Page Created: 3/08/03

Last Updated: 5/19/05

Author: Wilston - IDEA Club President

E-mail Address: Wilston@student.utdallas.edu

NOTE: For a complete understanding of the IDEA club and our stance on Intelligent Design (ID) theory, you should read this entire FAQs page. Thanks for your time.

ATTN: All web links which are external to this website will open in a new window/browser.

| Terms of Use | Contact Us | Feedback? |

1. What is the purpose of the IDEA club?
2. Is the IDEA club a religious organization?
3. What organizations are the IDEA club affiliated with?
4. What organizations promote or support the IDEA club?
5. Isn't the IDEA club a special interest organization with a hidden agenda?
6. What is the motive of the IDEA club leadership in promulgating ID theory?
7. What is Intelligent Design?
8. What is Biological Evolution?
9. What is the General Theory of Evolution?
10. Will Intelligent Design and Evolution be the only discussion topics at meetings?
11. What type of activities and events does the IDEA club have?
12. Is the IDEA club an open society?
13. How do I become a member?
14. What is expected of members?

1. What is the purpose of the IDEA club?

Originally, the IDEA club exists for the purpose of discussing origins science. In addition to this, the IDEA club leadership hopes that UTD constituents would be interested in learning about a potentially powerful theory called Intelligent Design--via a fair and balanced manner.

NOTE: Origins science concerns the scientific investigation of our biological and cosmological origins.

Our Beliefs

Like any organization, IDEA itself is not without its own biases. Our mission statement plainly says that we "promote, as a scientific theory, the idea that life was designed by an intelligent designer." We recognize that investigating our origins raises questions that are both religious and scientific in nature, but we are careful not to mix scientific claims with religious claims, and recognize that the two are distinct and different, though complementary to one-another.

Our ultimate hope is that people can at least learn about theories of "intelligent design" and be made aware of the many problems with purely naturalistic explanations for the existence of life. By exposing the lack of scientific evidence supporting the assertion that natural processes are purely responsible for life and conveying the empirical evidence supporting intelligent design theory, we hope to bring to light the value of intelligent design theory and cause people to evaluate their own beliefs.

So, we admit, IDEA does have an agenda and a bias. And, just as we encourage each other to admit bias at our events, the leadership of IDEA freely and publicly acknowledges its own bias: We believe that life is not the result of purely natural processes, but that it was in some way designed by an "intelligence."

Source: http://www.ideacenter.org/about/mission_beliefs.php

Moreover, this club was founded for the sake of intellectual liberty and intellectual honesty. All to often, intellectual freedom is withheld from individuals who want to speak out against questionable teachings. Because of this fairly common practice in academia, the IDEA club was founded in order to let students freely express their beliefs and concerns, regarding biological origins and a variety of other topics. Better yet, the IDEA club is a place where one need not feel stigmatized or face denigrating remarks, regarding his or her intellectual integrity.

Lastly, the driving force, for the continued existence of this club, is the hope that UTD constituents will converge to discuss why they believe what they believe, and in the process, reason with each other and appreciate the merits of free thought.

All in all, this organization shall be a forum where students, faculty, and staff can intellectually and freely discuss issues pertaining to origins (i.e., Intelligent Design theory and the General Theory of Evolution), the philosophy of science, the advancement of science, and other issues in the scope of human thought: metaphysics, theology, religion, morality, the theory of knowledge, etc.

Back to Top

2. Is the IDEA club a religious organization?

Not at all.

Since the IDEA club leadership doesn't specialize in religious apologetics, the IDEA club isn't a religious organization. More specifically, this club is not a religious ministry, nor is it affiliated with any religious organization. Most importantly, this organization is not anti-science or anti-religion.

Back to Top

3. What organizations are the IDEA club affiliated with?

The IDEA club is affiliated with only one organization, that is, the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center in San Diego. For more information about the IDEA Center, you may visit this website: http://www.ideacenter.org.

Back to Top

4. What organizations promote or support the IDEA club?

The IDEA club is promoted by the IDEA Center. As far as finances are concerned, most of the money spent by this organization is obtained from University funding, membership dues, and/or the pocket money of the IDEA club leaders.

