Intelligent design as we know it today is misnomer.

A bold statement only if one ignores the origins of the term “intelligent design” as it is used today.

Creation science

In short, creation science is an attempt to scientifically validate the Biblical account of creation.

Modern creationism emerged shortly after the conclusion of World War I, when Christian fundamentalism was on the rise in the United States.  In 1925, the state of Tennessee passed the Butler Act, prohibiting teachers from denying the Biblical account of the origins of man, and also the teaching of evolution of man.

The Cold War eventually put evolution back into text-books across the country for fear that the Soviet Union would outpace the United States in science education.

Since the 1961 publication of The Genesis Flood, by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb, the creationist movement has been slowly gaining steam.  The Genesis Flood posits that Earth was created in seven days, and is less than 7,000 years old.  In other words, the authors take a literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian Bible and examine the scientific plausibility of it.

Creation science by nature seeks to disprove the effectiveness of scientific standards such as radio-carbon dating, as well as accepted scientific facts in cosmology, and biology.

Defenders of creationism tend to be fundamentalist or orthodox Christians.

Creationists were forced to change their tactics when a Supreme Court case ruled that creation science was religious in nature, and therefore could not be taught in public schools.

Edwards v. Aguillard

In 1987, the United States Supreme court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring creationism to be taught alongside evolution was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment clause of the first amendment.  Which reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

After that landmark decision, an edited version of Of Pandas and People, the first creationist text-book was released.  The text-book was written by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, both of them self-professed creationists.  Percival Davis, when asked about the reasons for writing the creationist text-book, told the Wall Street Journal in 1994:

“Of course my motives were religious. There’s no question about it.”

In what way was Pandas edited?

Every instance of the word “creation” or “creator” or any derivative thereof found in the text was replaced with “intelligent design”, “designer”, or any derivative thereof.  Thus, modern Intelligent Design was born.

Shortly after the case, The Discovery Institute was founded to advertise the concept of Intelligent design, and manufacture false controversy about the acceptance of evolution in the scientific community.

Looking at the history of modern creationism, it’s easy to see that intelligent design is firmly rooted in creationism.  But nevertheless, ID had to be different enough to appear at least slightly more legitimate in a court of law or a classroom, so terms were changed  and “God” or “Creator” was taken out of the picture.

Misconceptions about modern Intelligent Design

Public perceptions of the ID movement reveal some very dramatic misconceptions that largely hint at the true motivation of many ID proponents.

Misconception number one: God.  A tenet of Intelligent design is the discretion toward the use of the word “God” or “Gods”, or the implication that a God or Gods has anything to do with ID.  Such discretion is necessary if proponents of ID wish to be taken seriously in an academic setting.  According to the Discovery Institute, one of the leading proponents of Intelligent design, the theory has absolutely nothing to do with the Christian Bible or any other religious text.

Why is it that people assume “God”, or any “divine” intelligence is the designer that ID refers to?  Officially, ID theory does not extend to who or what is the designer, but only that it may have been intelligently designed.

It could be simply that because “God” is so ingrained into American culture, we simply identify this designer to be God.  Or it could be that many ID proponents happen to be conservative and Christian, so the public associates the theory with God.  Or it could be that the history of ID, as a creationist movement, is well known.  Likely, the misconception that “God” is the designer referred to in ID, is the result of a combination of all the above social trends.

Misconception number two: controversy over evolution.  The fact is, there is overwhelming evidence in support of evolution.  Microbial recombination, the fossil record, hereditary adaptation, species variation, and so on.  Biology as a science would not exist in any way if evolution of species was not observed to some extent.  There is overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that life evolves overtime.  The official position of the Catholic Church on evolutionary theory is that it is not in conflict with Christianity, but rather a welcome scientific advancement.

Besides, ID is in one way compatible with evolutionary theory.  From the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection… [when referring to evolution] If one simply means “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory…However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that “has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species.”

