & Intelligent Design Watch, Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.</ref><ref>Richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design pg 141</ref> In the absence of observable, measurable evidence, the very question "What designed the designer?" leads to an [[turtles all the way down|infinite regression]] from which intelligent design proponents can only escape by resorting to religious creationism or logical contradiction.<ref name=Rosenhouse/><ref>See, e.g., Joseph Manson, "Intelligent design is pseudoscience", ''UCLA Today'' Vol. 26. No.2 Sept. 27, 2005. [http://www.today.ucla.edu/2005/050927voices_pseudoscience.html]; Rev Max, "The Incredibly Strange Story of Intelligent Design", ''New Dawn Magazine'' No. 97 (July-August 2006)</ref>
==Movement==
{{main|Intelligent design movement}}
The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized [[Neo-Creationism|neocreationist]] campaign directed by the [[Discovery Institute]] to promote a religious agenda<ref><cite>"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the 'thin edge of the wedge,' was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."</cite> [http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf Wedge Document] Discovery Institute, 1999. (PDF file)</ref> calling for broad social, academic and political changes employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the [[United States]]. Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the [[secular]] philosophy of [[Naturalism (philosophy)|Naturalism]]. Intelligent design proponents allege that science should not be limited to naturalism and should not demand the adoption of a naturalistic [[Philosophy of science|philosophy]] that dismisses out of hand any explanation which contains a supernatural cause. The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat [the] [[Materialism|materialist]] [[world view]]" represented by the theory of [[evolution]] in favor of "a science consonant with [[Christian]] and [[Theism|theistic]] convictions."<ref name="wedge_doc">[http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf Wedge Document] Discovery Institute, 1999.</ref>
I find this "Bible argument" Hillarious. ID is simply idetifying in matter that an intelligent entity influenced it's existsnce. DNA and Natural law as well as the constant sad picture of mosaics show that Intelligent Design is simply identifying that the matter was created by something intelligent. There are Buddhists, Daoists, New Age, Hidnu, Moslem and Jewish people who publically support it in college. What a sad croc for evolutionsits to say it has to do with the Bible. --[[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 11:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
[[Phillip E. Johnson]] stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast [[creationism]] as a scientific concept.<ref name=wedge2/><ref name=PJC><cite>"''I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."..."Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"..."I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves.''"</cite> Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. [http://www.coralridge.org/specialdocs/evolutiondebate.asp How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won] </ref> All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its [[Center for Science and Culture]].<ref>Discovery Institute fellows and staff. [http://www.discovery.org/fellows/ ] Center for Science and Culture fellows and staff. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php ]</ref> Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement are the products of the Discovery Institute, which guides the movement and follows its [[wedge strategy]] while conducting its adjunct [[Teach the Controversy]] campaign.
== "notable"? ==
Leading intelligent design proponents have made conflicting statements regarding intelligent design. In statements directed at the general public, they say intelligent design is not religious; when addressing conservative Christian supporters, they state that intelligent design has its foundation in the [[Bible]].<ref name=PJC/> Recognizing the need for support, the institute affirms its Christian, evangelistic orientation: "''Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to 'popularize' our ideas in the broader culture.''"<ref name="wedge_doc"/>
[[Barbara Forrest]], an expert who has written extensively on the movement, describes this as being due to the Discovery Institute's obfuscating its agenda as a matter of policy. She has written that the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious world-view that undergirds[sic] it."<ref>Barbara Forrest. 2001. "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/wedge.html The Wedge at Work: Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics]</ref>
===Religion and leading proponents===
