32669 Supernational

We are raises the issue of a "new age force" or "space aliens" being the causal agent. Others have made the object of their complaint naturalism, while the name "Intelligent Design" does not suggest the supernatural. An intelligent designer need not be supernatural, and the supernatural need not be an intelligent designer. Genies are not "teleological" - they fulfil your wishes without concern for the consequences, and a magic ring can be used for good or evil. Moreover, of course, humans, other intelligent animals and (presumably) space aliens are not supernatural. In order to solve a complaint about the "random" in evolution, one is looking for a goal-directed agency and whether or not it is supernatural is irrelevant. While in resolving a complaint that sciences are improperly ignoring supernatural causes, intelligence is not required.


Intelligent design has been strongly pushed by the Discovery Institute as part of the wedge strategy as outlined in the Wedge Document in their attempt to create a fake-science-sounding version of creationism. Most scientists have roundly rejected it because it has no peer viewed publications of any standards, and has produced no real evidence for its claims. The wedge strategy itself is to create a public furore over the concept of publishing controversy. In the real scientific world, of course, there is no such controversy over the facts and theories underlying modern concepts of evolution.


To date, intelligent design has been officially introduced into exactly one school district - and there, it tore apart the community, cost the school board millions of dollars, and was eventually thrown out after the Kitzmiller trial. Although intelligent design is always a "Trojan horse" for creationism - that is to say, creationism with a new name and a few obfuscating principles - there is a sliding scale of how egregious and visible the disguise is. Some people actually believe it to be real science although that vision is based on a man created book. Others use it as a clear pretext for preaching, and teaching creationism.

In the Kitzmiller case, the disguise was patently obvious. "Intelligent design proponents" there sought to have the book, a creationist screed, taught as part of a new "intelligent design" curriculum at the local Dover public high school. ID supporters hoped to prove at trial that the book was legitimate science, and not creationism. However, there was one slight problem - the book was a book about creationism, with the words "creator," "creationism," etc., merely replaced with "designer," "intelligent design," etc. by a basic word-processor "find/replace" function. The fact that it was a man created origin a fiction was simple pushed aside.


Intelligent design was "religion" because, in the legal language applied, a reasonable person (based on the events surrounding the policy's adoption) could have concluded that it had the purpose or effect of establishing a particular religion. In short, when a school board tries to teach intelligent design.

This precedent, and the correlation it establishes between religious rhetoric and the likelihood of any intelligent design policy being found unconstitutional, will be vitally important in heading off future school boards which attempt to teach intelligent design as "science." Intelligent design's "wedge" appeal rests on its attempt to characterize itself as non-religious, after all. Consider a schoolteacher who sought to teach intelligent design to her seventh grade biology class. The teacher curiously taught the "scientific theory" as something practically indistinguishable from creationism, complete with the flood geology and young earth chronology. The school board, after being made aware of it, and the likely legal troubles it would face, terminated its tacit approval of intelligent design. Finally, how intelligent design is systematically excluded from academia for no other reason than bias, describes intelligent design in its own advertisements as "creationism.


The theory of evolution by natural selection deals only with the question of how organisms develop and form new species. Logically it can have nothing to say about the origin of the universe and the origin of life. It appears that some of the more, shall we say, science- minded believers in ID attempt to constrain themselves similarly and claim no more than God or somebody is controlling evolution. Many others however go further and claim that ID explains not only the origin of life but even the origin of the universe.

There is also a difference of opinion about what is actually involved biologically in ID. Again, for the more scientifically minded it is simply evolution, which is guided by God, and common decent is fully accepted. For the more fundamentalist believers it is equivalent to progressive creationism in which God, periodically creates complete new species someone. It is patently absurd for something, which is presented as a scientific theory to be so lacking in any clear definition of scope and definition. The contradictions exist because of the fact that ID attempts to include so many creationist ideas under the guise of science.


To defined intelligent design as the "hypothesis" that "an all-powerful designer" created the universe, including living things in their present forms. They have concluded 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. They refer to their conclusion as "the scientific theory of intelligent design. Does their conclusion transform the intelligent design hypothesis into a "scientific theory"? A scientific theory, by its own merit, cannot be based on "all-powerful designers" or other supernatural causes (unless their existence can be shown by evidence, in which case, they cease to be supernatural and are merely unexplained). Their conclusion that intelligent design is the "best" explanation is an example of a propaganda technique named, assertion.

An outstanding issue of intelligent design is what mechanism the hypothesized "designer" uses to initiate design diversity. According to the theory of evolution, this mechanism is genetic mutation resulting from environmental stresses and point mutations caused by the cellular chemical environment. As of this time intelligent design supporters have yet to offer a plausible mechanism to which diversity can be attributed that differentiates from the mechanisms listed by the theory of evolution. As such the intelligent design proponents have yet to offer any empirical evidence to support the claim of a designer.

ID proponents such as Michael Behe promote theories such as "irreducible complexity" as evidence for their ideas.


Irreducible complexity posits that there are certain organs and structures found in nature that have no convincing gradual evolutionary pathway, and are too complex to have come about in whole by chance. These ideas are hotly disputed (or dismissed as non-science) by scientists, but regardless of their truth-value they do not constitute evidence for an intelligent designer. Proponents of intelligent design make an assumption unwarranted by the evidence in that their logic goes along the lines of "The origins and diversity of the species cannot be accounted for by evolution and natural selection alone, therefore there must have been a designer involved."

The very lack of positive science evidence suggesting that there is a designer involved in creating life raises the question of how the design hypothesis came about. Opponents of the design hypothesis would suggest that proponents are religiously motivated, and that their ideas are not about understanding how life came to exist but rather about promoting a particular religious worldview as espoused in the Wedge Document.

One problem with finding evidence for intelligent design is the inability to distinguish "naturally" evolved mechanisms from "designed" mechanisms. Nobody knows what the "design" of a supernatural creator looks like; how can we tell what was and was not designed. There has also been no attempt to specify the periodicity of the interventions by the Fantastic interventions "intelligent designer". In other words, the hypothesis does not state if the miraculous interventions take place annually, monthly, daily, or only when the designer feels that miraculous intervention is necessary.


ID proponents have yet to demonstrate that their idea is even remotely scientific by identifying what they believe could falsify it. In fact, we await with interest any submission from supporters of this concept which would elevate it to the realms of science. The prove we provided does show that intelligent design is not science, or a by peer-proof accepted proposal. Slightly better educated supporters of ID sometimes complain that the theory of evolution lacks any mention of, or generally accepted hypothesis about.. It is of interest, however, that versions of ID, which pretend to be science, also lack any such mechanism - though the unstated assumption is that it was the work of god, a god of which no proof exist other then it was a work of fiction and man written.

The objection also betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, which does not propose an explanation of how life started. It merely describes what happens after some form of life is extant.



Other pages:

This is the text-only version of this page. Click here to see this page with graphics.
Edit this page | Manage website
Make Your Own Website: 2-Minute-Website.com