Intelligent Design Argument
An Intelligent Design Argument is a religious argument for the existence of a god.
- See: Pseudoscience, Argument, Methodological Naturalism, Existence of God, Scientific Theory, Natural Selection.
References
2018
- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/19/intelligent-design-how-come-he-made-so-many-blunders
- QUOTE: ... In fact, the evolution of the human eye was a basic business. It evolved from simpler versions that in turn evolved from even simpler eyes that in turn evolved from basic light sensors. That is how natural selection operates. It acts on existing features of animals’ bodies and slowly induces change that can eventually result in new species.
But there is a far more important observation to be made about our eyes, it turns out. They are most definitely not organs of perfection as creationists claim. We get short-sighted, often early in life. We develop glaucoma, cataracts and go blind, as the evolutionary biologist Matan Shelomi has argued. “Who designed these faulty things? The answer can’t be a God, because a God so incompetent in designing vision sensors isn’t worth worshipping.” In other words, the human eye, far from proving there was a divine creator, is a clear pointer to his or her nonexistence. …
- QUOTE: ... In fact, the evolution of the human eye was a basic business. It evolved from simpler versions that in turn evolved from even simpler eyes that in turn evolved from basic light sensors. That is how natural selection operates. It acts on existing features of animals’ bodies and slowly induces change that can eventually result in new species.
2018
- (Wikipedia, 2018) ⇒ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design Retrieved:2018-8-19.
- Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins",[1] though it has been discredited as pseudoscience.[2] [3] [4] Proponents claim 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."[5] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, so it is not science. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist Christian and politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1] Though the phrase "intelligent design" had featured previously in theological discussions of the design argument, the first publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, [6] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to creation science and creationism, after the 1987 United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.[7] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute, [8] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula. This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in which U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III found that intelligent design was not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [9] ID presents two main arguments against evolutionary explanations: irreducible complexity and specified complexity. These arguments assert that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. As a positive argument against evolution, ID proposes an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts, a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God. [n 2] ID proponents then conclude by analogy that the complex features, as defined by ID, are evidence of design. [n 3]
Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—is a false dichotomy.[10] [11] It is asserted that ID challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science [12] though proponents concede that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.
- Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins",[1] though it has been discredited as pseudoscience.[2] [3] [4] Proponents claim 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."[5] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, so it is not science. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist Christian and politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1] Though the phrase "intelligent design" had featured previously in theological discussions of the design argument, the first publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, [6] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to creation science and creationism, after the 1987 United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.[7] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute, [8] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula. This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in which U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III found that intelligent design was not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [9] ID presents two main arguments against evolutionary explanations: irreducible complexity and specified complexity. These arguments assert that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. As a positive argument against evolution, ID proposes an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts, a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God. [n 2] ID proponents then conclude by analogy that the complex features, as defined by ID, are evidence of design. [n 3]
- ↑ Numbers 2006, p. 373; "[ID] captured headlines for its bold attempt to rewrite the basic rules of science and its claim to have found indisputable evidence of a God-like being. Proponents, however, insisted it was 'not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins – one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution.' Although the intellectual roots of the design argument go back centuries, its contemporary incarnation dates from the 1980s".
- ↑ Article available from Universiteit Gent
- ↑ Pigliucci 2010
- ↑ Young & Edis 2004 pp. 195-196, Section heading: But is it Pseudoscience?
- ↑ **
- ↑ Context, pp. 31–33.
- ↑
Context, p. 32 ff, citing
- ↑ *Johnson interviewed in November 2000. ** Downey 2006
- ↑ Whether ID Is Science, p. 69 and Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 136.
- ↑ Whether ID Is Science, p. 64.
- ↑ *Originally published in Bios (July 1998) 70:40–45.
- ↑ *The review is reprinted in full by Access Research Network [archived February 10, 1999].
- Whether ID Is Science, p. 68. Lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also include astrology.
- See also
Cite error: <ref> tags exist for a group named "n", but no corresponding <references group="n"/> tag was found