Intelligent Design: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>John Stephenson
(Copied from Intelligent Design Theory as a manual move)
imported>John Stephenson
(Redirect; sorry, I screwed this up the first time)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Intelligent Design''' (ID) contends that "certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause". ID proponents consider that alternative explanations (including Darwinian evolution) are not feasible, as they assert that "undirected, chance-based process" cannot account for the complexity of living organisms.<ref>[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1136 Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell] Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA)</ref><ref>[http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ Intelligent Design] Intelligent Design network.</ref>
#REDIRECT [[Intelligent design]]
 
==Overview==
The classic [[Design argument for the existence of God|design argument]] for the existence of an intelligent creator was famously formulated in the "watchmaker analogy" by William Paley.<ref>*{{gutenberg author|id=William_Paley|name=William Paley}}
* [http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=A142&viewtype=text&pageseq=1 text of Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity ]</ref><ref>[http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html An Animated Presentation of the Watchmaker Analogy]</ref><ref>{{cite book | first = Richard | last = Dawkins | authorlink = Richard Dawkins | title = The Blind Watchmaker | publisher = W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. | location = New York | origyear = 1986 | year = 1996 | id = ISBN 0-393-31570-3 }}</ref> The premise of the argument is as follows: Imagine walking on a pebbled beach, where the pebbles may be wonderfully shaped, beautiful in different ways, interesting and varied one from another. However interesting and beautiful you find them, you will not doubt that they are the products of purely natural causes. However, if amongst the pebbles you find a watch, even if you have never seen a watch before, you will immediately recognise it as qualitatively different from the pebbles. Inspecting it, from the intricacy of its design, and the clear purpose of that design, you will inevitably and correctly conclude that the watch is not a 'natural' object but an artifact, something designed by a powerful and intelligent agent.
 
Casual observation might lead to the conclusion that even the simplest living form is incredibly complex, giving it the appearance of being designed for a purpose. Proponents of Intelligent Design argue that natural selection and evolution do not adequately account for the complexity of life. They argue that essential features of even the simplest extant living things are 'irreducibly complex', in that such features arise only in highly complex systems and do not appear in even a rudimentary form in simple systems. They argue that an irreducibly complex system is very unlikely to be produced by successive, slight modifications of a previously existing system, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part would be unable to function at all.
 
Detractors of Intelligent Design has not been able to reconstruct in reliable detail the events that gave rise to the [[Origin of life|simplest form of life]]; there is too much that remains unknown. Accordingly, Intelligent Design theory argues that it is just as appropriate to postulate an intelligent agent to explain the mysteries of life as it is to postulate an intelligent watchmaker to explain the watch found on a beach.
 
Proponents argue that the scientific alternative to Intelligent Design theory, the theory of [[Evolution|evolution]] by [[Natural selection|natural selection]], is also not really a testable scientific theory. For example, there is a detailed and coherent argument that accepts that "Darwinism" is scientifically invaluable, but also asserts that it is untestable, and should be regarded as a metaphysical platform for a research programme rather than a theory.<ref>[[Karl Popper|Popper, Karl]] (1974) ''Unended Quest'' Fontana</ref>
 
==Distinct from creationism==
Most proponents of the Intelligent Design hypothesis are also creationists, meaning they believe the Universe was created by a deity or some other power beyond the comprehension of mortal man. The hypothesis, however, is not the same as [[Young earth creationism]], which is a belief that the account of the creation of the universe and of life as given by the Bible is literally true. ID theory does not try to identify the designer as supernatural, nor does it try to establish the veracity of a particular narrative, although some leading proponents of ID theory have stated that they believe the designer to be the Christian God.
 
As Intelligent Design as a scientific programme avoids identifying the designer, its focus is different to that of arguments in [[natural theology]], such as the teleological argument. Intelligent design asks whether design can be detected in nature from purely scientific and mathematical considerations. It then attempts to answer that question in the affirmative.
 
==Peer reviewed ID publications==
Many books on ID have been written <ref>'''Books by Intelligent Design proponents'''
*Michael J. Behe (2006) ''Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution'' Free Press ISBN 0743290313
*Behe MJ, Dembski WA, Meyer SC (Eds) (2000)''Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute)'' Ignatius Press  ISBN 0898708095
*William A. Dembski (2004) ''The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design'' InterVarsity Press, ISBN 0830823751
*William A. Dembski (1998) ''The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities'' (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory) Cambridge University Press ISBN 0521623871
*William A. Dembski (2002) ''Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology'' InterVarsity Press ISBN 083082314X
*Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon (1989) ''Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins''  (2nd edition 1993) a school-level textbook published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics ISBN 0-914513-40-0 See [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9767_22_padian_1989_gross_misr_10_26_2004.asp a review] by paleontologist Kevin Padian of the [[National Center for Science Education]]</ref> but very few ID research papers or monographs have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Many prominent proponents of ID, however, are qualified, practising scientists and it is a weakness of the theory that so little has appeared in the journal literature.
 