Although intelligent design's arguments are formulated in [[secular]] terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer, most of the principal intelligent design advocates are [[Evangelicalism|evangelical]] Christians who have stated that in their view the "designer" is [[God]]. [[Phillip E. Johnson]], [[William Dembski]], and [[Stephen C. Meyer]], are [[Protestantism|Protestants]], [[Michael Behe]] is [[Roman Catholic]], and [[Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)|Jonathan Wells]], another principal advocate, is a member of the [[Unification Church]]. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments which are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of [[theism|theistic]] [[creationism]] is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the designer. Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having intelligent design identified "as just another way of packaging the [[evangelical Christian|Christian evangelical]] message."<ref>Phillip Johnson. ''Keeping the Darwinists Honest'', an interview with Phillip Johnson. Citizen Magazine. April 1999. <cite>"Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. ... The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed."</cite></ref> Johnson emphasizes that "the first thing that has to be done is to get the [[Bible]] out of the discussion"; "after we have separated [[scientific materialism|materialist]] [[prejudice]] from scientific fact ... only then can 'biblical issues' be discussed."<ref>Phillip Johnson. Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. July/August 1999.<cite>"...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."</cite> [http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/le_wedge.htm The Wedge] </ref>
"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
The [[wedge strategy|strategy]] of deliberately disguising the religious intent of intelligent design has been described by William Dembski in ''The Design Inference''.<ref name="Design Inference">William Dembski, 1998. The Design Inference.</ref> In this work Demski' lists a [[god]] or an "[[extraterrestrial life|alien life force]]" as two possible options for the identity of the designer; however, in his book ''Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology,'' Dembski states that "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ."<ref>Dembski, 1999. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. ''"Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ."'' p. 210</ref> Dembski also stated, "ID is part of God's [[general revelation]] [...] Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology ([[materialism]]), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ."<ref>Dembski. 2005. Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris.[http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm Reply to Henry Morris]</ref> Both Johnson and Dembski cite the Bible's [[Gospel of John]] as the foundation of intelligent design.<ref name=dembski_logos/><ref name=PJC/>
Barbara Forrest contends that such statements reveal that leading proponents see intelligent design as essentially religious in nature, not merely a scientific concept that has implications with which their personal religious beliefs happen to coincide.<ref>Barbara Forrest. Expert Testimony. ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'' trial transcript, Day 6 ([[October 5]]) <cite>"What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own." ... "Intelligent design, as it is understood by the proponents that we are discussing today, does involve a supernatural creator, and that is my objection. And I am objecting to it as they have defined it, as Professor Johnson has defined intelligent design, and as Dr. Dembski has defined intelligent design. And both of those are basically religious. They involve the supernatural."</cite> </ref>
==Controversy==
A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is convincing the general public that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved, in order to convince the public, politicians and cultural leaders that schools should "[[teach the controversy]]."<ref>Seattle Times. [[March 31]] 2005.[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002225932_design31m.html Does Seattle group "teach controversy" or contribute to it?] </ref> However, there is no such debate within the scientific community; the [[scientific consensus]] is that life evolved.<ref>National Association of Biology Teachers [http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp Statement on Teaching Evolution]</ref><ref>[http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the [[United Kingdom|United Kingdom's]] [[Royal Society]] (PDF file)</ref><ref>From the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]], the world's largest general scientific society: [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] (PDF file), [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws]</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>[http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/intelligent-design-a-trojan-horse-says-creationist/2005/11/26/1132966007431.html Intelligent design a Trojan horse, says creationist] Mark Coultan, Sydney Morning Herald [[November 27]] 2005</ref><ref>[http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cs_2005_02_special Intelligent Design: Creationism's Trojan Horse, A Conversation With Barbara Forrest] Americans United for Separation of Church and State, February 2005 </ref>
The intelligent design controversy centers on three issues:
# Can intelligent design be defined as science?
# If so, does the evidence support it and related explanations of the history of life on Earth?
# If the answer to either question is negative, is the teaching of such explanations appropriate and legal in public education, specifically in [[science]] classes?
