Editing Intelligent design (section)

{{Short description|Pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God}}
{{About|a specific pseudoscientific form of creationism|generic arguments from "intelligent design"|Teleological argument|the movement|Intelligent design movement|other uses of the phrase}}
{{Distinguish|Theistic evolution}}
{{Featured article}}
{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
{{pp-move-indef}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=May 2023}}
{{Intelligent Design}}

<!--NOTE: The wording of the first sentence of this article is the result of extensive discussion on the talk page, and is supported by reliable sources. If you disagree with it, please take your point to the talk page.-->
'''Intelligent design''' ('''ID''') is a [[pseudoscientific]] argument for the [[existence of God]], presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based [[scientific theory]] about life's origins".<ref name="Numbers 373">[[#Numbers 2006|Numbers 2006]], p. 373; "[ID] captured headlines for its bold attempt to rewrite the basic rules of science and its claim to have found indisputable evidence of a God-like being. Proponents, however, insisted it was 'not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins – one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution.' Although the intellectual roots of the design argument go back centuries, its contemporary incarnation dates from the 1980s"{{cite book |last=Numbers |first=Ronald L. |authorlink=Ronald L. Numbers |year=2006 |orig-date=Originally published 1992 as ''The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism''; New York: [[Alfred A. Knopf]] |title=[[The Creationists|The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design]] |edition=Expanded ed., 1st Harvard University Press pbk. |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |publisher=[[Harvard University Press]] |isbn=0-674-02339-0 |lccn=2006043675 |oclc=69734583 |ref=Numbers 2006}}</ref><ref name="Meyer 2005">{{cite news|last=Meyer|first=Stephen C.|url=http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=8f7f51f2-a196-4677-9399-46f4f17b5b61|title=Not by chance|date=December 1, 2005|newspaper=[[National Post]]|access-date=2014-02-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060501021540/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=8f7f51f2-a196-4677-9399-46f4f17b5b61|archive-date=May 1, 2006|publisher=[[Canwest|CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.]]|location=Don Mills, Ontario|author-link=Stephen C. Meyer}}</ref><ref name="Boudry 2010">{{cite journal |last1=Boudry |first1=Maarten |author-link1=Maarten Boudry |last2=Blancke |first2=Stefaan |last3=Braeckman |first3=Johan |author-link3=Johan Braeckman |date=December 2010 |title=Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience |journal=[[The Quarterly Review of Biology]] |volume=85 |issue=4 |pages=473–482 |doi=10.1086/656904 |pmid=21243965|url=https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/952482/file/6828579.pdf |hdl=1854/LU-952482 |s2cid=27218269 |hdl-access=free | issn=0033-5770 }} Article available from [https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/952482 Universiteit Gent]</ref><ref>[[#Pigliucci 2010|Pigliucci 2010]]</ref><ref>[[#Young & Edis 2004|Young & Edis 2004]] pp. 195–196, Section heading: But is it Pseudoscience?</ref> Proponents claim 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]]."<ref name="DI-topquestions">{{cite web |url=https://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=CSC – Frequently Asked Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design? |website=[[Center for Science and Culture]] |publisher=[[Discovery Institute]] |location=Seattle |access-date=2018-07-15}}
* {{cite web |url=http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/393410a2d36e9b96329c2faff7e2a4df/miscdocs/intelligentdesigntheoryinanutshell.pdf |title=Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell |year=2004 |publisher=[[Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center]] |location=Seattle |access-date=2012-06-16}}
* {{cite web |url=http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ |title=Intelligent Design |website=[[Intelligent design network]] |location=Shawnee Mission, Kan. |publisher=Intelligent Design network, inc. |access-date=2012-06-16}}</ref> ID is a form of [[creationism]] that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /><ref name="consensus" /><ref name="NatureMethods2007">{{cite journal |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=December 2007 |title=An intelligently designed response |journal=[[Nature Methods]] |type=Editorial |volume=4 |issue=12 |page=983 |doi=10.1038/nmeth1207-983 |issn=1548-7091 |ref=Nature Methods 2007|doi-access=free }}</ref> The leading proponents of ID are associated with the [[Discovery Institute]], a Christian, politically conservative [[think tank]] based in the United States.<ref name="DI engine" group="n">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6pm.html |title=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 1 |website=[[TalkOrigins Archive]] |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston |access-date=2012-06-16 |quote=Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes.}} — [[Barbara Forrest]], 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.
* [[#Wilgoren 2005|Wilgoren 2005]], "...the institute's Center for Science and Culture has emerged in recent months as the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country."
* {{cite web |url=https://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/frequently-asked-questions-about-intelligent-design |title=Frequently Asked Questions About 'Intelligent Design' |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 16, 2005 |website=[[American Civil Liberties Union]] |publisher=American Civil Liberties Union |location=New York |at=Who is behind the ID movement? |access-date=2012-06-16}}
* {{cite news |last=Kahn |first=Joseph P. |date=July 27, 2005 |title=The evolution of George Gilder |url=http://archive.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/07/27/the_evolution_of_george_gilder/ |newspaper=[[The Boston Globe]] |access-date=2014-02-28}}
* {{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=November 2005 |title=WHO's WHO: Intelligent Design Proponents |url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=602 |format=PDF |journal=[[Science & Theology News]] |location=Durham, N.C. |publisher=Science & Theology News, Inc. |issn=1530-6410 |access-date=2007-07-20}}
* [[#Attie, et al. 2006|Attie, ''et al.'' 2006]], "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute."</ref>

