Intelligent design

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

To date there have been over 40 peer reviewed articles supporting Intelligent Design in such notable publications as the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and internationally respected scientific journals such as Rivista di Biologia. [2]

Design Theory enjoys a small amount of publically stated support within the worldwide scientific community (creationist scientists report there is widespread discriminatory action against creationist scientists[3]), but it is steadily growing. From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists had signed the pro-Intelligent Design manifesto A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism published by the leaders of the design movement, the Discovery Institute. [4] This is largely due to much new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics and biology that has caused scientists to question the claim of a largely atheistic 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, PA Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design was not valid science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".

The ruling has been described by some as "biased and religiously bigoted." [5] In addition, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by ACLU lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [6]

In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League, Jones replied 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]

However, this ruling was made because science is dependent upon observable, empirical, measurable evidence. If a supreme being was responsible for the creation of life, this can not be scientifically proven. Thus, Intelligent Design cannot be a scientific theory. If a supreme being was not responsible, Intelligent Design is a logical paradox - if intelligence is too complex a quality to have occurred by chance, what created the creating intelligence?