Editing Intelligent design (section)

==Criticism==

===Scientific criticism===
{{Main|Intelligent design and science}}

Advocates of intelligent design seek to keep God and the Bible out of the discussion, and present intelligent design in the language of science as though it were a scientific hypothesis.<ref name="IDstatementOnCreator" group="n" /><ref name="Johnson-Touchstone" /> For a theory to qualify as scientific,<ref group="n">[[#Gauch 2003|Gauch 2003]], Chapters 5–8. Discusses principles of induction, deduction and probability related to the expectation of consistency, testability, and multiple observations. Chapter 8 discusses parsimony (Occam's razor).</ref><ref>[[#Elmes, Kantowitz & Roediger 2006|Elmes, Kantowitz & Roediger 2006]]. Chapter 2 discusses the scientific method, including the principles of falsifiability, testability, progressive development of theory, dynamic self-correcting of hypotheses, and parsimony, or "Occam's razor".</ref><ref name="kitzruling_pg64" group="n">{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|volume=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science]], p. 64. The ruling discusses central aspects of expectations in the scientific community that a scientific theory be testable, dynamic, correctible, progressive, based upon multiple observations, and provisional.</ref> it is expected to be:
* Consistent
* Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations; see [[Occam's razor]])
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used in a predictive manner)
* Empirically testable and [[Falsifiability|falsifiable]] (potentially confirmable or disprovable by experiment or observation)
* Based on multiple observations (often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments)
* Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
* Progressive (refines previous theories)
* Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis, or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; 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,<ref name="Perakh2005b">See, e.g., {{cite journal |last=Perakh |first=Mark |year=2005 |title=The Dream World of William Dembski's Creationism |url=http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Skeptic_paper.cfm |journal=[[Skeptic (U.S. magazine)|Skeptic]] |volume=11 |issue=4 |pages=54–65 |issn=1063-9330 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> violates the principle of parsimony,<ref group="n">See, e.g., [[#Fitelson, Stephens & Sober 2001|Fitelson, Stephens & Sober 2001]], "How Not to Detect Design–Critical Notice: William A. Dembski ''The Design Inference''", pp. 597–616. Intelligent design fails to pass Occam's razor. Adding entities (an intelligent agent, a designer) to the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events.</ref> is not scientifically useful,<ref group="n">See, e.g., {{cite web |url=http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/schneider/evolution.htm |title=Professor Schneider's thoughts on Evolution and Intelligent Design |last=Schneider |first=Jill E. |website=Department of Biological Sciences |publisher=[[Lehigh University]] |location=Bethlehem, Pa. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060902030147/http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/schneider/evolution.htm |archive-date=September 2, 2006 |access-date=2014-02-28 |quote=Q: Why couldn't intelligent design also be a scientific theory? A: The idea of intelligent design might or might not be true, but when presented as a scientific hypothesis, it is not useful because it is based on weak assumptions, lacks supporting data and terminates further thought.}}</ref> is not falsifiable,<ref group="n">See, e.g., {{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|volume=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. 22 and [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science]], p. 77. The designer is not falsifiable, since its existence is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. The designer being beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can be neither supported nor undermined by observation, making intelligent design and the argument from design analytic ''a posteriori'' arguments.</ref> is not empirically testable,<ref group="n">See, e.g., {{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|volume=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. 22 and [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science]], p. 66. That intelligent design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that it violates a basic premise of science, naturalism.</ref> and is not correctable, dynamic, progressive, or provisional.<ref group="n">See, e.g., the brief explanation in {{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. 66. Intelligent design professes to offer an answer that does not need to be defined or explained, the intelligent agent, designer. By asserting a conclusion that cannot be accounted for scientifically, ''the designer'', intelligent design cannot be sustained by any further explanation, and objections raised to those who accept intelligent design make little headway. Thus intelligent design is not a provisional assessment of data, which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that a conclusion that need not be accounted for has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data.</ref><ref group="n">{{cite web |url=http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf |title=Nobel Laureates Initiative |date=September 9, 2005 |publisher=The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity |type=Letter |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051007161950/http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf |archive-date=October 7, 2005 |access-date=2014-02-28}} The September 2005 statement by 38 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel laureates]] stated that: "...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."</ref><ref group="n">{{cite web |url=http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html |title=Intelligent Design is not Science: Scientists and teachers speak out |date=October 2005 |website=Faculty of Science |publisher=[[University of New South Wales]] |location=Sydney |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060614003243/http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html |archive-date=June 14, 2006 |access-date=2009-01-09}} The October 2005 statement, by a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers said: "intelligent design is not science" and "urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science."</ref>