Although the phrase ''intelligent design'' had featured previously in [[theological]] discussions of the [[argument from design]],<ref name="Haught Witness Report" /> its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in ''[[Of Pandas and People]]'',<ref name="Matzke" /><ref name="kitz31">
{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy]], pp. 31–33.

</ref> a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to ''creation science'' and ''creationism'', after the 1987 [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]]'s ''[[Edwards v. Aguillard]]'' decision barred the teaching of [[creation science]] in [[State school#United States|public schools]] on [[Separation of church and state in the United States|constitutional grounds]].<ref name="kitz21">
{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy]] p. 32 ''ff'', citing {{cite court
|litigants=Edwards v. Aguillard
|vol=482
|reporter=U.S.
|opinion=578
|year=1987
|url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/482/578.html
}}</ref> From the mid-1990s, the [[intelligent design movement]] (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/2190
|title=Media Backgrounder: Intelligent Design Article Sparks Controversy |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 7, 2004 |website=Center for Science and Culture |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2014-02-28}}
* {{cite interview |last=Johnson |first=Phillip E. |interviewer=James M. Kushiner |title=Berkeley's Radical |url=http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=15-05-037-i |journal=[[Touchstone Magazine|Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity]] |publisher=Fellowship of St. James |location=Chicago |date=June 2002 |volume=15 |issue=5 |issn=0897-327X |access-date=2012-06-16 |ref=Johnson 2002}} Johnson interviewed in November 2000.
* {{cite news |last=Wilgoren |first=Jodi |date=August 21, 2005 |title=Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html?pagewanted=all |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=2014-02-28 |ref=Wilgoren 2005}}
* [[#Downey 2006|Downey 2006]]
</ref> advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper">{{cite web|url=http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf |title=Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals |last=Forrest |first=Barbara |author-link=Barbara Forrest |date=May 2007 |website=[[Center for Inquiry]] |publisher=Center for Inquiry |location=Washington, D.C. |access-date=2007-08-06 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110519124655/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf |archive-date=May 19, 2011 }}</ref> This led to the 2005 ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'' trial, which found that intelligent design was not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore violated the [[Establishment Clause]] of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]].<ref>
{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science]] Page 69 and [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#H. Conclusion]] p. 136.
</ref>

ID presents two main arguments against evolutionary explanations: [[irreducible complexity]] and [[specified complexity]], asserting that certain biological and informational features of living things are too complex to be the result of natural selection. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible.

