How is intelligent design defined...

[Shven]

In terms of the evolution/creation debate?

[Freethinking]

How would you define it? How do the "intelligent design" proponents define it?

[llDayo]

In terms of the evolution/creation debate?

Goddidit, just replace the word God with Intelligent Being so as not to sound religious.

[Flint]

ID is defined negatively, as what remains after we have eliminated random chance and regularity. Step two is to show that the odds against life just POOF happening by atoms wandering into one another just right is so tiny as to eliminate random chance, and the nonobvious complexity of life elimiinates regularity, so ID wins by default. Wasn't that easy.

ID is then defended mostly by telling its critics "You don't understand ID" or "You don't understand what random means" or "You don't understand regularity." Then keep shuffling the meanings of these around so that no effort to match them is ever right. When someone points out that the definitions are being changed, just say "You don't understand ID."

[Ovazor]

Philip Johnson has written that


A theistic realist assumes that the universe and all its creatures were brought into existence for a purpose by God. Theistic realists expect this "fact" of creation to have empirical, observable consequences that are different from the consequences one would one would observe if the universe were the product of nonnatural causes. (quoted from Creationism's Trojan Horse by Barbara Forest and Paul R. Gross)

I'd define intelligent design (in the creation-evolution context) to be the "empirical, observable consequences different from those produced by natural causes (i.e. evolution)" the proponents of ID expect to find. From this results the fact that the argumentation of ID-movement is pretty much centred on negative argumentation: the IDers think that by presenting something to be different from what they think Darwinistic (which they regard pretty much synonymous with naturalistic) mechanisms would produce, they prove that the thing must necessarily be created.

In evo/crea debate ID is an umbrella position, under which creationists of various stripes (YECs, OECs, etc.) can unite.

[Flint]

I found a classic definition on the ARN forum. This guy, incidentally, is entirely serious. This is NOT a parody:

Intelligent Design is self-evident, but only to the objective observer.

[squozebrain]

Intelligent Design is not distinguished from "natural causes." We humans are deemed intelligent, and we are natural beings. When a human designs something, say, a hammer, it is said to be intellegently designed. This does not imply that the hammer is of supernatural origin. "Intelligent Design" must be defined in terms of potentially natural intelligent sources which are distinguished from non-intelligent sources. In most ID arguments, it is presumed that natural selection is not an intelligent process.

There are many ways to describe "intelligence" when talking about nature and the cosmos. This excerpt from Doubt: a History presents Plato's version of "Intelligent Design":
J. M.Hecht wrote: We human beings have mind and we are animated. The heavens are animated and much more magnificently than we, so Plato argued that they were possessed of even more splendid mind: "Without intelligence they would never have conformed to such precise computations."

[RGD]

I found a classic definition on the ARN forum. This guy, incidentally, is entirely serious. This is NOT a parody:

Intelligent Design is self-evident, but only to the objective observer.

Yes, that may be my very favorite ARN quote of all time. I used it in my sig before I got banned.

[Urvogel Reverie]

I would state that its adherents define ID as they require it to be defined, from moment to moment, depending on the debate in which they find themselves. It is so mutable a concept, and so malleable, that it can encompass any data and any observation, until it has engulfed everything as if an intellectual amoeba. It is thus worthless.

Urvogel Reverie

[RGD]

I would state that its adherents define ID as they require it to be defined, from moment to moment, depending on the debate in which they find themselves. It is so mutable a concept, and so malleable, that it can encompass any data and any observation, until it has engulfed everything as if an intellectual amoeba. It is thus worthless.

Urvogel Reverie

Well, it may be worthless, but I'm not sure that their definition is actually all that variable.

It is, essentially, "there exist biological structures and/or entities for which the theory of evolution cannot account."

The rest is all fill-in-the-blanks, as you say.

[Ovazor]

Intelligent Design is not distinguished from "natural causes."

At least some prominent people in the ID-movement do define intelligent causes as separate from natural causes. I've been on a lecture series, where Dr. Paul Nelson from Discovery institute's Center for (Renewal) Science and Culture railed how "naturalistic science" is dogmatic by excluding other than natural causes as possible explanation. In his slide the point was presented as

Natural causes

Intelligent causes
-------------------
"Supernatural" causes

In other words, Nelson at least regards intelligent causes to be separate from natural causes.