Intelligent design proponents seek to change this fundamental basis of science<ref name="Forrest2000">{{cite journal |last=Forrest |first=Barbara |date=Fall–Winter 2000 |title=Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection |url=http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html |journal=[[Philo (journal)|Philo]] |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=7–29 |issn=1098-3570 |access-date=2007-07-27 |doi=10.5840/philo20003213|url-access=subscription }}</ref> by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from science<ref>[[#Johnson 1995|Johnson 1995]]. <nowiki>Johnson positions himself as a "theistic realist" against "methodological naturalism".</nowiki></ref> and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, calls "[[theistic realism]]".<ref name="Johnsonconversation" group="n">
[[#Johnson 1996b|Johnson 1996b]], "My colleagues and I speak of 'theistic realism'—or sometimes, 'mere creation'—as the defining concept of our [the ID] movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology."</ref> Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena and that supernatural explanations provide a simple and intuitive explanation for the origins of life and the universe.<ref name="Watanabe" group="n">{{cite news |last=Watanabe |first=Teresa |date=March 25, 2001 |title=Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-mar-25-mn-42548-story.html |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] |quote='We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. ...'We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.' |access-date=2014-02-28}} — Phillip E. Johnson</ref> Many intelligent design followers believe that "[[scientism]]" is itself a religion that promotes [[secularism]] and materialism in an attempt to erase [[theism]] from public life, and they view their work in the promotion of intelligent design as a way to return religion to a central role in education and other public spheres.

It has been argued that methodological naturalism is not an ''assumption'' of science, but a ''result'' of science well done: the God explanation is the least parsimonious, so according to [[Occam's razor]], it cannot be a scientific explanation.<ref name="Jennings2015">{{cite book|first=Byron K.|last=Jennings|title=In Defense of Scientism: An Insider's view of Science|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=c-C-BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA60|year=2015|publisher=Byron Jennings|isbn=978-0994058928|page=60}}</ref>

The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design being accepted as valid science.<ref name="kitzruling_pg87">{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|volume=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science]], p. 87</ref> The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article supporting ID in a scientific journal, and has failed to publish supporting peer-reviewed research or data.<ref name="kitzruling_pg87" /> The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was [[Sternberg peer review controversy|quickly withdrawn by the publisher]] for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.<ref>{{cite journal |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |year=2004 |title=Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington |url=http://biostor.org/reference/81375 |journal=Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington |volume=117 |issue=3 |pages=241 |issn=0006-324X |oclc=1536434 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> The Discovery Institute says that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 |title=Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) |date=February 1, 2012 |website=Center for Science and Culture |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2014-02-28 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070804092839/http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 |archive-date=August 4, 2007 }} The July 1, 2007, version of page is .</ref> but critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim and state intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with peer review that lack impartiality and rigor,<ref group="n">{{cite journal|last1=Brauer |first1=Matthew J. |last2=Forrest |first2=Barbara |author-link2=Barbara Forrest |last3=Gey |first3=Steven G. |author-link3=Steven Gey |year=2005 |title=Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution |url=http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1229&context=lawreview |format=PDF |journal=Washington University Law Review |volume=83 |issue=1 |pages=79–80 |issn=2166-7993 |access-date=2014-02-28 |quote=ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly 'peer-reviewed' journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of 'peer review' that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows. |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131220073757/http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1229&context=lawreview |archive-date=December 20, 2013 }}</ref> consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.<ref group="n">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html |title=CI001.4: Intelligent Design and peer review |editor-last=Isaak |editor-first=Mark |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston |access-date=2014-02-28 |quote=With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical.
}}</ref>

