What is Intelligent Design (ID)?
Intelligent Design (ID) is a form of neo-creationism that has evolved from earlier forms of young earth creationism & its variant scientific creationism. Although it shares with old earth creationism an acceptance of an ancient earth, the available evidence strongly suggests that ID is an offshoot of young earth (YEC) & its variant scientific creationism.

Unlike other creationists however, advocates of ID are careful to conceal their fundamentalist religious motivations. At the same time they pursue the established creationist tactics of disseminating lies & damaging misinformation about science (especially the theory of evolution) & the scientific method, which it tries to portray as atheistic & hostile to religious belief.

They pursue their aims with the good old fashioned zeal of the fundamentalist, spreading their absurd message far & wide & deliberately targeting the one area it knows it can do the most damage; the educational system – the very soul of post Enlightenment society.

One of the most prominent features of ID is its extreme hostility towards the theory of evolution. Its supporters know they cannot realistically expect to stop it being taught any more (earlier creationists had already attempted this); so they aim to do the next best thing, which is to attempt to get criticism of evolution taught alongside evolution. This would not be so objectionable if there were any substance to these criticisms but there isn’t. They are largely the same baseless accusations made by the earlier creationists & since refuted again & again.

The Intelligent Design movement is largely the creation of the Discovery Institute based in Seattle, America, which aggressively promotes pro ID & anti-evolution campaigns & publicity.

The idea behind intelligent design is an old one based on the Teleological Argument. However, today it is most commonly associated with William Paley who nearly 200 years ago, used it to argue for the existence of God. Using the example of a pocket watch, he conjectured that living organisms were so complex that they could only be the product of an intelligent designer God.

Another name for, argument from design is, argument from incredulity; a phase first used by Richard Dawkins. This is a more emotional form of Paley’s original argument & typically expresses the difficulty of comprehending how unaided, complex living things could possibly have come into being.

However, this argument was seriously undermined by the publication in 1859 of Charles Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. This conjectured that an appearance of design could be achieved by normal natural processes, which by implication, would not require a designer.

Although argument from design was rendered superfluous by Charles Darwin’s, it has nevertheless remained a standard feature of creationism, which opposed most aspects of the theory of evolution.

In the 1960’s, this opposition took on a more sophisticated form with the advent of scientific creationism, which attempted to add a scientific gloss to both creationist biblical literalism & opposition to evolution.

However, this new strategy was heavily criticised by scientists & attempts to force it into science lessons in American schools ultimately failed when in 1987 the American courts ruled that scientific creationism was primarily a form of religious belief.

The creationists now had a problem, which was how to overcome the barrier to the classroom posed by the legal system. As the main obstacle was its classification as a religious belief, the obvious solution was to come up with a version of creationism that toned down these religious aspects. Their solution was to ditch all reference to Christianity & replace it with an updated version of Paley’s argument from design (which was already an integral part of creationism) giving it a central, prominent position in a rebranded creationist theory of intelligent design.

Although far from ideal, this at least allowed them a chance to get a foot in the door. The creationists have already intimidated large numbers of American teachers into dropping or limiting discussion of evolution. If they can do this with the full weight of the law acting against them, just think of what they could achieve with it acting with them.

With ID sneaked into the science lessons, they would be able to undermine a student’s confidence in naturalistic evolution, whilst simultaneously suggesting an alternative; the intelligent designer, whose implied identity is the Christian God. Nothing whatsoever would prevent the minor shift needed to go from implied to explicit - the American creationists would have scored a major victory.

Fortunately, the American courts seem to be seeing through this charade & are slowly ruling on such issues as Teach the Controversy (criticism of evolution), intelligent design literature (such as Of Pandas & People (See Expelled Exposed)) & baring it on the grounds that it an unconstitutional attempt to inject sectarian religious belief into the educational system.

The most significant recent development occurred in December of 2006 when the intelligent design movement suffered a major defeat at Dover Pennsylvania, with the courts ruling comprehensibly against them.

For example, the judge wrote, "The evidence at trial demonstrates that 'intelligent design' is nothing less than the progeny of creationism,".

To further attempt to distance themselves from the association with religion, ID supporters are often deliberately vague about the identity of the designer. They might point out that he could be an alien from a technologically advanced world for instance. However, a moments thought would reveal that this conjecture does nothing to advance the solution to the original problem. I.e. an explanation for the complex biological systems we see around us. In fact, all it has done is made the situation worse. Now there is a lot of stuff about aliens to be uncovered as well as an explanation for their complex systems.

Another reason for this vagueness is to maintain the cohesion between the various factions of creationism. It is part of their strategy to unite in support of ID & sort out there differences later. This strategy, which goes by the nickname of, The Big Tent, has helped stop the infighting that has dogged creationists in the past & rarely do young earth creationists criticise ID.