Back to Top

5. Isn't the IDEA club a special interest organization with a hidden agenda?

Not at all.

The IDEA club doesn't have a liaison with any school of the University, and for that reason, the IDEA club is categorized as a special interest organization, as opposed to an educational one. However, the IDEA club is technically an educational organization, considering that IDEA club members discuss a variety of educational topics. Furthermore, the IDEA club leaders have no ulterior motive, as our statement of purpose can be viewed in our club constitution.

So you should know, the IDEA club leaders are not creationist propagandists, and contrary to what some people might have you believe, the IDEA club is not a creationist organization, as we don't promote creationism. Moreover, the IDEA club leadership doesn't seek to condemn or change the beliefs of others. As a matter of fact, we seek the interest of all constituents of the University, by giving them an organization in which they can discuss biological origins and other issues pertaining to human origins, without dogmatic constraints and similar nuisances.

That being said, consider the following response, by e-mail, from a faculty member of the University who was contacted in the hopes that he might serve as an adviser of the IDEA club: "I cannot in good conscience support your bid to form this club. The ID movement is a thinly veiled effort to introduce creationism. In its own right, the ID movement is simply not science. I am sorry, but the ID movement is doomed to defeat just as creationism has been torched and sent back its rightful home in theology. If you were looking to establish an evolution club that focused on an honest airing of science, that would be another matter."

As you can see, this faculty member failed to understand the purpose of this club. Then again, some people tend to have an incorrect understanding about the IDEA club as well, therefore, we strongly encourage you to come to one of our meetings so you can personally determine what we are about.

Back to Top

6. What is the motive of the IDEA club leadership in promulgating ID theory?

The motive of the IDEA club leadership, in promulgating the theory of Intelligent Design (ID), is to keep the question of our biological origins open, indefinitely. To be frank, we are not convinced that life's pre-biotic origins--let alone our very existence--can be explained in purely naturalistic and materialistic terms. To be sure, we have not come across any "compelling" scientific evidence which would change our mind. As far as we are concerned, Intelligent Design will always remain a possibility so long as neo-Darwinism lacks a fool-proof/definitive naturalistic explanation for the origin and/or diversification of organismal body plans. Last but not least, we see Intelligent Design theory as a scientific paradigm which can bring metaphysical balance to the origins science debate, for we feel that the pendulum of scientific inquiry has unfairly swung to far to the side of scientific materialism (e.g., methodological materialism).

Frankly, we--the IDEA club leadership--aren't easily wooed by appeals to scientific authority nor are we easily swayed by one's scientific ideology--no matter how remarkable it may seem. The fact of the matter is, we are not ideologues--you'll have to take our word on this.

For the record, the IDEA club leadership isn't fueled by religious motives nor are we Bible-thumpers (this stereotype is usually paraded by staunch critics of Intelligent Design), as religion isn't the concern of the IDEA club's philosophy. Besides, we are not here to force people to understand the issues surrounding origins science, and whether or not you agree with us isn't our concern. Rather, it is our hope that individuals, such as yourself, will come to a better understanding of why our biological origins does/should matter. Ultimately, we hope that people will be inspired to pursue future scientific research in the theory of Intelligent Design.

Visit the following web link for a special assessment of ID theory:

The Intelligent Design Theory and the Rehabilitation of Analogical Knowledge by Jakob Wolf

Back to Top

7. What is Intelligent Design?

Succinctly put, Intelligent Design (ID) is the science that studies signs of intelligence, as noted by ID theoretician, William A. Dembski.

Unfortunately, many people mischaracterize--unwittingly or intentionally--ID theory. This, in part, is due to the fact that some people don't care to research the actual claims of ID. Worse yet, some anti-intelligent design groups wish to make their definition of ID the defacto standard, regardless of the actual claims of ID theory.

First and foremost, ID is not 'the idea that life is too complex to have come about randomly and must have been created by some divine being'. This happens to be one of a few incorrect definitions--of ID theory--being promulgated by some creationist and religious groups. Then again, the ACLU and many media outlets are the worst in this regard.