Further criticism stems from the fact that the phrase ''intelligent'' design makes use of an assumption of the quality of an observable intelligence, a concept that has no [[scientific consensus]] definition. The characteristics of intelligence are assumed by intelligent design proponents to be observable without specifying what the criteria for the measurement of intelligence should be. Critics say that the design detection methods proposed by intelligent design proponents are radically different from conventional design detection, undermining the key elements that make it possible as legitimate science. Intelligent design proponents, they say, are proposing both searching for a designer without knowing anything about that designer's abilities, parameters, or intentions (which scientists do know when searching for the results of human intelligence), as well as denying the distinction between natural/artificial design that allows scientists to compare complex designed artifacts against the background of the sorts of complexity found in nature.<ref group="n">{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|volume=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science]], p. 81. "For human artifacts, we know the designer's identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon [[empirical evidence]] that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer's abilities, needs, and desires. With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer's identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."</ref>

Among a significant proportion of the general public in the United States, the major concern is whether conventional evolutionary biology is compatible with belief in God and in the Bible, and how this issue is taught in schools.<ref name="Time-15-Aug-2005" /> The Discovery Institute's "[[teach the controversy]]" campaign promotes intelligent design while attempting to discredit evolution in United States public high school science courses.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /><ref name=meyer_seattle_times>{{cite news |last=Shaw |first=Linda |date=March 31, 2005 |title=Does Seattle group 'teach controversy' or contribute to it? |url=http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002225932_design31m.html |newspaper=[[The Seattle Times]] |publisher=[[The Seattle Times Company]] |access-date=2014-02-28 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131224195947/http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002225932_design31m.html |archive-date=December 24, 2013 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |date=November 9, 2005 |title=Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate |url=https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1297170&WNT=true |work=[[ABC World News|World News Tonight]] |location=New York |publisher=[[American Broadcasting Company]] |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Mooney |first=Chris |date=December 2002 |title=Survival of the Slickest |url=http://prospect.org/article/survival-slickest |work=[[The American Prospect]] |location=Washington, D.C. |volume=13 |issue=22 |access-date=2014-02-28 |quote=ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser [[Bruce Chapman]] heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former ''American Spectator'' owner [[George Gilder]] (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a 'teach the controversy' approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists 'continue to investigate and critically analyze' aspects of Darwin's theory.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.metanexus.net/essay/teaching-intelligent-design-what-happened-when-response-eugenie-scott |title=Teaching Intelligent Design – What Happened When? A Response to Eugenie Scott |last=Dembski |first=William A. |date=February 27, 2001 |website=Metanexus |publisher=[[Metanexus Institute]] |location=New York |quote=The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to 'teach the controversy.' There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity (cf. the ongoing events in Kansas), and it is a scientific controversy. |access-date=2014-02-28}} Dembski's response to Eugenie Scott's February 12, 2001, essay published by Metanexus, [http://www.metanexus.net/essay/big-tent-and-camels-nose "The Big Tent and the Camel's Nose."]</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/no_one_here_but.html |title=No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists… |last=Matzke |first=Nick |date=July 11, 2006 |website=The Panda's Thumb |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston |type=Blog |access-date=2014-02-28 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150906051325/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/no_one_here_but.html |archive-date=September 6, 2015 }} Nick Matzke's analysis shows how teaching the controversy using the ''Critical Analysis of Evolution'' model lesson plan is a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label.</ref>{{Excessive citations inline|date=September 2021}} The scientific community and science education organizations have replied that there is no scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics.<ref>[[#Annas 2006|Annas 2006]], "That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned."</ref><ref name=AAAS>{{cite web |url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf |title=Statement on the Teaching of Evolution |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=February 16, 2006 |publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science |location=Washington, D.C. |quote=Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called 'flaws' in the theory of evolution or 'disagreements' within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific 'alternatives' to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to 'critically analyze' evolution or to understand 'the controversy.' But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060221125539/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf |archive-date=February 21, 2006 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref>

