Other meanings of Intelligent design
Philosophy of Science
Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. It is a contemporary version of the argument from design, but it differs from earlier forms by focusing on purported gaps in evolutionary biology and by avoiding explicit reference to God. The scientific community and major courts have rejected ID as unscientific, viewing it as a form of creationism. Proponents, however, continue to promote it through think tanks and public advocacy, often challenging the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Intelligent design asserts that certain biological systems are irreducibly complex, meaning they require all parts to function and thus could not have evolved stepwise. The bacterial flagellum is a classic example cited by proponents, though scientists have shown that such systems can evolve through co-option of existing parts. Another key concept is specified complexity, developed by mathematician William Dembski, which claims to detect design by measuring improbability and pattern. These arguments are primarily advanced by the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank founded in 1990, which promotes ID through its Center for Science and Culture. Critics note that ID offers no positive mechanism and fails to meet the standards of scientific methodology.
The modern ID movement emerged in the 1980s as a response to legal defeats of creationism. The term 'intelligent design' was popularized in the 1989 textbook Of Pandas and People, which was later found to have been edited to replace 'creation' with 'intelligent design' after the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard. The pivotal legal case was Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), where a federal court ruled that ID is not science and violates the Establishment Clause. The judge noted that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism. Subsequent school board attempts to introduce ID have been consistently struck down, and the scientific community has issued statements against ID from organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Mainstream science rejects intelligent design because it is not testable, generates no predictions, and relies on supernatural causation. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences states that ID is not supported by evidence and is not science. Philosophers of science, such as Robert Pennock and Barbara Forrest, have analyzed ID as a form of pseudoscience, noting its reliance on argument from ignorance. The 'wedge strategy,' an internal Discovery Institute document, reveals a goal to overthrow materialism and renew a religious foundation for society. Despite this, ID has gained traction in some religious communities and has been promoted in international contexts, such as in Turkey and South Korea, where it is used to counter evolutionary teaching.
Beyond the well-known flagellum, ID proponents have cited the blood clotting cascade, the immune system, and even the origin of the universe as evidence of design. The movement has also produced a 'teach the controversy' strategy, which has been criticized as a wedge to introduce religious ideas into classrooms. A notable figure is Michael Behe, a biochemist and Catholic, whose 1996 book Darwin's Black Box popularized irreducible complexity. The Discovery Institute's 'Scientific Dissent from Darwinism' list has over 600 signatories, but most are not biologists, and the list has been criticized for including individuals with no relevant expertise. ID has also been linked to the broader 'intelligent design movement' in theology, where it intersects with arguments for the fine-tuning of the universe.
This article focuses on the contemporary intelligent design movement, distinct from historical arguments from design.
Help improve the encyclopedia. Reports go straight to the site manager.