Is there a connection between scientific creationism & ID?
ID supporters often dispute the claim that they are connected with the earlier creationist movements or trying to promote any form of religious belief. However there is clear evidence to the contrary.

The transition from scientific creationism to ID was not quite as abrupt as it would appear. The creationist movement has been slowly evolving from its earlier young earth form back in the 1920s. For example, the inception of SC can be largely credited to Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb & their book, The Genesis Flood, which laid out some of the earlier arguments for SC. However, these arguments are just sophisticated versions of those outlined in McCready Price's book, New Geology, which was written in 1923.

Likewise, although ID is often perceived as being distinct from scientific creationism, there is nevertheless plenty of evidence to suggest a strong connection. For example, the supporters of scientific creationism were attempting to tone down the religious content of its school texts to make them more acceptable in schools & the pseudoscientific arguments of both ID & scientific creationism are in many cases identical. In fact, the creationist’s book, Of Pandas & People written in 1989 was originally conceived as a creationist text but was later converted to an ID one. How was this feat carried out? Easy really, they simply erased the word, creationism, wherever it appeared & replaced it with, “intelligent design”.

Further evidences of a connection between young earth/scientific creationists & ID are: ID -

• was founded by creationists.
• Is largely staffed by creationists or people with strong religious beliefs.
• Is supported in creationist literature.
• Is supported by creationist organisations & individuals who pick n mix creationism & IDC - Ex 1
• Is funded mainly by fundamentalists or religious groups.
• Uses the same inflammatory rhetoric as creationists– their opponents are for example, dogmatic, fascist, materialistic, intolerant, etc.
• Makes many of the same, “scientific arguments” as scientific creationists - Ex4

Furthermore, like the creationists, IDers,

• Attempt to force their views directly onto schoolchildren, rather than seeking scientific approval for them.
• Denigrates evolution (ex – describing it as only a theory).
• Use aggressive marketing normally associated with selling commercial products; their medium is the book, DVD & video, rather than scientific ideas & concepts.
• Their audience is extensively religious, rather than scientific.
• Attempt to gain political influence by lobbying politicians or loading school boards with supporters.
• Commit the fallacy of false dilemma.
• Rely heavily on argument from design/incredulity.
• Incorrectly equate evolution with atheism, immorality etc.
• Incorrectly describe evolution as a form of religion.
• Promote equal time arguments with the following sound bites –
  • Is illiberal.
  • Both sides Ex 3
  • Parent power.
  • Faith position.
  • For & against.
  • Equality of belief.
  • It is only fair - Ex 2
  • Critical thinking.
  • Teach the controversy.
  • Teach all of science. DC88351
  • Academic freedom.
  • Academic Tolerance.
  • Academic excellence.
  • Makes interesting.
  • Only a small change. DC79028
  • Won’t hurt anyone.
  • Make their own minds up.

• Strengths and Weaknesses
• Evolution too restrictive.
• What are scientists afraid of?

The evidence is overwhelming – creationism runs through ID like the letters run through a stick of rock.

See Also: Religious basis of ID

No Theory of ID
One of the more irritating aspects of the ID debate is the way the media pander to the rhetoric of the ID movement. Not only does ID get an inordinate amount of coverage but it is also bolstered by the process of presenting it alongside (& in opposition to) established scientific theories.

When presented with two opposing viewpoints on a subject, a person lacking the (often specialised) knowledge required to evaluate them, may naturally assume that the arguments are in a sense of equal merit. This is what is happening in the ToE versus ID debate; people are being misled into assuming an authority & stature for ID it absolutely does not deserve.

This stature is also achieved by constantly referring to, “the theory of intelligent design”. However, anyone knowledgeable of these issues will know that there is no such thing as intelligent design theory. The term is nothing more than a pretentious sounding sound bite promoted by ID supporters in order to give a veneer of scientific respectability to their concealed religious beliefs.

Intelligent design theory is nothing but Paley dressed up in the terminology of twenty first century science & culture. Instead of the watch & eye, we have Mount Rushmore & molecular pumps. ID is not a theory; it is nothing more than conjecture & argument from incredulity.

Denigration of ToE
Following the trial at Dover in late 2005, the grip of the creationist ID movement seemed to weaken for awhile. Not only had their poor performance in court created a great deal of bad publicity, but the adverse court ruling also sent out a clear message to other school boards planning the same thing that any attempt to inject creationism into science lessons was doomed to failure. Moreover ID was now widely viewed as nothing more than a euphemism for creationism.

This, however, is far from the end of the matter. The more overt plans of the American ID movement may have been thwarted, but in response they are changing tactics & their attacks on America’s educational system continue. For example, they now claim to have no interest in teaching ID theory in schools & only wish to teach about weaknesses in the theory of evolution. This tactic which goes under the heading of Teach the Controversy (TTC) is nothing new & is simply the same baseless criticisms of evolution all the other creationists we have made in the past, only this time peeled away from all association with creationism & ID.