IDers tend to philosophise much about how "methodological naturalism" should be replaced in science. I doubt they would do that if their intelligent causes or design was compatible with natural explanation...Which is, of course what the ID-movement is all about, i.e. to search nature for traces left by creation.

[squozebrain]

In other words, Nelson at least regards intelligent causes to be separate from natural causes.


More correctly, Nelson regards supernatural causes as intelligent and admissable in scientific explanations. This does not mean that natural causes cannot be intelligent. Let S={supernatural causes}, N={natural causes} and I={intelligent agents}. Then S*N=[empty set], but I*N and I*S are not empty.

In the Design Argument, the pre-life Universe is imagined as a purely natural cosmos, absent of intelligence. ID often claims that intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligence. Some ID authors admit that life on Earth could just as well be of extra-terriestrial (but natural) intelligent origin. That would count as a natural intelligent cause.

In the final regression, however, they usually insist that the first creation of intelligence must come from a supernatural designer. As you turn the clock backwards, you eventually run out of natural intelligent agents.

[Freethinking]

Thank you all for adding your responses and helping me to know more clearly what the adherents to the Intelligent Design movement are pushing. If you have the time, here are a few more questions. Strong, logical, simple, and entertaining responses will help us to much more thoroughly discuss and effectively debate against the ID proponents. Then we don't have to rely on rude, emotive language, and raw political power - as they appear to be doing.

- Who are the most "trusted authorities" on Intelligent Design? I've read a little here that Philip Johnson, Dr. Paul Nelson, the Institute for Creation Research, Michael Behe, and the philosopher Plato are some of those who are supposedly the 'experts' of the ID movement. Who are the others and which people are most influential?

- Why exactly are these adherents to the ID movement perceived as authorities? Are they authors, politicians, or religious leaders?

- What are the strengths (appeals) of their arguments and the most interesting points they are pushing?

- Likewise, who are the most effective critics and "respected authorities", and the most credible scientists who are willing to counter the ID claims?

- Why hasn't ID been totally accepted (or totally rejected and discredited) in scientific communities?

- If it has been rejected by a great majority of scientists, how can we clearly show that religious conservatives are trying to subvert the normal scientific peer-review process (by directly introducing it in science classrooms).

- What do you suppose are the ultimate goals and priorities (political agendas) of the ID proponents? If you can, please include their own words in quotations...

- What communities and scientific journals have reviewed this "theory"? What branches of science (evolutionary biology and psychology, theoretical chemistry, anthropology, paleontology, astronomy, geology, cosmology, etc.) are related to this argument?

- What criteria should be used to judge a theory like ID?

- What are the accepted standards scientists are using when deciding which theories are scientific and which are not scientific and actually a philosophical and religious movements cloaked in psuedo-science?

[Ovazor]

More correctly, Nelson regards supernatural causes as intelligent and admissable in scientific explanations. This does not mean that natural causes cannot be intelligent.

In another slide Nelson defined natural causes to be unintentional, and intelligent causes intentional, which would men that by his definitions a natural cause cannot be intelligent as a cause cannot be intentional and unintentional at the same time. Not a good way to define things if you ask me, btw.

[Sensei Meela]

There does not appear to be a singe, coherent definition, as far as I can tell.

Wikipedia writes:
Intelligent design (ID) is the claim that empirical evidence points to the conclusion that life on earth was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents.

The phrase "Intelligent Design," was first widely publicized by legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson in his 1991 book Darwin on Trial, though earlier references can be found in creationist literature.
Intelligent Design Network writes:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
The Discovery Instutute writes:
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.

The ACLU website has this to offer, from the most recent (Dover) case:
Teachers will be required to read the following statement:

'Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.'

The lawsuit argues that teaching students about "intelligent design" in public school science classes entangles government with religion and violates the separation of church and state. Of Pandas and People, the alternative book available for students, was authored by advocates of so-called creation science and published by a Christian think-tank that aims to preach "the Christian Gospel and understanding of the Bible."
I could not find the actual definition from the Pandas book, but the lawsuit on the UCLA website identified the book as concluding that "life itself owes it's origin to a master designer" and "new organisms arise from a blueprint, a plan, a pattern, devised by an intelligent agent."

The NCSE website (http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=21) has a host of articles critical of the book.