The sentence structure centered around the label “neo-Darwinism” is a little hyperbolic.  The term “neo-Darwinism” was coined by evolutionary biologist George John Romanes in 1895 to describe the relatively new idea developed by August Weismann, that genes were the engines of natural selection (which is fact).

ID posits that evolution is a guided process, that an intelligence of some kind underlies nature; “Neo-Darwinism” on the other hand does not.

Misconception number three: the science of ID.  Those that speak against ID will claim that the theory is not scientifically sound.  Those in favor of ID theory will defend it to a fault.

Let’s get one thing clear:  There is no science in ID.  There is no sense in holding ID to scientific standards.

Problems with modern Intelligent Design

Perhaps the biggest problem with ID is its identity crisis.  There is a noticeable split when it comes to whether or not ID should be treated as a scientific theory or just religion masquerading as science, or both (creationism).  If proponents of ID chose a side and stuck with it, they’d have better luck identifying an audience.

If ID proponents want to disprove Darwin’s theory of evolution, they are going about the process in an entirely unprofessional, unreasonable (literally), and unscientific way.  ID proponents, including the Discovery Institute, use verbal smut and illogical appeals to ignorance rather than scientific experimentation, and scholarly verbose in attempt to discredit the established theory of evolution.

It’s not at all surprising though, because none of the principles of ID are scientifically valid, so it’s not much of an argument.

Another obvious problem with ID, and creation science in general, is the lack of methods with which to observe the “designer” designing something.  ID proponents criticize Darwinian evolution for being:

“random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that “has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species.”

But offer no alternative other than to say:

“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process.”

Firstly, “random mutations” don’t exist.  Mutations are a result of biological processes that are perpetuated by the environment in which an organism inhabits (nothing is ever completely random, hence probability).  Genetic mutations are not entirely unpredictable either, hence cloned sheep.  And to say that natural selection is a purposeless process is completely subjective; the same is true for saying that there is no discernible direction or goal.

ID does not provide us with a competing set of data points. ID has yet to “discern a direction or goal” of the designer.  And I wager the theory can’t provide those things without encroaching upon unscientific philosophical conjecture (for example, religion).

There is also the fundamental problem regarding complexity.  Assuming the universe is complex, it’s “designer(s)” must be at least as complex, and ID theory as stated earlier, does not extend to who or what designed the universe.  So the problem is postponed.  Why hasn’t ID theory produced any explanations of the “designers”?

If ID wants to be scientific, then it needs to properly address all of the aforementioned concerns.  If ID theory does not wish to compete with Darwinism, then it needs to stop denying it’s religious roots.

The Bottom line is:  Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, nor is it based on any philosophy or religion.  It is a misnomer.  More money has been spent on advertising ID and lobbying for it than on scientific research; that should tell you something.

Intelligent Design in schools

I am against teaching ID in any school because its concepts (irreducible complexity, specified complexity, fine-tuning universe, intelligent designer) are literally irrational, illogical, unscientific, and if it were part of a philosophy or humanities curriculum, it would simply be useless and/or redundant.  ID is not a productive or useful topic in anyway and it has no place in academia.

I am also against “teaching the controversy” because that would be even less productive than actually teaching ID theory.

Science is not a religion, it is not faith-based, it is not a collection of similar ideologies, it has no defining documentation, it makes no claim for or against morality, societies have never been developed around the concept, it has no churches or equivalent, it does not require belief of anything at all, it does not lend itself to conspiracy, it cannot “refuse” to acknowledge information, it has no bias, and it is not competing with any other way of thought.

Science is simply a method of inquiry. Nothing more.  One cannot logically put science and religion against each other because religion is an institution, not a methodology.  Darwin’s theory of evolution is the result of adherence to a pure method of inquiry; it is not a matter of belief or faith or religion or morality, so if one wishes to challenge scientific results, it must be a challenge from within a scientific methodology, and nothing else.