Note the shear arbitrariness of this tactic. You can pick almost any academic subject & find within it areas of controversy. And in many cases there probably exists a great deal more uncertainty & controversy than there is over the theory of evolution which claims credibility from a substantial body of knowledge stretching across many scientific disciplines.

For example, were the inhabitants of pre-Roman Britain as backward & uncivilised as commonly believed, or are such beliefs simply the consequence of the fact that the surviving history of this period is largely recorded from the perspective of the Roman invaders, who tended to see themselves as superior to everyone else?

Or does the Higgs Field exist or is it just the product of some physicists feverish imagination, an unwarranted step too far by scientists intent on trying to square the circle? The simple fact is that no one can say for sure, but that doesn’t stop it being taught to students as if it were real.

And what is more, no one seems to care. There are no expensive offices in Seattle staffed by numerous well paid employees whose one purpose in life is to challenge the prevailing dogma of Higgism. There is no one pushing anti-Higgs DVDs & books by the lorry load, (Was Higgs Deluded? – By William Pretentious Doomski), no letters to the press or articles, no films & no loading up of school boards with right thinking anti-higgests. Why Not? Because this one example like the numerous others that could have been used, slips under the fundamentalist radar as it is not perceived by them as being a serious challenge to their religious beliefs.

So their tactics are changing. Attempts to ban the teaching of evolution, have given way to attempts to undermine evolution in the science class whilst including creationism, have given way to attempts to undermine evolution whist including ID, have now given way to attempts simply to undermine evolution.

Of course the creationists would like to have their cake & eat it, by eliminating the teaching of evolution altogether, but this isn’t so bad for them. If they are no longer directly associated with creationism or ID, they can work covertly, publicising & disseminating anti-evolutionary propaganda without having to worry about their campaigns being undermined by association with screwy religious beliefs.

Random examples of the ID movement’s recent activities include the film Expelled, which is packed with anti-evolutionary propaganda; yet another book, From Darwin to Hitler, absurdly claiming a connection between the Holocaust & the theory of evolution, & attempts to interfere with the contents of American school textbooks so as to water down evolution or include creationist inspired criticisms of it.

There are also regular reports of problems in other countries. In the UK for example, we have had the dishonestly named organisation, Truth in Science attempting to push creationist material onto state run schools, & in Ulster there is an ongoing problem with creationism in the school system when some unidentified moron tampered with the science curriculum, so as to allow its inclusion. And in Romania they have even gone as far as removing completely all mention of evolution from the school curriculum.

Press Coverage

One important factor in the spread of ID is the favourable coverage the movement receives from the press, which pays far too much attention to the incessant & predictable propaganda emanating from the Discovery Institute. If the press gave less coverage to them & more to established scientific accounts, then perhaps it would not be quite so easy for a small group with a bit of cash & a few flash offices to have such a subversive influence on the educational system of a country as large as America.

Perversely, the problem is compounded by attempts to report the issues impartially, with equal linage given to the opposing viewpoints.

This may seem fair but remember the theory of evolution has proved itself over a 150-year period, withstanding all challenges & accumulated ever more supporting evidence & depth. ID on the other hand, may be a slick piece of marketing but has very little to offer from a scientific perspective. Anyone doubting this only has to look at its record on producing peer-reviewed articles, which gives a good indication of ID’s record in this area. It is therefore wrong to give the impression that both sides are of equal merit, because obviously they aren't.

Summary
ID is a form of creationism that has mutated & evolved from earlier versions of creationism. It is nothing more than a front for these earlier versions (see diagram).

Nobody would allow a religiously motivated sect to teach an alternative version of history stating for example, that there was no Roman Empire & we should not allow creationists to do the same in science.

Do not forget the extensive & aggressive campaign (backed by enormous amounts of money) the creationists are fighting in order to impose themselves on other people’s children.

Nor forget the lies (Such as claiming they have no religious motivations when they obviously have), dishonesty (constantly repeating debunked arguments), underhand tactics (loading school boards with supporters), spiteful slander (equating evolution with atheism, racism or the Nazis) & propaganda (claiming they are victimised).

Nor forget their absurd campaign to associate evolution with atheism or their attempt to rewrite the rules of science to incorporate supernatural explanations. DC 79023

Creationists are so keen to get their own way that they are willing to denigrate the ToE & undermine its teaching, in near universal opposition from the general scientific community. Their stupidity, smothering fanaticism & determination to impose themselves, should be strongly opposed.

Finally, if ID were allowed into schools, its supporters would still not be satisfied; they would just start demanding even more. The other creationists would spill out of big tent & start demanding their share of the action. If this ever happens then there is a danger that biblical literalists will take over American education. The country seems to be heading towards theocracy anyway & this would be a good shove in that general direction.

The courts can act as a barrier to this scenario, but as more & more extreme right wing judges are appointed, so the danger that the creationists will get their own way increases.