[[Natural science]] uses the [[scientific method]] to create ''[[a posteriori]]'' knowledge based on observation alone (sometimes called [[empiricism|empirical science]]). Intelligent design proponents seek to change this definition<ref>Barbara Forrest, 2000. "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection]." In ''Philo,'' Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall-Winter 2000), pp. 7–29.</ref> by eliminating "[[methodology|methodological]] [[naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]]" from science<ref>Phillip E. Johnson. Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education (InterVarsity Press, 1995), positions himself as a "theistic realist" against "methodological naturalism."</ref> and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, [[Phillip E. Johnson]], calls "[[theistic realism]]",<ref>Phillip Johnson. <cite>"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."</cite> [http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/ratzsch.htm Starting a Conversation about Evolution]</ref> and what critics call "methodological supernaturalism," which means belief in a transcendent, nonnatural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, nonnatural deity. Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena and that supernatural explanations provide a very simple and intuitive<ref>Phillip E. Johnson, quoted. 2001. Teresa Watanabe. Los Angeles Times (Sunday Front page) [[March 25]] [[2001]]. <cite>"We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise,"</cite> Johnson said. In challenging Darwinism with a God-friendly alternative theory, the professor, who is a Presbyterian, added, <cite>"We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."</cite> [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?programs=CSCstories&command=view&id=613 Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator: Believers in 'intelligent design' try to redirect evolution disputes along intellectual lines]</ref> explanation for the origins of life and the universe. Proponents say that evidence exists in the forms of [[irreducible complexity]] and [[specified complexity]] that cannot be explained by natural processes.<ref name=DIposition/>
Supporters 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>Joel Belz, 1996. World Magazine. [http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/world2.html Witnesses For The Prosecution]</ref><ref>Phillip E. Johnson. American Family Radio. [[January 10]] 2003 <cite>"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."</cite> [http://www.christianity.ca/news/social-issues/2004/03.001.html Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin]</ref><ref>Jon Buell & Virginia Hearn (eds), 1992. Proceedings of a Symposium entitled: [http://ebd10.ebd.csic.es/pdfs/DarwSciOrPhil.pdf Darwinism: Scientific Inference of Philosophical Preference?]" (PDF file)</ref>
According to critics, intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case and is an attempt to teach religion in public schools, which the [[United States Constitution]] forbids under the [[Establishment Clause of the First Amendment|Establishment Clause]]. They allege that intelligent design has substituted public support for scientific research.<ref>[[Karl Giberson]]. [[Science & Theology News]], [[December 5]] [[2005]] [http://www.stnews.org/Commentary-2439.htm Intelligent design’s long march to nowhere] </ref> Furthermore, if one were to take the proponents of "equal time for all theories" at their word, there would be no logical limit to the number of potential "theories" to be taught in the public school system, including intelligent design parodies like the [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]] "theory." There are innumerable mutually incompatible supernatural explanations for complexity, and intelligent design does not provide a mechanism for discriminating among them. Furthermore, intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable, which critics argue violates the scientific requirement of [[falsifiability]]. Indeed, intelligent design proponent [[Michael Behe]] concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."<ref>Claudia Wallis. Time Magazine, [[August 15]] [[2005]]. page 32 [http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1090909,00.html Evolution Wars]</ref>
Though evolution theory does not seek to explain [[abiogenesis]], the generation of life from nonliving matter, intelligent design proponents cannot ''infer'' that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically, since they have not shown that anything supernatural has occurred. The inference that an intelligent designer (a god or an alien life force)<ref name="Design Inference"/> created life on Earth has been compared to the ''[[A priori and a posteriori (philosophy)|a priori]]'' claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids.<ref>Michael J. Murray, n.d. [http://server1.fandm.edu/departments/Philosophy/staticpages/Murray/Providence.pdf Natural Providence (or Design Trouble)] (PDF file)</ref><ref>Dembski. [http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/NRCSEPosReID.html 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?]</ref> In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable, observable or falsifiable, and it violates the principle of [[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."-->
:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]
Although intelligent design proponents aim to gain support by unifying the religious world — Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who believe in a creator — in challenging Darwinism with a God-friendly alternative theory,<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?programs=CSCstories&command=view&id=613 Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator], Teresa Watanabe. Los Angeles Times (Sunday Front page) [[March 25]], [[2001]]</ref> mainstream religious denominations have responded by [[Level of support for evolution#Support for evolution by religious bodies|expressing support for evolution]]. They state that their religious faith is fully compatible with science, which is limited to dealing only with the natural world;<ref>[[Christoph Cardinal Schönborn|Cardinal Schönborn]], who sees "purpose and design in the natural world", has "no difficulty... with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory." October 2005 [http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p91.htm Catechetical Lecture at St. Stephan's Cathedral, Vienna]</ref> a position described by the term ''[[theistic evolution]]''.<ref>[http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp The Creation/Evolution Continuum]by [[Eugenie Scott]], 2000</ref> As well as pointing out that intelligent design is not science, they also reject it for various philosophical and theological reasons.