Intelligent design

Intelligent Design (ID) is the contention that "certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause"; it finds the likelihood of alternative explanations (including Darwinian evolution) improbable, by assuming that they are the result of "an undirected, chance-based process". Intelligent Design is also the name of a movement associated with promoting the concept of Intelligent Design.

Both philosophical and scientific proponents of Intelligent Design argue that it is scientific, although most members of the scientific community generally reject this assertion.

In 2005 a case was brought against a United States school board for requiring the reading of a disclaimer in Biology classes that mentioned Intelligent Design as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. The judge ruled that Intelligent Design is not science, and is essentially religious in nature.

Overview

The classic design argument for the existence of an intelligent creator was famously formulated in the "watchmaker analogy" by William Paley. 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 the watch 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. The scientific view is that this appearance of design is the result of evolution by natural selection, over the four billion years of the history of life on Earth. Proponents of Intelligent Design however argue that this is not an adequate explanation; 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.

It is at present true that science has not been able to reconstruct in reliable detail the events that gave rise to the 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. 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. Proponents argue that the scientific alternative to Intelligent Design theory, the theory of evolution by 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. A scientific view accepts that our understanding of life and its origins is imperfect, but holds that, as a research programme, "evolution by natural selection" is a powerful framework for studying and understanding life, which enables us to rationally and systematically address the questions that remain unanswered.

Distinct from creationism

Most proponents of the Intelligent Design hypothesis are also creationists. 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.

Many of the most visible advocates of Intelligent Design are fellows and advisors of the Centre for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The senior fellows at the CSC include some Roman Catholics, a secular (non-religious) Jew, a member of Sun Myung-Moon's Unification Church, and many protestant Christians.

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 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 qualified referees. A subsequent, and unusual, investigation into his religious and political affiliations led to various restrictions being placed on his work as a result of his decision to publish the article.

Criticisms of Intelligent Design

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 serious 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, in that natural selection of organism survival is indirectly specific on organism subcomponents via the fact that the features of the subcomponents are largely determined by genes whose retention is determined by reproductive success. 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 the various 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 reveal that members of the public largely view the issue of Intelligent Design to be a religious one. They deem that the theory is being used as a 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 saying that Intelligent Design is not science. The nine signatories head organisations with a total enrolled 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. Brendan Nelson later gave a clarification saying he meant that he had no problem with ID being taught in religious classes, but not science classes.

Teaching of Intelligent Design in schools

Several leading proponents of Intelligent Design have stated that Intelligent Design should not be taught in the science curriculum, and the official position of the Discovery Institute is that it should not be taught in schools. Instead the Discovery Institute's Centre for Science and Culture have called for students to learn about the difficulties with the theory of evolution by natural selection as published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

In 2005, when the Kansas Board of Education proposed new science standards that would include alternatives to evolution as explanations for the origin of species, 38 Nobel laureates (including winners of the prize in Physics, Chemistry, Economics, Peace and Medicine) wrote to the Board saying "[...] 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.".

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that Intelligent Design is an alternative to evolution violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on the basis that it was an endorsement of a religious point of view, that it would be seen as such by a student and by an average citizen of the district.

Furthermore, District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design is not science. He stated that "ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community." His statement alludes to three parts of the "Daubert Standard" [3], which governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four Daubert criteria are:

• Evidence should be based on a testable theory or technique.
• The theory or technique should have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
• In the case of a technique there should be a known error rate and standards controlling the application of the technique.
• The underlying science should be generally accepted.

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. [4]