Intelligent design

Intelligent Design is the hypothesis that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than natural processes, such as evolution[1]. 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.

The major flaw with so-called Intelligent Design is that it in fact explains nothing. Instead of offering disprovable hypotheses to explain the origin and diversity of life on earth it invokes magic. Most reputable scientists are quick to point out the problem of infinite regression that dooms ID. "If God created the Universe, then who (or what) created God?" ID ends up mired in the irreducible complexity it purports to solve.

Intelligent design looks to the order of the world as evidence of a designer, but George Hammond may have found stronger proof based on psychometric experiments.

To date there has been one peer-reviewed article supporting Intelligent Design in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington [3] However, the journal later withdrew the article citing improper reviewing practices. [4]

Design hypothesis enjoys a small amount of stated support within the worldwide scientific community (creationist scientists report there is widespread discriminatory action against creationist scientists[5]), but it is steadily growing. From 2001 to 2007 over 700 scientists had signed the pro-Intelligent Design manifesto A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism published by the leaders of the design movement, the Discovery Institute. [6] This has caused some scientists to question the claim of the dominant scientific community that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life and call for public school science students to study the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

In a recent trial in Dover, Pennsylvania Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design was not valid science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".

In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League, Jones said that "had I decided the Dover matter in a different way, I would have then engaged in just the kind of judicial activism which critics decry," stating that he was bound by "over a half century of strong legal precedents."[7]