<ref>[http://www.ncccusa.org/pdfs/evolutionbrochurefinal.html Science, Religion, and the Teaching of Evolution in Public School Science Classes] (pdf), The [[National Council of Churches]] Committee on Public Education and Literacy, [http://www.ncccusa.org/news/060330evolution.html Teaching Evolution], March 2006</ref><ref>[http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/IDTHG.html INTELLIGENT DESIGN AS A THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM, George L. Murphy, St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Akron OH], 2002</ref> The arguments of intelligent design have been directly challenged by over 10,000 [[clergy]] signing the [[Clergy Letter Project]]. Prominent scientists who strongly express religious faith, such as the astronomer [[George Coyne]] and the biologist [[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>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part8.asp Intelligent design: is it intelligent; is it Christian?], [[Answers in Genesis|AiG]], February 2006</ref><ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue10/index.shtml#more_than_id More Than Intelligent Design] by [[Hugh Ross]]</ref><ref>[http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/intelligent_design.php Harun Yahya – The "Intelligent Design" Distraction]</ref> and have pointed to previous failures of the same argument.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement] by Carl Wieland, August 2002</ref>
===Defining intelligent design as science===
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating [[phenomenon|phenomena]] and acquiring new [[knowledge]] of the [[natural world]] without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called [[naturalism (philosophy)|methodological naturalism]]. Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to [[materialism|materialist]] [[metaphysical naturalism]] and have often said that not only is their own position scientific, but it is even more scientific than evolution, and that they want a redefinition of science as a revived [[natural theology]] or [[natural philosophy]] to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design."<ref>Stephen C. Meyer, 2005. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1780 The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories]</ref> This presents a [[demarcation problem]], which in the [[philosophy of science]] is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific, it must be:
:* ''Consistent'' (internally and externally)
:* ''Parsimonious'' (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see [[Occam's Razor]])
:* ''Useful'' (describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena)
:* ''Empirically testable and falsifiable'' (see [[Falsifiability]])
:* ''Based on multiple observations'', often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
:* ''Correctable and dynamic'' (changes are made as new data are discovered)
:* ''Progressive'' (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
:* ''Provisional'' or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
The theory part should be removed. Intelligent design is not a theory it is a hypothesis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but 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>Intelligent design is generally internally consistent and logical only within the framework in which it operates. Criticisms are that this framework has at its foundation an unsupported, unjustified assumption: that complexity and improbability must entail design, but the identity and characteristics of the designer are not identified or quantified, nor need they be. The framework of intelligent design, because it rests on a unquantifiable and unverifiable assertion, has no defined boundaries except that complexity and improbability require design, and the designer need not be constrained by the laws of physics.</ref> violates the principle of parsimony,<ref>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.</ref> is not falsifiable,<ref>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.</ref> is not empirically testable,<ref>That intelligent design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that it violates a basic premise of science, naturalism.</ref> and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.<ref>Intelligent design professes to offer an answer that does not need to be defined or explained, the intelligent agent, designer. By asserting a conclusion that cannot be accounted for scientifically, ''the designer'', intelligent design cannot be sustained by any further explanation, and objections raised to those who accept intelligent design make little headway. Thus intelligent design is not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that a conclusion that need not be accounted for has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data.</ref>
In light of its apparent failure to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005, 38 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel laureates]] issued a statement saying "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>The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative. Intelligent design cannot be tested as a scientific theory <cite>"because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."</cite> [http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf Nobel Laureates Initiative] (PDF file)</ref> And in October 2005 a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory."<ref> Faculty of Science, University of New South Wales. [[20 October]] [[2005]]. [http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html Intelligent Design is not Science - Scientists and teachers speak out]</ref>
Critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for [[scientific evidence]] used by most courts, the [[Daubert Standard]]. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four [[Daubert Standard|Daubert criteria]] are:
:* The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
:* The methods should preferably be published in a [[peer review|peer-reviewed]] journal.
:* There should be a known rate of [[error]] that can be used in evaluating the results.
:* The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.
In deciding ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'' on [[December 20]], [[2005]], Judge [[John E. Jones III]] agreed with the plaintiffs, [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion|ruling 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."
====Peer review====
The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community which withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design's being considered valid science.<ref name=kitzruling_pg87> [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 87 of 139|Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science]]</ref> To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed [[scientific journal]].<ref name=kitzruling_pg87/><ref name="aaas_pr"/>
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. Intelligent design proponents believe that their writings are rejected for not conforming to purely naturalistic, nonsupernatural 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>John Hawks. [http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/creation/bush_intelligent_design_2005.html The President and the teaching of evolution]</ref> The issue that the 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 could be accepted by the broader scientific community.
