Editing Intelligent design (section)

===Intelligent designer===
{{Main|Intelligent designer}}

The contemporary intelligent design movement formulates its arguments in [[secular]] terms and intentionally avoids identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) they posit. Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene. Dembski, in ''[[The Design Inference]]'' (1998), speculates that an [[Extraterrestrial life|alien]] culture could fulfill these requirements. ''Of Pandas and People'' proposes that [[Search for extraterrestrial intelligence|SETI]] illustrates an appeal to intelligent design in science. In 2000, philosopher of science [[Robert T. Pennock]] suggested the [[Raëlian beliefs and practices|Raëlian]] [[Unidentified flying object|UFO]] religion as a real-life example of an extraterrestrial intelligent designer view that "make[s] many of the same bad arguments against evolutionary theory as creationists".<ref>[[#Pennock 1999|Pennock 1999]], pp. 229–229, 233–242</ref> The authoritative description of intelligent design,<ref name="DI-topquestions" /> however, explicitly states that the ''Universe'' displays features of having been designed. Acknowledging the [[paradox]], Dembski concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/119 |title=The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendence and Immanence |last=Dembski |first=William A. |date=August 10, 1998 |website=Center for Science and Culture |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2014-02-28}} "Presented at Millstatt Forum, Strasbourg, France, 10 August 1998."</ref> The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.<ref name="dembski_logos" />

Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science. For example, [[Jerry Coyne]] asks why a designer would "give us a pathway for making [[vitamin C]], but then destroy it by disabling one of its enzymes" (see [[pseudogene]]) and why a designer would not "stock oceanic islands with reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and freshwater fish, despite the suitability of such islands for these species". Coyne also points to the fact that "the flora and fauna on those islands resemble that of the nearest mainland, even when the environments are very different" as evidence that species were not placed there by a designer.<ref name="CoyneTNR">{{cite magazine |last=Coyne |first=Jerry |author-link=Jerry Coyne |date=August 22, 2005 |title=The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name |url=http://www.edge.org/conversation/the-case-against-intelligent-design |magazine=[[The New Republic]] |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> Previously, in ''Darwin's Black Box'', Behe had argued that we are simply incapable of understanding the designer's motives, so such questions cannot be answered definitively. Odd designs could, for example, "...have been placed there by the designer for a reason—for artistic reasons, for variety, to show off, for some as-yet-undetected practical purpose, or for some unguessable reason—or they might not."<ref name="odd_design">[[#Behe 1996|Behe 1996]], p. 221</ref> Coyne responds that in light of the evidence, "either life resulted not from intelligent design, but from evolution; or the intelligent designer is a cosmic prankster who designed everything to make it look as though it had evolved."<ref name="CoyneTNR" />

Intelligent design proponents such as [[Paul Nelson (creationist)|Paul Nelson]] avoid 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. Behe cites Paley as his inspiration, but he differs from Paley's expectation of a perfect Creation and proposes that designers do not necessarily produce the best design they can. Behe suggests that, like a parent not wanting to spoil a child with extravagant toys, the designer can have multiple motives for not giving priority to excellence in engineering. He says that "Another problem with the argument from imperfection is that it critically depends on a psychoanalysis of the unidentified designer. Yet the reasons that a designer would or would not do anything are virtually impossible to know unless the designer tells you specifically what those reasons are."<ref name="odd_design" /> This reliance on inexplicable motives of the designer makes intelligent design scientifically untestable. Retired [[University of California, Berkeley|UC Berkeley]] law professor, author and intelligent design advocate [[Phillip E. Johnson]] puts forward a core definition that the designer creates for a purpose, giving the example that in his view [[HIV/AIDS|AIDS]] was created to punish immorality and [[HIV/AIDS denialism|is not caused by HIV]], but such motives cannot be tested by scientific methods.<ref name="Pennock 245">[[#Pennock 1999|Pennock 1999]], pp. 245–249, 265, 296–300</ref>

Asserting the need for a designer of complexity also raises the question "What designed the designer?"<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/empty.htm |title=Intelligent Design: The Glass is Empty |last=Simanek |first=Donald E. |date=February 2006 |website=Donald Simanek's Pages |publisher=[[Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania]] |location=Lock Haven, PA |access-date=2012-06-16 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120714082248/http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/empty.htm |archive-date=2012-07-14 }}</ref> Intelligent design proponents say that the question is irrelevant to or outside the scope of intelligent design.<ref group="n">{{cite web |url=http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1147 |title=FAQ: Who designed the designer? |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=[[Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center]] |publisher=Casey Luskin; IDEA Center |location=Seattle |type=Short answer |access-date=2014-02-28 |quote=One need not fully understand the origin or identity of the designer to determine that an object was designed. Thus, this question is essentially irrelevant to intelligent design theory, which merely seeks to detect if an object was designed.... Intelligent design theory cannot address the identity or origin of the designer—it is a philosophical / religious question that lies outside the domain of scientific inquiry. Christianity postulates the religious answer to this question that the designer is God who by definition is eternally existent and has no origin. There is no logical philosophical impossibility with this being the case (akin to [[Aristotle]]'s 'unmoved mover') as a religious answer to the origin of the designer.}}</ref> Richard Wein counters that "...scientific explanations often create new unanswered questions. But, in assessing the value of an explanation, these questions are not irrelevant. They must be balanced against the improvements in our understanding which the explanation provides. Invoking an unexplained being to explain the origin of other beings (ourselves) is little more than [[Begging the question|question-begging]]. The new question raised by the explanation is as problematic as the question which the explanation purports to answer."<ref name="Wein" /> [[Richard Dawkins]] sees the assertion that the designer does not need to be explained as a [[Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism#Thought-terminating cliché|thought-terminating cliché]].<ref name="Rosenhouse">{{cite web |url=http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/who_designed_the_designer/ |title=Who Designed the Designer? |last=Rosenhouse |first=Jason |date=November 3, 2006 |website=[[Committee for Skeptical Inquiry]] |series=Intelligent Design Watch |location=Amherst, N.Y. |publisher=[[Center for Inquiry]] |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref><ref>[[#Dawkins 1986|Dawkins 1986]], p. 141</ref> In the absence of observable, measurable evidence, the question "What designed the designer?" leads to an [[turtles all the way down|infinite regression]] from which intelligent design proponents can only escape by resorting to religious creationism or logical contradiction.<ref>See for example {{cite web |url=http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/050927voices_pseudoscience |title=Intelligent design is pseudoscience |last=Manson |first=Joseph |date=September 27, 2005 |work=UCLA Today |access-date=2014-05-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140515090423/http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/050927voices_pseudoscience |archive-date=May 15, 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref>