|Jet in Carina WFC3 IR [Courtesy NASA]||Sistine Chapel #1 [courtesy Wikimedia]|
It is important to distinguish here between "intelligent design" as the notion that an intelligent being oversaw or governed the creative process in some general sense (which is a notion that many thinking persons, both scientifically- and theologically-minded, could affirm), and "intelligent design" as the name of the movement described above. In this article (and elsewhere on this site), the second definition of the term (i.e., "intelligent design" as a movement) is used exclusively.
But although intelligent design writers and their proponents take pains to distinguish themselves from traditional creationists, it is clear that the intelligent design movement is also rooted in fundamentalism and biblical inerrancy. Each of the four prominent intelligent design scholars mentioned above (except for Michael Behe, who is Catholic) is affiliated with a relatively fundamentalist denomination, and all have acknowledged that their religious beliefs in general, and their inerrant approach to the Bible in particular, are principal motivations for their work. William Dembski, for instance, recently affirmed [Allen2010]:
As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality. ... I accept that the events described in Genesis 1-11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch.
Along this line, the intelligent design-authored textbook Of Pandas and People is a lightly edited version of an earlier creationist textbook, where, among other things, the word "creation" has been replaced with "intelligent design" [Kitzmiller2005]. The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, is devoted "to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." To this end, they have outlined a "wedge" strategy, which recommends that they proceed in degrees, first by "teaching the controversy" of evolution, then promoting intelligent design as an alternative theory to evolution, then edging out evolution in favor of Biblical theism [Forrest2004, pg. 25-33].
Although there are exceptions, most intelligent design writers agree with creationist writers that modern evolutionary theory is irreconcilable with Christian religion. For example, John G. West of the Discovery Institute says that theistic evolution (the notion that God guided the evolutionary process -- a version that many scientists would affirm) would require "radical revisions in how one views God." West openly criticizes, by name, some of the scientists and theologians who have spoken for a moderate middle ground [West2007; West2009].
It is also worth noting that the early Jewish and Christian writers made no attempt to specify "intelligent design" or "irreducible complexity" as an argument for God [Barr2010a]. For instance, the pre-Christian-era Jewish writer of the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon (a book that is part of the Apocrypha and included in some editions of the Bible), emphasized the magnificence of the creation, but refers to the creator only as the "author of beauty" [NRSV1993, pg. 1517-1518]. Similarly, the Letter of Clement, one of the oldest surviving Christian documents outside the New Testament itself, emphasizes the magnificence and lawfulness of the world, but describes the "Architect and Lord of the universe" mainly as an arbiter of "peace and harmony" among his creations [Barr2010b, pg. 897].
One key weakness of intelligent design, as it currently stands, is that these writers have not yet produced a solid body of quantitative, falsifiable scientific hypotheses that can be tested and scrutinized by the scientific community. For example, exactly what do the intelligent design writers mean by "design"? By comparison, creationists have at least produced a number of testable hypotheses, such as the assertion that the earth is a mere 10,000 years old or less, and that fossils were deposited during a great flood (which hypotheses have been soundly refuted by scientific evidence). Instead, intelligent design writers, like creationist writers, have mostly focused their efforts on identifying weaknesses in the established evolutionary theory. One difficulty with this approach was noted by Judge John E. Jones in the 2005 Dover, Pennsylvania case: "[Intelligent design] is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, [intelligent design] is confirmed. ... We do not find this false dichotomy any more availing to justify [intelligent design] today than it was to justify creation science two decades ago." [Jones2005, pg. 71].
Nonetheless, many are convinced that intelligent design writers have identified substantive technical issues that draw into question certain aspects of evolutionary theory. Since these issues are very frequently raised in these discussions, here is a brief summary of the some issues raised by the intelligent design writers and the consensus response of the scientific world:
This lack of peer-reviewed publications presents a severe obstacle to intelligent design being taken seriously in the scientific world. After all, if intelligent design writers (individually or collectively) believe that any of their technical issues have significant merit on purely scientific grounds, why do they not compose them into well-researched and well-analyzed articles and submit these articles to recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals? After all, as emphasized in a recent Science letter signed by numerous prominent scientists (after brief mention of the prevailing theories of geology, big bang cosmology and evolution), "Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong." [Gleick2010]. The only reasonable inference from the lack of publications is that the intelligent design writers themselves recognize that the arguments and data that they have presented to date would not meet the standards required of serious peer-reviewed scientific publication. For additional details, see Conspiracy.
They generally refuse to be drawn on the sequence of events, or the exact history of life on Earth or its duration, apart from saying, in effect, that it 'doesn't matter.' However, this is seen by the average evolutionist as either absurd or disingenuously evasive -- the arena in which they are seeking to be regarded as full players is one which directly involves historical issues. In other words, if the origins debate is not about a 'story of the past,' what is it about?