“Intelligent design does not claim that living things came together suddenly in their present form through the efforts of a supernatural creator. Intelligent design is not and never will be a doctrine of creation.” (William Dembski, No Free Lunch, pg. 314)

With respect to biological origins, the theory of Intelligent Design postulates that an unspecified intelligence or an unspecified number of intelligences are responsible for the origin (i.e., organization) of a great variety of information rich biological structures. Intelligent Design theory is not concerned with proving the existence of a specific designer(s), nor is it concerned with explicitly identifying the designer(s). Again, ID theory is not concerned with proving the existence of a transcendent/immanent God¹ or super intelligent extraterrestrial/extra-dimensional beings. Since science, at least for now, lacks the means of determining who/what the designer(s) is/are, this is a metaphysical/religious issue. Ultimately, ID theory postulates that signs of design, from a cognitional and volitional intelligence, can empirically be detected in biological systems. Right now, ID theory doesn't have a position on the nature of the intelligence employed in the intelligent design of biological systems. Some people think the intelligence is simply inherent to biological systems (there isn't much evidence for this, as natural selection is not truly a volitional process--it seems to lack intelligent coordination). In any case, that intelligence must be embodied, unembodied, or a combination thereof.

So you should know, ID theory is not concerned with infinite regress arguments² (who designed the designer?), proving the existence of God (whoever or whatever that God may be), determining the moral/ontological nature of God, and the like, as it can not speak to these things; for it to do so, it would have to become a different theory altogether. Moreover, ID theory has nothing to do with religion, religious apologetics, or biblical creationism, as it does not care for these things (ID theory does not care about being sympathetic to anyone's religious/theological beliefs, as it is not a religious contrivance). Additionally, ID theory is not an attempt to replace neo-Darwinism nor is it an attempt to halt scientific research from a neo-Darwinian perspective. Seeing that ID theory is strictly confined to the problem of the origin and diversification of biological complexity (e.g., the origination of organismal body plans), it is careful to point out that the current neo-Darwinian mechanisms have yet to account for the vast amounts of biological complexity observed in today's world, thus, they are still wanting. Last but not least, intelligent design shouldn't be misconstrued for optimal design, as intelligent beings/agents are known to create many works which aren't perfect only to improve on them later. Then again, what constitutes a perfect design? Better yet, how intelligent must the intelligent designer be?

As of date, ID theory is conceptually incomplete. As a matter of fact, much work must be done, in order to further the theory's scientific development. So, in regards to Intelligent Design being a theory, it is not so much a theory³ as it is a hypothesis (come to think about, there are some aspects of neo-Darwinism which are merely a set of working hypotheses). ID theory has yet to be thoroughly tested, and much research must be done before it can become a robust science.

If you have further questions about Intelligent Design theory, please visit the Intelligent Design & Evolution Center's (our national affiliate) Intelligent Design FAQs & Primers web page. For the Discovery Institute's FAQs page on Intelligent Design, click here. For the Access Research Network's FAQs page on Intelligent Design, click here. For William Dembski's FAQs page on Intelligent Design, click here. For the Institutes of Design Dynamic's FAQs page on Intelligent Design, click here.

1. Who or what is God? For many people, God is nothing more than an abstract/diffuse/ethereal entity. As such, may God be a he/she/they/it?

2. Who designed the designer? For an insightful look into this question, click here and here.

3. What is a theory? What is a scientific theory? For more information on the colloquial and scientific usage of the word, theory, please click here.

.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Side Notes on Intelligent Design, Creationism, and Science - Compiled By Wilston

Some people believe that Intelligent Design theory is a derivation of biblical creationism or creation science, but such a belief is not justified. The theory of Intelligent Design is not rooted in creationism or religion, as it is impartial, and it must stand on its own scientific merits, not the merits of a particular religious belief system. Then again, Intelligent Design theory can be implicated in the belief that there is some sort of transcendent Creator God--whatever or whoever that God may be. Similarly, the General Theory of Evolution can be implicated in the belief that there is no Creator God. Belief in Intelligent Design is shared by people of many disciplines, belief systems, and walks of life; the same is true with the belief in the General Theory of Evolution.