[squozebrain]

For answers to many of your questions, I recommend reading Doubts About Darwin: A History Of Intelligent Design by Thomas Woodward. I have only read portions of this, but it seems pretty thorough.

Intelligent Design arguments are actually among the oldest subjects in philosophy. Even the Greeks used design-type arguments to prove the existence of Zeus and other gods. Design arguments have taken many different shapes, and have been with us since the dawn of rational thought.

ID does not find many opportunities to invade mainstream science, because ID is mostly a non-evidential theory. There have been increasing attempts to phrase ID in terms of something observable, but these attempts have usually hovered around a failed notion of "irreducible complexity."

I think the final frontier for ID and science lies with the theory of algorithmic statistics and evidential inferrence. I believe (optimistically) that this young field can finally draw a precise line of demarcation between science (defined as formal inferrences from physical observations) and metaphysics (reasoning about unobservable concepts).

Ultimately, I believe ID will be relegated to metaphysics. We will find ever better demonstrations of evolution, and the hope of demonstrability for ID will fade to nothing.

[RBH]

Drill deep enough into intelligent design creationists' definitions and one will find "intent" or "purpose." The key issue for IDists and Creationists is not really whether life was intelligently designed, it is whether life was intended, and in particular whether humans were intended. Intentionality, not intelligence, is the key property of the Designer for those folks.

RBH

[Mageth]

The Discovery Instutute writes:

I was about to post that.

Instead, I'll post a link to the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture's FAQ page, which includes that definition, which might help answer some of the other questions from the IDC (Intelligent Design Creationism) perspective:

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

[squozebrain]

Drill deep enough into intelligent design creationists' definitions and one will find "intent" or "purpose." The key issue for IDists and Creationists is not really whether life was intelligently designed, it is whether life was intended, and in particular whether humans were intended. Intentionality, not intelligence, is the key property of the Designer for those folks.


This is true, and it makes things much worse. "Intention" is about as metaphysical as you can get. In practice, intention is often part of a design inferrence. If you find a rock that looks chiseled, you can claim it was designed, but you must have a theory of who designed it and what they intended to do with it. Then you can demonstrate the intended use with the object itself. This demonstrates, if nothing else, consistency of your theory.

But how can you infer the design of a human? For what purpose were we intended? Are we tools of some sort? Or perhaps, as claimed by many Christian sects, we were constructed as shelter for the Holy Ghost (we're like a sort of dualist lean-to). Or perhaps we were constructed as spare parts, eventually to assemble a large organic robot called "The Body of Christ." There are just too many possible theories.

[Donald_McRonald]

- Who are the most "trusted authorities" on Intelligent Design? I've read a little here that Philip Johnson, Dr. Paul Nelson, the Institute for Creation Research, Michael Behe, and the philosopher Plato are some of those who are supposedly the 'experts' of the ID movement. Who are the others and which people are most influential?

Dembski is also a big-time IDer. So is wells.
Info at http://www.antievolution.org/people/dembski_wa/ and http://www.antievolution.org/people/wells_j/

- Why exactly are these adherents to the ID movement perceived as authorities?
Because they made it up. They're a mix of scientists, religious figures, etc.

- What are the strengths (appeals) of their arguments and the most interesting points they are pushing?
"Random Darwinian evolutionary models are not possible given the statistical evidence. Ergo, it can be inferred that design is necessary for the explanation of biodiversity"

- Likewise, who are the most effective critics and "respected authorities", and the most credible scientists who are willing to counter the ID claims?
Besides anyone with half a brain? See pandasthumb.org, pharyngula.org, http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml, talkorigins.org, etc.

- Why hasn't ID been totally accepted (or totally rejected and discredited) in scientific communities?
See the AAAS statement above. In other words: ID IS NOT ACTUAL SCIENCE

- If it has been rejected by a great majority of scientists, how can we clearly show that religious conservatives are trying to subvert the normal scientific peer-review process (by directly introducing it in science classrooms).
Look at what Dembski, et al have said. Also, one article on ID made it into a scientific journal. It was later disowned (http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html). See the timeline (http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000484.html) for more info.

- What do you suppose are the ultimate goals and priorities (political agendas) of the ID proponents? If you can, please include their own words in quotations...
Behold, the Wedge (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html). Background at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design#The_Center_for_Science_and_Culture_and_the_.22Wedge.22_strategy

- What communities and scientific journals have reviewed this "theory"? What branches of science (evolutionary biology and psychology, theoretical chemistry, anthropology, paleontology, astronomy, geology, cosmology, etc.) are related to this argument?
Again, Wikipedia is helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design#ID_and_scientific_peer_review

- What criteria should be used to judge a theory like ID?
The same for any other scientific "theory" don't you think?