===Arguments from ignorance===
[[Eugenie Scott|Eugenie C. Scott]], along with [[Glenn Branch]] and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are [[Argument from ignorance|arguments from ignorance]].
In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies on a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside science. Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a false dichotomy, where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. Scott and Branch also contend that the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research.<ref name="Scott and Branch">{{cite web
|url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/intelligent-design-not-accepted-by-most-scientists |title='Intelligent Design' Not Accepted by Most Scientists |last1=Scott |first1=Eugenie C. |author-link=Eugenie Scott |last2=Branch |first2=Glenn |author-link2=Glenn Branch |date=August 12, 2002
|orig-year=Reprinted with permission from ''School Board News'', August 13, 2002 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, Calif. |type=Blog |access-date=2009-11-18}}</ref>

In his conclusion to the Kitzmiller trial, Judge John E. Jones III wrote that "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." This same argument had been put forward to support creation science at the ''[[McLean v. Arkansas]]'' (1982) trial, which found it was "contrived dualism", the false premise of a "two model approach". Behe's argument of irreducible complexity puts forward negative arguments against evolution but does not make any positive scientific case for intelligent design. It fails to allow for scientific explanations continuing to be found, as has been the case with several examples previously put forward as supposed cases of irreducible complexity.<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]], pp. 71–74.</ref>

===Possible theological implications===
Intelligent design proponents often insist that their claims do not require a religious component.<ref>[[#Merriman 2007|Merriman 2007]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=l_8VFygyaDYC&dq=intelligent+design+science+can+test+religion&pg=PA26 p. 26]</ref> However, various philosophical and theological issues are naturally raised by the claims of intelligent design.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Murphy |first=George L. |year=2002 |title=Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem |url=http://puffin.creighton.edu/nrcse/IDTHG.html |journal=Covalence: The Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science and Technology |volume=IV |issue=2 |oclc=52753579 |access-date=2014-02-28 |archive-date=2016-04-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160411004103/http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/IDTHG.html |url-status=dead }} Reprinted with permission.</ref>

Intelligent design proponents attempt to demonstrate scientifically that features such as irreducible complexity and specified complexity could not arise through natural processes, and therefore required repeated direct miraculous interventions by a Designer (often a Christian concept of God). They reject the possibility of a Designer who works merely through setting natural laws in motion at the outset,<ref name="PM 09">{{cite journal |last1=Padian |first1=Kevin |author-link1=Kevin Padian |last2=Matzke |first2=Nicholas J. |date=January 1, 2009 |title=Darwin, Dover, 'Intelligent Design' and textbooks |url=http://www.ntskeptics.org/news/4170029.pdf |journal=[[Biochemical Journal]] |volume=417 |issue=1 |pages=29–42 |doi=10.1042/bj20081534 |issn=0264-6021 |pmid=19061485 |access-date=2015-11-10}}</ref> in contrast to [[theistic evolution]] (to which even [[Charles Darwin]] was open<ref>[[#Darwin 1860|Darwin 1860]], p. 484, "... probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed by the Creator."</ref>). Intelligent design is distinct because it asserts repeated miraculous interventions in addition to designed laws. This contrasts with other major religious traditions of a created world in which God's interactions and influences do not work in the same way as physical causes. The Roman Catholic tradition makes a careful distinction between ultimate [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] explanations and secondary, natural causes.<ref name="Haught Witness Report" />

The concept of direct miraculous intervention raises other potential theological implications. If such a Designer does not intervene to alleviate suffering even though capable of intervening for other reasons, some imply the designer is not [[Omnibenevolence|omnibenevolent]] (see [[problem of evil]] and related [[theodicy]]).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://designinference.com/documents/2003.04.CTNS_theodicy.pdf |archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20070614103827/http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.04.CTNS_theodicy.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=2007-06-14 |title=Making the Task of Theodicy Impossible? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evil |last=Dembski |first=William A. |date=Spring 2003 |website=DesignInference.com |publisher=William Dembski |location=Pella, Iowa |access-date=2014-02-28 }}</ref>