Some members of the scientific elite purposely misrepresent ID theory, by associating it with a host of pejorative phrases. Intelligent Design theory is by no means "Creationism Lite," "Intelligent Design Creationism," "Neo-Creationism," or "Stealth Creationism," as such labels are misnomers of ID, and they don't convey the true presumptions of ID theory. In other words, such labeling practices are deceitful, and they are contrived by ID critics, for rhetorical purposes. Evidently, many opponents of Intelligent Design theory are bent on debunking it as creationism. Likewise, many skeptics of ID theory delight in embellishing the ID movement as a creationist frenzy, but in truth, ID theory is not creationism. The bottom line is this: It is not very smart to label ID theory as religion or creationism, rather, ID should only be attributed as valid science/protoscience or bad science/pseudoscience, irrespective of the belief systems held by those who adhere to it. It is not enough to subvert ID theory by saying that it is a creationist or religious argument under the guise of science. In truth, ID theory is not a Judeo-Christian/Islamic thing.

Some critics of ID theory claim that the brouhaha between neo-Darwinian Biological Evolution and Intelligent Design is nothing more than a religious frenzy instigated by covert religionists, if not insincere religionists. This type of claim is intended to belittle and stigmatize ID theory, however, the claim that ID theory is somehow a religious contraption is both dishonest and unscholarly. Furthermore, some ID critics would have us believe that the ID movement is a grassroots effort to interject creationism into public high schools. Well, this is an unfounded accusation because ID theory is not a respecter of religious beliefs, and many ID advocates don't insist that ID is ready to be taught--as a full-fledged scientific theory--in academic courses that specialize in the biological sciences. Despite the fact that ID theory may have religious implications, it is also prone to a number of theological objections, thus, ID theory isn't necessarily religious friendly, seeing that it isn't even a religious contrivance to begin with. Ultimately, religion is not the keeper of ID theory. Stated differently, religion does not own ID theory.

Some critics of ID theory allege that it is a Trojan Horse for the teaching of creation science in public high schools. In light of this charge, a couple of things should be noted. Firstly, not everyone in the ID movement supports the teaching of Intelligent Design in public high schools. Secondly, this allegation purports that most ID advocates are being intellectually dishonest with themselves and the public by arguing that ID is not a creationist or religious fabrication. Frankly, this amounts to an ad hominem attack on the intellectual integrity of many ID advocates. Anyway, it remains to be seen how long this allegation will last, but in all likelihood, it will lose its merit when it is fully realized that ID theory is not a religious insinuation. Unfortunately, some people in the ID movement have hijacked the secular purpose of ID theory by trying to accommodate it for religious apologetics. Personally, I'm not sure that theology or religion can benefit very much from Intelligent Design theory, but I digress. All things considered, the issue between ID and neo-Darwinism has nothing to do with a scientific conspiracy, religion, or theology. The disagreement between Intelligent Design theory and neo-Darwinian Biological Evolution theory is of a purely scientific and philosophical matter. Again, the problem between ID and neo-Darwinism is not a matter of science versus religion (e.g., Christianity, et cetera), creationism, or theology, rather, it's a matter of science versus science.

Should the theory of Intelligent Design be taught in public schools of secondary education? Depending on how one views the legal and scientific aspects behind the question, the answer may be yes or no. A number of people in the ID movement believe that ID should be taught alongside the theory of Biological Evolution. Moreover, some people think that ID should replace neo-Darwinian Biological Evolution as the scientific explanation of our biological origins. Not surprisingly, the people who are quick to advocate this are mostly religious conservatives/fundamentalists who have hijacked the ID movement for socio-political and religious reasons. Then again, there are a number of people in the ID movement who believe that it would be premature to teach--instead of discuss--ID in public schools. These people are generally interested in seeing ID first develop as a robust scientific theory, whereas the former group of people are generally interested in seeing ID combat neo-Darwinian Biological Evolution because of its seemingly anti-religious overtones. I believe that the ID movement should focus its energy on pursuing a full-fledged scientific research program for ID theory, and right now, ID shouldn't be taught along with Biological Evolution because it is still immature. However, I see no reason why ID can't be taught as an elective course, all by itself, or why it can't be taught in a Philosophy of Science course--especially in college. Most importantly, I believe that students should be made aware of both the pros and cons for neo-Darwinian Biological Evolution.