On 4 August 2004, an article by Stephen Meyer, an Intelligent Design proponent, appeared in the peer-reviewed ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'', questioning conventional evolutionary explanations for the Cambrian Explosion and proposing Intelligent Design as an alternative. Later, however, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington retracted the article. The managing editor for the journal at the time, the process structuralist Richard Sternberg, stated that the article had been properly peer reviewed by three well qualified referees. His decision to publish the paper nevertheless resulted in protests, and colleagues at the [[Smithsonian Institute]], where he was employed, sought to discredit him and created what the The U.S. [[Office of Special Council]] (which is authorized to investigate allegations of prohibited personnel practices and activities prohibited by civil service law) called "a hostile working environment".<ref>[http://www.rsternberg.net The homepage of Richard Sternberg]</ref><ref>[http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm Decision of the Office of Special Council regarding Richard Sternberg's allegations]</ref>
 
==Criticisms of Intelligent Design==
There are many opponents to Intelligent Design, and it is fair to say that Intelligent Design not widely accepted among the scientific community. Opponents of the theory believe that the so-called "design" found in living organisms is the result of [[Evolution|evolution]] by [[Natural selection|natural selection]], over the four billion years of the history of life on Earth. Opponents of the theory also find it easier to believe that the "design" found in the inanimate structure of the universe is not design at all, and instead find it easier to believe that the physical laws of the universe are unchanging and immutable.
 
The view of opponents in the scientific community is that the postulate of an intelligent designer is not an explanation for life at all, but an evasion of attempted explanation. By this view, Intelligent Design has no content, and makes no predictions by which it can be tested.
 
Both philosophical and scientific proponents of Intelligent Design argue that it is a scientific theory rather than a matter of religious belief<ref> [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1136 Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell] Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA)</ref>, but many members of the scientific community reject this assertion. Opponents of Intelligent Design who are scientists consider that all of the evidence of complexity in biological systems is open to alternative explanation based on conventional biological theory. There are also very many opponents of Intelligent Design who are religious, and who believe that the role of science is to seek natural, physical explanations of the world. Although they believe that there is a God who created the world and life in it, for them this is a matter of faith not of science. Opponents of Intelligent Design doubt the intellectual honesty of Intelligent Design theory, in the sense that they do not consider it to be a viable alternative to the theory of evolution by natural selection, and hence consider that the only reason for promoting it is for the religious message that it is said to contain, not for the intrinsic intellectual merits of the arguments.
 
The basic thesis of Intelligent Design that 'natural selection is undirected' is open to logical challenge. Natural selection of organism survival is indirectly specific on organism subcomponents, because many features of the subcomponents are determined by genes whose retention is determined by their importance for reproductive success of the organism. Organism survival selects for effective function of the organism sub-components as part of a coherently functioning whole. In any organism, survival places specific and subtle requirements and restrictions on particular components such as enzymes, sensors, organs and systems that interact to generate behavior of living things.
 
Critics of Intelligent Design argue that the idea that every piece of any biological machine must be assembled in its final form before anything useful can emerge is wrong. Evolution produces complex biochemical machines by copying, modifying, and combining proteins that were previously used for other functions. For example, Michael Behe, a proponent of Intelligent Design, argues that if you remove almost any of its parts, the bacterial flagellum does not work. However, some of the proteins from the flagellum are used by many bacteria as a device for injecting poisons into other cells. Thus, it is argued by evolutionary theorists that many features of organisms evolved to fit one function and were then adapted through natural selection to fulfil a different function. By this view, natural selection is not a single path, but a multiply branching path with many dead ends, with many branching points where genes were duplicated, and with many changes of direction where the 'destination' changed. In other words, critics argue that the proponents of Intelligent Design misrepresent or misunderstand the processes involved in natural selection.
 
Intelligent Design has received widespread media attention, especially after legal cases were brought against US school boards for promoting Intelligent Design in their biology curricula. Subsequent letters to the Editor in local newspapers suggest that many members of the public view the issue of Intelligent Design to be a religious one. They deem that the theory is being used as a [[apologetic | religious apologetic]] whether or not the theory itself is formally distinct from the question of a supernatural creator.
 
In October 2005, in an open letter to newspapers in Australia, nine individuals including the Dean of Science at the University of Sydney, the executive secretary of the Australian Academy of Science and the presidents of the Science Teachers Associations of a number of Australian states signed a statement<ref>[http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html Australian scientists and educators say ID is not science]
*Faculty of Science, University of New South Wales. [[20 October]] [[2005]]. [http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html Intelligent Design is not Science - Scientists and teachers speak out]
</ref> saying that Intelligent Design is not science. The nine signatories head organisations with a total membership of about 70,000 science professionals, although no polls of the memberships on the issue was reported. The letter coincided with an episode of science program ''Catalyst'', broadcast by the ABC, which showed the Australian Minister for Education, Brendan Nelson, saying that he had no problem with Australian schools teaching Intelligent Design. An ABC poll showed that around two thirds of respondents believed that ID should not be taught in schools.<ref>http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/oz.html Creation & Intelligent Design Watch</ref> Brendan Nelson later said he meant that he had no problem with ID being taught in religious classes, but not science classes.
 
 
 
==See Also==
*''Intelligent Design?'' A special report reprinted from ''Natural History'' magazine. Three proponents of Intelligent Design present their views. Each view is followed by a response from a proponent of evolution. [http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html]
* [[Intelligent Design Movement]]
 
==Notes==
<references/>
 
[[Category: CZ Live]]
[[Category: Biology Workgroup]]
[[Category:Philosophy Workgroup]]
[[Category:Religion Workgroup]]

Revision as of 06:14, 17 May 2007

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Intelligent_Design&oldid=173176"