Stephen M. Barr, a University of Delaware physicist and columnist for the inter-denominational publication First Things, recently summarized the impact of intelligent design in these terms [Barr2010a]:
It is time to take stock: What has the intelligent design movement achieved? As science, nothing. The goal of science is to increase our understanding of the natural world, and there is not a single phenomenon that we understand better today or are likely to understand better in the future through the efforts of ID theorists. If we are to look for ID achievements, then, it must be in the realm of natural theology. And there, I think, the movement must be judged not only a failure, but a debacle.
Very few religious skeptics have been made more open to religious belief because of ID arguments. These arguments not only have failed to persuade, they have done positive harm by convincing many people that the concept of an intelligent designer is bound up with a rejection of mainstream science. ...
None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong. Nor is it to deny that the ID movement has been treated atrociously and that it has been lied about by many scientists. The question I am raising is whether this quixotic attempt by a small and lightly armed band to overthrow "Darwinism" and bring about a new scientific revolution has accomplished anything good. It has had no effect on scientific thought. Its main consequence has been to strengthen the general perception that science and religion are at war. ...
I suspect that some religious people have embraced the ID movement's arguments because they want "scientific" answers to the scientific atheists, and they know of no others. But there are plenty of ways to make a case for the reasonableness of religious belief that can be persuasive to many in the scientific world. Such a case has been made by a growing number of research scientists who are Christian believers, such as John Polkinghorne, Owen Gingerich, Francis Collins, Peter E. Hodgson, Michal Heller, Kenneth R. Miller, and Marco Bersanelli. I have addressed many audiences myself using arguments similar to theirs and have had scientists whom I know to be of firm atheist convictions tell me that they came away with more respect for the religious position. Religion has a significant number of friends (and potential friends) in the scientific world. The ID movement is not creating new ones.
Certainly the majority of intelligent design writers, which accept the general outlines of the 4.5 billion-year evolutionary history of the earth, are much more reasonable than creationist writers. However, with regards to the technical arguments raised by the intelligent design community, the consensus of the vast majority of scientists who have examined these issues is that their arguments are either refuted by well-known evidence, or else are not genuinely substantive and not threatening to the foundations of the evolutionary paradigm. Virtually all of these issues were settled long ago in the scientific literature. At the very least, the intelligent design community certainly has not delivered a "knock-out" blow to evolutionary theory as they have hoped.
In any event, these arguments have not been published in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals, so they cannot be taken seriously by the scientific community. If any of these writers do believe that they have solid arguments that could stand peer review, they are welcome to write these arguments in a soberly written, well-organized technical paper, and submit it to a journal. After all, the requirements for a good peer-reviewed article are well known -- see Peer review. If the resulting article has true merit, many journals would jump at the opportunity to herald a major challenge to some aspect of evolutionary theory. Some prominent journals in the field include The Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Evolution, Journal of Geophysical Research, Science and Nature. Each of these websites include a facility for submitting papers.
One overriding difficulty with both the creationist and intelligent design movements is that invoking a Creator or Designer whenever one encounters a difficult question is a "thinking stopper." Such an approach places numerous grand questions of our existence off-limits to human investigation, buried in the inscrutable mind of a mysterious supreme Being: "Why was the earth (or the universe in general) designed the way it was?" "How did the design and creative processes proceed?" "What physical laws were employed?" "Why those particular laws?" "What prompted the creation?" "Have other earths or universes been designed or created?" "Where are they?" Surely there is a more fruitful avenue for finding a harmony between science and religion than just saying "God created and/or designed it that way" and then deeming it either unnecessary or inappropriate to inquire further.
It is ironic, in a way, that the creationist and intelligent design movements seek to "prove" the hand of God in creation by seeking scientific evidence that certain aspects of the creation could not possibly have occurred by natural processes. After all, a central tenet of most in these movements is that faith is an essential part of religion. But faith, by definition, is a religious belief that lies outside the realm of what can be readily tested by the empirical methods of scientific research. Indeed, by placing God on the anvil of scientific verification or refutation, these writers are implicitly affirming the scientific materialist worldview of the atheistic critics who are their most implacable foes (see Atheists and God hypothesis). Further, these movements inevitably lead to such theological disasters as "God the Great Deceiver" theology, wherein God is thought to have constructed the world with an appearance of ancient evolutionary development (see Deceiver), and "God of the gaps" theology, wherein God is sought in the gaps of what is currently unexplained in science (see God of the gaps).
For these reasons, neither creationism nor intelligent design can be recommended for those seeking rational harmony between science and religion. Other approaches, which acknowledge basic scientific precepts, and do not attempt to "combat" the world of science, are recommended instead. See Harmony for a high-level discussion of these issues.
For additional information, see
God of the gaps.