The debate over whether intelligent design produces new research, as any scientific field must, and has legitimately attempted to publish this research, is extremely heated. Both critics and advocates point to numerous examples to make their case. 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>Laurie Goodstein. The New York Times. December 4, 2005. [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html?ex=1291352400&en=feb5138e425b9001&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker]</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>[http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington] regarding publication of a paper by Stephen Meyer</ref> Written by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture Director [[Stephen C. Meyer]], it appeared in the peer-reviewed journal ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' in August 2004. The article was [[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]]). Dembski has written that <cite>"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."</cite><ref> Dembski. Is Intelligent Design a Form of Natural Theology? [http://www.designinference.com/documents/2001.03.ID_as_nat_theol.htm]</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>Beth McMurtrie. The Chronicle Of Higher Education. 2001. "[http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i17/17a00801.htm Darwinism Under Attack]</ref>
In the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover trial]], the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing.<ref name=kitzruling_pg88>[[Wikisource: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 Snoke, which mentioned neither irreducible complexity nor intelligent design and which Behe admitted did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms.<ref name=kitzruling_pg88/> But in sworn testimony, 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/>
== Conservative's "factual error" ==
== why aren't you counting this? ==
Despite this, the Discovery Institute continues to insist that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals,<ref>Discovery Institute. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science Peer-Reviewed, Peer-Edited, and other Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)]</ref> including in their list the two articles mentioned above. Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, pointing out that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Instead, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lack [[impartiality]] and [[rigour|rigor]],<ref><cite>"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."</cite> [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html Index to Creationist Claims] Mark Isaak, TalkOrigins archive 2006 </ref> consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.<ref><cite>"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."</cite> [http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/83-1/p%201%20Brauer%20Forrest%20Gey%20book%20pages.pdf Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution] Matthew J. Brauer, [[Barbara Forrest]], and Steven G. Gey (PDF file)</ref>
[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals]
===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>Dembski. Natural History magazine. April 2002. [http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html Intelligent Design?]</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]], refuted 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|artificiality]].<ref>Shostak. space.com <cite>"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."</cite> [http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_intelligentdesign_051201.html SETI and Intelligent Design] Seth Shostak. SETI Institute, December 2005.</ref>
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>"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." — [[wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 81 of 139|Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 81]]</ref>
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>Taner Edis. Skeptical Inquirer Magazine, March/April 2001 issue. [http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-03/intelligent-design.html Darwin in Mind: Intelligent Design Meets Artificial Intelligence]</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. Furthermore, forays into such areas as [[quantum computing]] seem to indicate that real probabilistic functions may be available in the future. 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>[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1136 Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell] </ref>
===Arguments from ignorance===
[[Eugenie Scott]], along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are [[Argument from ignorance|arguments from ignorance]].<ref name="2002-09-10">Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch. National Center for Science Education. [[September 10]] [[2002]]. [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/996_intelligent_design_not_accep_9_10_2002.asp "Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by Most Scientists]</ref> In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside of science.<ref name="2002-09-10"/> Particularly, [[Michael Behe]]'s demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a [[false dichotomy]] where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. In scientific terms, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" for naturalistic explanations of observed traits of living [[organism]]s. Scott and Branch also contend that the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research.
Intelligent design has also been characterized as a "[[god of the gaps]]" argument, which has the following form:
:*There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
:*The gap is filled with acts of God (or [[Intelligent designer]]) and therefore proves the existence of God (or [[Intelligent designer]]).