Further, repeated interventions imply that the original design was not perfect and final, and thus pose a problem for any who believe that the Creator's work had been both perfect and final.<ref name="PM 09" /> Intelligent design proponents seek to explain the [[Argument from poor design|problem of poor design in nature]] by insisting that we have simply failed to understand the perfection of the design (for example, proposing that [[Vestigiality|vestigial organs]] have unknown purposes), or by proposing that designers do not necessarily produce the best design they can, and may have unknowable motives for their actions.<ref name="Pennock 245" />

In 2005, the director of the [[Vatican Observatory]], the [[Society of Jesus|Jesuit]] astronomer [[George Coyne]], set out theological reasons for accepting evolution in an August 2005 article in ''[[The Tablet]]'', and said that "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/archive_db.cgi/tablet-01063 |title=God's chance creation |last=Coyne |first=George |date=2005-08-06 |publisher=The Tablet |access-date=2008-10-16 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060220104834/http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/archive_db.cgi/tablet-01063 |archive-date=February 20, 2006 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2005-11-18-vaticanastronomer_x.htm |title=Vatican official: 'Intelligent design' isn't science |work= [[USA Today]]|access-date=2008-10-16 | date=2005-11-18}}</ref> In 2006, he "condemned ID as a kind of 'crude creationism' which reduced God to a mere engineer."<ref name=Dixon82>{{cite book|first=Thomas|last=Dixon|title=Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=efgTDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA82|date=24 July 2008|publisher=OUP Oxford|isbn=978-0199295517|page=82}}</ref>

Critics state that the [[wedge strategy]]'s "ultimate goal is to create a theocratic state".<ref name="ForrestGross2007">{{cite book|first1=Barbara|last1=Forrest|first2=Paul R.|last2=Gross|title=Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7mMSDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA11|year=2007|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0195319736|page=11}}</ref>

===God of the gaps===
Intelligent design has also been characterized as a [[God of the gaps|God-of-the-gaps]] argument,<ref name="Stanford--GodoftheGaps">{{cite encyclopedia |last=Ratzsch |first=Del |editor-first=Edward N |editor-last=Zalta |editor-link=Edward N. Zalta |encyclopedia=[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] |title=Teleological Arguments for God's Existence |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/#IntDesIDMov |access-date=2014-02-28 |date=October 3, 2010 |publisher=The Metaphysics Research Lab |location=Stanford, Calif. |issn=1095-5054 |at=Section 4.3, The "Intelligent Design" (ID) Movement}}</ref> which has the following form:
* There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
* The gap is filled with acts of God (or intelligent designer) and therefore proves the existence of God (or intelligent designer).<ref name="Stanford--GodoftheGaps" />

A God-of-the-gaps argument is the theological version of an [[argument from ignorance]]. A key feature of this type of argument is that it merely answers outstanding questions with explanations (often supernatural) that are unverifiable and ultimately themselves subject to unanswerable questions.<ref>See, for instance: {{cite journal |last=Bube |first=Richard H. |author-link=Richard H. Bube |date=Fall 1971 |title=Man Come Of Age: Bonhoeffer's Response To The God-Of-The-Gaps |url=http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/14/14-4/14-4-pp203-220_JETS.pdf |journal=[[Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society]] |volume=14 |issue=4 |pages=203–220 |issn=0360-8808 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> [[History of science|Historians of science]] observe that the [[astronomy]] of the earliest [[civilization]]s, although astonishing and incorporating [[mathematics|mathematical constructions]] far in excess of any practical value, proved to be misdirected and of little importance to the development of science because they failed to inquire more carefully into the mechanisms that drove the [[astronomical object|heavenly bodies]] across the sky.<ref>[[#Ronan 1983|Ronan]], p. 61</ref> It was the [[Ancient Greece|Greek civilization]] that first practiced science, although not yet as a formally defined experimental science, but nevertheless an attempt to rationalize the world of natural experience without recourse to divine intervention.<ref>[[#Ronan 1983|Ronan]], p. 123</ref> In this historically motivated definition of science any appeal to an intelligent creator is explicitly excluded for the paralysing effect it may have on [[scientific progress]].