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 theory 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.

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. [3]

Design Theory enjoys a small amount of stated support within the worldwide scientific community (creationist scientists report there is widespread discriminatory action against creationist scientists[4]), 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. [5] 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".

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."[6]

The 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?

Defining intelligent design as science

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge of the natural world without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism. Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to materialist metaphysical naturalism and have often said that not only is their own position scientific(!), but it is even more scientific than evolution (which it patently isn't.), 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." 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)

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, violates the principle of parsimony, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.

In light of its apparent failure to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005, 38 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." 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."

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 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-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, 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."