A [[God of the Gaps|god of the gaps]] argument is the [[theological]] version of an [[argument from ignorance]]. A key feature of this type of argument is that it merely answers outstanding questions with explanations (often [[supernatural]]) that are unverifiable and ultimately themselves subject to unanswerable questions.<ref>See, e.g., Richard H. Bube, "Man Come Of Age: Bonhoeffer's Response To The God-Of-The-Gaps," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, volume 14 fall (1971), pages 203-220.</ref>
====Improbable versus impossible events====
[[William Dembski]] formulated the [[universal probability bound]], a reformulation of the creationist ''argument from improbability'',<ref> Jason Rosenhouse, (2001). ''[http://www.math.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/sewell.pdf How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics]'' The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol. 23, No. 4, Fall 2001, pp. 3–8.</ref> which he argues is the smallest probability of anything occurring in the universe over all time at the maximum possible rate. This value, 1 in 10<sup>120</sup>, represents a revision of his original formula, which set the value of the universal probability bound at 1 in 10<sup>150</sup>.<ref>William A. Dembski (2004). ''[[The Design Revolution|The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design]]''</ref> In 2005 Dembski again revised his definition to be the inverse of the product of two different quantities, 10<sup>120</sup> and the variable rank complexity of the event under consideration.<ref> The rank complexity is Dembski's φ function, which ranks patterns in order of their [[Kolmogorov complexity|descriptive complexity]]. See [[specified complexity]].</ref>
:::I don't agree with the watch analogy - at all - but I think it works as a statement of intent. It gets the idea across quickly and concisely; it's perfectly serviceable. (I'm not sure where you're going with the Rosetta Stone, et al, argument there Ed, though I am curious to find out). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
In "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences," [[John Allen Paulos]] states that the apparent [[probability|improbability]] of a given scenario cannot necessarily be taken as an indication that this scenario is more unlikely than any other potential one: "Rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a [[bridge (card game)|bridge]] hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion [1 in 6 x 10<sup>11</sup>]. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been [randomly] dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable."
===International status of Intelligent Design===
====UK====
[[Education in the United Kingdom|In the United Kingdom]], [[public education]] includes [[Religious Education]] as a compulsory subject, and many "faith schools" that teach the ethos of particular denominations. When it was revealed that a group called ''[[Truth in Science]]'' had distributed DVDs produced by the Discovery Institute affiliate Illustra Media<ref>"It’s also important that you read a well developed rebuttal to Wired’s misleading accusations. Links to both the article and a response by the Discovery Institute (our partners in the production of Unlocking the Mystery of Life and The Privileged Planet)" [http://www.illustramedia.com/ID01WiredMagPage.htm WIRED Magazine Response] Illustra Media.</ref> featuring Discovery Institute fellows making the case for design in nature,<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2116&program=CSC%20-%20Video%20and%20Curriculum%20-%20Multimedia Unlocking the Mystery of Life] [[Stephen C. Meyer]] and W. Peter Allen. Illustra Media, [[Center for Science and Culture]]. July 15, 2004.</ref> and claimed they were being used by 59 schools,<ref>[http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1957858,00.html Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools] – "PR packs spread controversial theory", James Randerson, ''[[The Guardian]]'' science correspondent, [[November 27]], [[2006]], retrieved [[2007-06-01]]</ref> the [[Department for Education and Skills]] (DfES) stated that "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum" (part of the [[National Curriculum]] which does not apply to [[independent school (UK)|independent school]]s or to [[Education in Scotland]]).<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5392096.stm BBC News-Education-'Design' attack on school science]</ref><ref>[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm061101/text/61101w0010.htm#0611021004183 UK House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 01 Nov 2006]</ref> The DfES subsequently stated that "Intelligent design is not a recognised scientific theory; therefore, it is not included in the science curriculum... Intelligent design can be explored in religious education as part of developing an understanding of different beliefs. It is up to the local SACREs (standing advisory councils on religious education) to set the syllabus for how this should be done. The department is currently working with the [[Qualifications and Curriculum Authority]] to communicate this message to schools."<ref>[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/61218w0006.htm Lords Hansard text for 18 Dec 2006] retrieved [[2007-06-01]]</ref>
====Australia====
The status of intelligent design in Australia is somewhat similar to that in the UK, where religious education occurs in public schools. When the Australian Federal Education Minister, Brendan Nelson, raised the notion of ID being taught in science classes, the public outcry caused the minister to quickly concede that the correct forum for ID, if it were to be taught, is in religious or philosophy classes.<ref>[http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/intelligent-design-not-science-experts/2005/10/20/1129775902661.html "Intelligent design not science: experts"]</ref>
====Other nations====