ID seeks to challenge the [[methodological naturalism]] inherent in modern science,<ref name="Meyer 2005" /><ref name="discovery">{{cite magazine|last1=Meyer|first1=Stephen C.|last2=Nelson|first2=Paul A.|author-link2=Paul Nelson (creationist)|date=May 1, 1996|title=Getting Rid of the Unfair Rules|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/1685|magazine=Origins & Design|type=Book review|location=Colorado Springs, Colo.|publisher=[[Access Research Network]]|access-date=2007-05-20}}
* {{cite magazine|last=Johnson|first=Phillip E.|author-link=Phillip E. Johnson|date=May–June 1996|title=Third-Party Science|url=http://www.ctlibrary.com/bc/1996/mayjun/6b3030.html|magazine=[[Christianity Today|Books & Culture]]|type=Book review|volume=2|issue=3|access-date=2012-06-16|ref=Johnson 1996b|archive-date=2014-02-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140219230949/http://www.ctlibrary.com/bc/1996/mayjun/6b3030.html|url-status=dead}} The review is reprinted in full by [https://web.archive.org/web/19990210082540/http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/ratzsch.htm Access Research Network] [archived February 10, 1999].
* {{cite book|last=Meyer|first=Stephen C.|title=Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe: Papers Presented at a Conference Sponsored by the Wethersfield Institute, New York City, September 25, 1999|publisher=[[Ignatius Press]]|year=2000|isbn=978-0-89870-809-7|series=Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute|volume=9|location=San Francisco|chapter=The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories|lccn=00102374|oclc=45720008|ref=Behe, Dembski & Meyer 2000|access-date=2014-12-01|chapter-url=http://www.discovery.org/a/1780}}
* {{Cite court|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|reporter=cv|vol=04|opinion=2688|date=December 20, 2005}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science]], p. 68. "lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology."
* See also <!--relevant? [[Darwin's Black Box]] and-->{{cite news|last=Hanna|first=John|url=https://www.theguardian.com/worldlatest/story/0,,-6413677,00.html|title=Kansas Rewriting Science Standards|date=February 13, 2007|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|access-date=2014-02-28|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070216004715/http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0%2C%2C-6413677%2C00.html|archive-date=February 16, 2007|agency=[[Associated Press]]|location=London}}</ref> though proponents concede that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.<ref name="Giberson 2014">{{cite news|last=Giberson|first=Karl W.|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html|title=My Debate With an 'Intelligent Design' Theorist|date=April 21, 2014|work=[[The Daily Beast]]|access-date=2014-05-14|publisher=[[The Newsweek Daily Beast Company]]|location=New York}}</ref> As a positive argument against evolution, ID proposes an analogy between natural systems and [[Cultural artifact|human artifacts]], a version of the theological argument from design for the [[existence of God]].<ref name="Numbers 373" /><ref name="kitzruling-IDandGod" group="n">{{cite court|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|reporter=cv|vol=04|opinion=2688|date=December 20, 2005}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy]] pp. 24–25. "the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. ...<br />...[T]his argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley... [the teleological argument] The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God."</ref> ID proponents then conclude by analogy that the complex features, as defined by ID, are evidence of design.<ref name="SM 07" /><ref name="teachernet" group="n">
{{cite web|url=http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=11890|title=Guidance on the place of creationism and intelligent design in science lessons|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->|website=Teachernet|publisher=[[Department for Children, Schools and Families]]|location=London|format=DOC|archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20071104143905/http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=11890|archive-date=November 4, 2007|access-date=2007-10-01|quote=The intelligent design movement claims there are aspects of the natural world that are so intricate and fit for purpose that they cannot have evolved but must have been created by an 'intelligent designer'.  Furthermore they assert that this claim is scientifically testable and should therefore be taught in science lessons.  Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science.  Sometimes examples are quoted that are said to require an 'intelligent designer'. However, many of these have subsequently been shown to have a scientific explanation, for example, the immune system and blood clotting mechanisms.<br />Attempts to establish an idea of the 'specified complexity' needed for intelligent design are surrounded by complex mathematics. Despite this, the idea seems to be essentially a modern version of the old idea of the '[[God of the gaps|God-of-the-gaps]]'. Lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation of some phenomena (a 'gap' in scientific knowledge) is claimed to be evidence of an intelligent designer.}}</ref> Critics of ID find a [[false dichotomy]] in the premise that evidence against [[evolution]] constitutes evidence for design.<ref name="Kitzmiller v p. 64">{{cite court|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|vol=04|reporter=cv|opinion=2688|date=December 20, 2005}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science]], p. 64.</ref><ref name="reducibly complex mousetrap, Ussery">{{cite web |url=http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html |title=A reducibly complex mousetrap |last=McDonald |first=John H. |access-date=2014-02-28 }}
* {{cite web |url=http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/~dave/Behe_text.html |title=A Biochemist's Response to 'The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution' |last=Ussery |first=David |date=December 1997 |type=Book review |access-date=2014-02-28 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140304090148/http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/~dave/Behe_text.html |archive-date=March 4, 2014 }} Originally published in ''Bios'' (July 1998) 70:40–45.</ref>