- What are the accepted standards scientists are using when deciding which theories are scientific and which are not scientific and actually a philosophical and religious movements cloaked in psuedo-science?
See the AAAS resolution above and specific scientific journal articles on refuting intelligent designs.

Also, this article (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Heresy.cfm) is helpful for refuting people who say evolution is a darwinist* dogma, or words to that effect.



*Notice how they love to use this outdated word.

[Ovazor]

- Who are the most "trusted authorities" on Intelligent Design? I've read a little here that Philip Johnson, Dr. Paul Nelson, the Institute for Creation Research, Michael Behe, and the philosopher Plato are some of those who are supposedly the 'experts' of the ID movement. Who are the others and which people are most influential?

William Dembski is perhaps the most prominent theorist of ID-movement. Jonathan Wells is a fellow of the Discovery institute and is active in the ID-movement. Stephen Meyer managed to get an article published in a peer-reviewed journal. The most prominent people in the ID movement are scholars, which is not suprising considering that ID is claiming to be a scientific movement.


- What are the strengths (appeals) of their arguments and the most interesting points they are pushing?

Their basic argumentation is much argumenting from ignorance, and throwing around claims of dogmatism. The argumentation of the ID-movement is much centred on trying to discredit theory of evolution by claiming that there are holes in it and the scientific "establishment" dogmatically forbids any critique of the ToE. This can be a very appealing way to argument. ID-movement is much more active in arguing politics than science, and makes much of appearing to argue for "fairness."


- Why hasn't ID been totally accepted (or totally rejected and discredited) in scientific communities?

ID hasn't been accepted in scientific community, because the IDist haven't really even tried to present their case via the normal scientific venues, preferring to go straight to the public. That's not the way to gain scientific acceptance, even if their arguments had something in them. Another reason why the ID-arguments haven't been accepted in the scientific community is, that they are easily refuted by those who know even the basics. The parasox of the ID-movement is, that while they claim that their argument is scientific, they also campaign a change in the philosophical stance of natural sciences allowing a supernatural explanation to be considered.


- If it has been rejected by a great majority of scientists, how can we clearly show that religious conservatives are trying to subvert the normal scientific peer-review process (by directly introducing it in science classrooms).

The IDers mostly don't work via the normal peer-review process. They are not as much subverting it than circumventing it, trying to ignore it in the first place. The IDers really want the public to believe in their version, what the scientific community thinks is only tangential to this.


- What do you suppose are the ultimate goals and priorities (political agendas) of the ID proponents? If you can, please include their own words in quotations...

The ultimate goal of the ID proponents is to spread the beleif in the creator. As the journal of the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture put it in August 1996 (quoted in the Creationism's Trojan Horse by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross. I recommend this book to you as it answers your guestions.)

For over a century, Western science has been influenced by the idea that God is either dead or irrelevant. Two foundations recently awarded Discovery Institute nearly a million dollars in grants to examine and confront this materialistic bias in science, law and the humanities

There it is in plain: the aim is to put God back in science, law and the humanities.


- What communities and scientific journals have reviewed this "theory"?

IDists haven't presented any theory to scientific journals to be reviewed. There's been one article, and it was not based on empirical research. But as the IDists mostly argue for public, most counter-arguments have also appeared in the public, not scientific arenas.


What branches of science (evolutionary biology and psychology, theoretical chemistry, anthropology, paleontology, astronomy, geology, cosmology, etc.) are related to this argument?

Just about anything that can be used. Dembski tries to argue from mathematics, and there are plenty of biochemists around too.


- What criteria should be used to judge a theory like ID?

The same as any other theory...But ID hasn't presented a theory so far.

[Freethinking]

Thanks very much for all of the opposition research.
Flint, Sensei Meela, RBH, Donald McRonald, Squozebrain, RBH, and all others here are much more knowledgeable about this than I am. I'll look for the books that have been recommended and try to make time to read them. I also have much respect for those of you who are willing to try to counter the tactics, especially in the public and political arenas. Thanks again! :thumbs: :notworthy