Intelligent design has received little support outside of the U.S., U.K, and Australia. Plans by Dutch Education Minister [[Maria van der Hoeven]] to "stimulate an academic debate" on the subject in 2005 caused a severe public backlash. After the [[Dutch general election, 2007|2007 elections]] she was succeeded by [[Ronald Plasterk]], described as a "molecular geneticist, staunch atheist and opponent of intelligent design."<ref>[http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2007/02/cabinet_ministers_announced_1.php Cabinet ministers announced (update), on www.dutchnews.nl] Downloaded 18 February, 2007.]</ref> It also received support from the [[Roman Catholic]] [[Cardinal]], [[Christoph Schoenborn]], though others in the Catholic Church strongly oppose it.<ref>Gledhill, Ruth, [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article574768.ece Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible], The Times, October 05, 2005.</ref><ref>Sheriff, Lucy, [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/21/id_vatican_not_science/ Intelligent design 'not science', says Vatican astronomer], The Register, 21st November 2005</ref> While [[creationism]] has strong political clout in many Islamic countries, Intelligent Design has not been adapted to [[Islam]], with creationists there instead partnering with the [[Institute for Creation Research]].<ref>[http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol19/8371_cloning_creationism_in_turkey_12_30_1899.asp Cloning Creationism in Turkey], Taner Edis, [[National Center for Science Education]]</ref>
==See also==
{{col-begin}}
{{col-3}}
* [[Argument from evolution]]
* [[Argument from poor design]]
* [[Clockmaker hypothesis]]
* [[Cosmological argument]]
* [[Creation science]]
* [[Creationism]]
* [[Evolutionary algorithm]]
* [[False analogy]]
* [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]]
{{col-break}}
* [[Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church]]
* [[Intelligent design movement]]
* [[Intelligent falling]]
* [[Junk science]]
* [[List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design]]
* [[List of works on intelligent design]]
* [[Natural theology]]
* [[Neo-Creationism]]
* [[Orgel's rule]]
{{col-break}}
* [[Omphalos (theology)]]
* [[Project Steve]]
* [[Pseudoscience]]
* [[Santorum Amendment]]
* [[Teach the Controversy]]
* [[Teleological argument]]
* [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al.]]
{{col-end}}
==Notes and references==
<div class="references-small" style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;">
<!--See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags-->
<references/>
</div>
:::::: There are two things that strike me about the watch analogy. (1) It contains no references, and (2) It is completely fallacious. The watch 'analogy' only makes sense from the premise of a belief in Intelligent Design. If you follow the logic of Evolution, then it is entirely possible for an evolutionary process to come up with something at least as complex as a watch. [[Richard Dawkins]] in [[Climbing Mount Improbable]] provided many such examples of how evolutionary processes could lead to highly complex and organised systems. Thisnk about the following argument: I believe that the moon is made of cheese, whereas scientists say it is not. However, the moon looks like it is made of cheese, and everything which I have ever seen which are round an pock-marked have all been cheese. Therefore the moon must be made of cheese despite what the scientists say. See - it's complete nonsense. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
==External links==
<div class="references-small" style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;">
===ID perspectives===
*[http://www.arn.org/ Access Research Network]
*[http://www.designinference.com Design Inference: The website of William A. Dembski]
*[http://www.discovery.org Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture] (Hub of the intelligent design movement)
*[http://www.evolutionnews.org EvolutionNews.org] Discovery Institute website tracking media coverage of intelligent design.
*[http://www.idthefuture.com ID The Future] A multiple contributor weblog by Discovery Institute fellows.
*[http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ Intelligent Design Network]
*[http://www.iscid.org/ International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID)]
*[http://www.uncommondescent.com Uncommon Descent] William Dembski's blog
===Non-ID perspectives===
*[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/index.html ACLU site on Intelligent Design]
*[http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/darwinanddesign.html Intelligent Design?] special feature in the Natural History Magazine
*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/design.htm Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Design Arguments for the Existence of God]
*[http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=8 National Center for Science Education articles and other resources about Intelligent Design]
*[http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml Resolution from the American Association for the Advancement of Science]
*[http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309064066/html/index.html Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences] Second Edition (1999)
*[http://www.talkorigins.org Talk Origins Archive] (Archive of a UseNet discussion group)
*[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf 139 page in-depth analysis of intelligent design, irreducible complexity, and the book "Of Pandas and People"] by the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District judge
*[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2005/12/kitzmiller-intelligent-ruling-on.php Kitzmiller: An Intelligent Ruling on 'Intelligent Design'], [[JURIST]]
*[http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/differences.html ID and Creationism]
*[http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/design%20argument%2011%202004.pdf The Design Argument] Elliot Sober, 2004.
