The Fallacies of Intelligent Design Theory
In the 1990s, creationism (calling itself "creation science") led to something named intelligent design (ID) theory, which (in effect) claims that the world and its contents are the result of supernatural intelligent design. ID is pseudo science without the biblical literalism and explicit references to god. Creationism failed in the 1980s because its campaign to force into the classroom the idea of a "young earth" created 6,000 to 10,000 years ago was too obviously religious. In court decisions in 1982 and 1987, so-called "creation science" was declared to be religion and teaching it in public schools to be unconstitutional. This required a new approach for the creationist supporters.
The ID movement sprang up, coupled with something called the wedge strategy. The wedge strategy refers to finding what are thought to be cracks in natural science and driving wedges into those cracks, using the same (metaphoric) procedure as one would use to split a log. Natural science, which creationists hold to be contaminated by the philosophy of naturalism, is the log barring the way to Jesus. By bringing questions about Darwinism, naturalism, evolutionary biology, and intelligent causation to the public's attention, an interest in supernatural intelligent design (leading to evangelical theology) will presumably be stimulated.
ID holds that some features of life and the universe are far too complicated to have evolved through processes such as natural selection; therefore, a designer must have been involved. However, ID is neither science nor scientific theory. It has no general theory of biological design. It does not even provide a hypothesis that is testable; thus, there is no way scientists can determine if it is true or false. ID advocates seek only to contradict prevailing theories, advocating willful ignorance over scientific research. Whenever there is a gap in scientific knowledge, a supernatural designer is invoked as the causal agent. This is often called a "god of the gaps" approach. However, by answering a mystery with a mystery, nothing is explained.
ID proponents are usually careful not to specify who the designer might be. However, many ID supporters and organizations like the Discovery Institute in Seattle have at times acknowledged that they have the Judeo-Christian God in mind and that Intelligent Design is a way to get Christian theology taught in public schools. So any comments one sometimes reads to the effect that ID is just another benign alternative are incorrect.
To date, scientists have not seen convincing evidence for conclusions supporting the operation of supernatural causes in nature. While scientists do not categorically reject the possibility of supernatural causation, neither do they at present consider it seriously. This is due to a complete lack of convincing evidence. Yet ID advocates have alleged that science, by its very nature, is prejudiced against appeals to supernatural beings and supernatural causation. This claim is addressed further in the section below. Two additional claims are made. First, ID advocates allege that there are biochemical adaptations in organisms that defy explanation in natural terms and require supernatural intelligent design for their explanation. In addition, they allege that modern cosmology reveals a universe that requires for its existence a supernatural intelligent designer. Both of these claims are addressed in detail in articles that can be accessed on this website.
Science and Naturalism
The intelligent design movement claims that science has been taken over by a destructive, secular philosophy calling itself by such names as naturalism, materialism, and modernism. ID advocates hold that it is philosophy and not evidence that underlies scientific support for evolution. In the minds of such individuals, the evidence in support of their position has become so strong that they propose, in the name of fairness, that it should become part of science texts and be taught in the science curriculum. However, ID arguments are little more than new variations on the old argument from design.
ID advocates do not discuss the real reason mainstream scientists reject the ID hypothesis, which is because there is no evidential support for supernatural design of life or the universe itself. The accusation that scientists reject ID theory because they are under the influence of materialistic or naturalistic philosophy is part of a smoke-and-mirrors strategy to cover up the lack of evidence supporting the ID position.
<NEXT>
The Fallacies of Intelligent Design Theory: Pages (1), 2, 3,
The Biological Case Against Evolution
The Information Theory Case Against Evolution