*[http://richarddawkins.net/article,129,Natural-Knowledge-and-Natural-Design,Richard-Dawkins Short discussion on Natural ''Knowledge'' and Natural ''Design'' as a contrast to Intelligent Design] by [[Richard Dawkins]]
===Media articles===
*[http://seattleweekly.com/news/0605/discovery-darwin.php Discovery's Creation] An overview of the origin of the intelligent design movement. (Seattle Weekly)
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121601559.html Intelligent Design Deja Vu] What would "intelligent design" science classes look like? All we have to do is look inside some 19th-century textbooks. (Washington Post)
*[http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/5/mooney.asp How the media have covered ID] ([[Columbia Journalism Review]])
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000591.html Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum] ([[Associated Press]])
*[http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1221/p01s01-ussc.html Banned in biology class: intelligent design] ([[Christian Science Monitor]])
*[http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact Devolution] ([[The New Yorker]])
*[http://www.nytimes.com/pages/science/sciencespecial2/ The Evolution Debate] ([[The New York Times]])
*[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5014428 Debating Evolution in the Classroom] ([[National Public Radio|NPR]])
*[http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1142672,00.html Darwin Victorious] ([[Time (magazine)|TIME]])
*[http://www.justicetalking.org/viewprogram.asp?progID=506 Intelligent Design: Scientific Inquiry or Religious Indoctrination?] (Justice Talking)
*[http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/21/2277 Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom] ([[New England Journal of Medicine]])
*[http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/21/opinion/edsafire.php Language: Neo-creo: backlash to 'intelligent design'] ([[International Herald Tribune]])
*[http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/who-owns-intelligent-design Who Owns Intelligent Design?] ([[American Institute of Graphic Arts]])
</div>
:I don't think so. God is interventionist, has a plan, and his own mind. 'Forces' work determistic. I doubt that you want to constrain God to be deterministic. There would be nothing left. [[User:Order]] 6 April, 11:05 (AEST)
==Further reading==
<div class="references-small" style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;">
::The Universal Force is simply the energy that brought forth the universe. Chaos Theory is the idea that what appears to be chaos has a clear pattern. Everything interacts. It is not deterministic.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 10:28, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
*{{Harvard reference | Surname=Humes| Given=Edward | Title=Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul | Publisher=Harper Collins | Place=[[USA]] | Year=2007 |
id = ISBN 9780060885489 | URL=http://www.edwardhumes.com/books/monkey-girl/ }}
*{{Harvard reference | Surname=Forrest | Given=Barbara | Title=Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design | Publisher=Oxford University Press | Place=[[USA]] | Year=2004 | id = ISBN 9780195157420 }}
</div>
:::*What broke up the forces? The expanding universe did, afaik. And that happened at at an exact size and an exact temperature of the universe, that can be computed from quantum physics. The force had no choice other than break apart.
[[Category:Intelligent design|*]]
:::*Chaos theory is a theory that studies the behavior of deterministic functions. However, these deterministic functions are extremely sensitive to the initial conditions. It might look non-deterministic, but it isn't.
[[Category:Neo-Creationism]]
:::*Calling God a force is actually just a bit short of atheism. Why would you worship a 'force'? Or believe in a 'force'? If you belief or not doesn't matter for a 'force'. How would you feel if you would find a tribe that worships magnetism?
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]
[[Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation]]
[[ar:التصميم الذكي]]
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] the first block quote (Paley) has some stucktogether words in it. HTH. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub> 00:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
[[ca:Disseny intel·ligent]]
::Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
[[da:Intelligent design]]
[[de:Intelligent Design]]
[[es:Diseño inteligente]]
[[eo:Inteligenta dezajno]]
[[fr:Dessein intelligent]]
[[ko:지적 설계]]
[[id:Intelligent Design]]
[[it:Disegno intelligente]]
[[he:תכנון תבוני]]
[[hu:Értelmes tervezés]]
[[nl:Intelligent design]]
[[ja:インテリジェント・デザイン]]
[[no:Intelligent design]]
[[pl:Teoria inteligentnego projektu]]
[[pt:Design inteligente]]
[[fi:Älykäs suunnittelu]]
[[sv:Intelligent design]]
[[tr:Akıllı tasarım]]
[[zh:智能设计论]]
[[yi:אינטעליזשענט דעזיין]]