Creationism is usually ascribed to the Judeo-Christian and Islamic faiths. However, various versions of creationism can be found in different cultures and religious texts around the world (e.g., Hindu scriptures, African folklore, Native American folklore, etc). It is important to understand that the scientific presumptions of Intelligent Design theory are not religious in origin. Rather, ID is an empirical effort to determine if signs of "cognizant" intelligent design can be traced or found in living things. Simply put, in and of itself, Intelligent Design theory doesn't owe itself to any religious doctrine, as it is an autonomous theory. As a matter of fact, Intelligent Design theory doesn't revert to any theory of creationism because it is not a religious proposition--it can't be tied down to any religious doctrine.

Some people have a misconception that all Intelligent Design advocates (IDists) are creationists and religionists. Frankly, that is not necessarily true. For the record, not all IDists are creationists or religionists, and similarly, not all evolutionists are Darwinists or atheists. In fact, it is quite naive to make a statement that all IDists are creationists, without having to engage in wordplay. Then again, it all comes down to what the definition of a creationist is and what the said definition is supposed to accomplish. Even so, always remember that the converse of a proposition may not necessarily be valid. If you need more elaboration, click on the following web link: Intelligent Design Creationism.

There are many fields of scientific inquiry. With this in mind, know that science should not be equated with only one field of scientific inquiry. For instance, science is not just biology, chemistry, physics, etc. Science, as a whole, is a broad enterprise. Aside from this, it is erroneous for anyone to claim that someone is anti-science simply because that someone doesn't agree with the conclusions stemming from some particular field of scientific inquiry. Yes, one can reasonably agree/disagree with some scientific conclusion, provided that he/she is not ignorant of how that conclusion was arrived at and provided that he/she has a logical basis for agreement/disagreement. Then again, logic--human logic at that--is not fail-safe. Always remember, science is a tool, not an end in itself.

Given that the scientific method operates under the jurisdiction of methodological naturalism and empiricism, one might wonder how Intelligent Design theory could be considered scientific if, as some people say, its claims are supernatural and aren't subject to investigation. Well, Intelligent Design theory can never be tested if it claims are rooted in supernaturalism because science, as far as we know, can only be conducted in the natural world--where we can observe, categorize, and quantify certain phenomena. Then again, ID theory operates under the dictates of empiricism, and it need not make an appeal for the existence of a supernatural designer(s) or a supernatural realm. Intelligent Design theory asserts that signs of actual design, in biological systems, can be found by looking for intricate patterns of organization--not order per se. Presently, the main challenge for ID theoreticians is figuring out a reliable method of determining whether or not such patterns of organization are evolvable (by law-governed natural processes) or non-evolvable (requiring a volitional/cognitional intelligence). More research in this area must be done before signs of actual design can be reliably determined/objectified.

A common complaint against ID theory is that it doesn't explain anything, that is, it doesn't further the advancement of science. This complaint is usually brought by persons who mistakenly believe that ID theory is out to impede scientific progress. For a full response to this complaint, click here. At any rate, ID theory raises many interesting questions that need to addressed, and this is all the more reason to pursue research in ID. Then again, some of the questions raised against ID are extraneous to the tenets/premise of the theory itself. In other words, they are esoteric and unanswerable by modern science. For instance, the question of when or why the designer(s) decided to design has nothing to do with the validity or science of ID theory. Moreover, the question of what constitutes a biological design--granted, any type of design--is backward, as design--in the intuitive sense of the word--is an attribute that is immeasurable and neutral. As a matter of fact, design is not inferred on the basis of something having the appearance of design, rather, design--in the sense that it is premeditated--is inferred on the basis that certain features of an object can't demonstrably be created by unguided/undirected/random naturalistic processes, that is, law-governed processes which lack cognitional or volitional guidance offered by sentient and intelligent beings (e.g., human beings). For all intents and purposes, the scope of ID theory is limited to a specific problem domain (i.e., determining the extent to which naturalistic processes can bring about novel and complex designs), as it is not meant to provide an all-encompassing explanation of life's ultimate origins. Instead, ID theory asserts that there are constraints on the ability of independently (standalone) run natural processes to effect the complexity/sophistication now seen in whole biological systems. Once again, the theory of ID asserts that certain designs would have to be prescribed/conceptualized before they can ever come about. Consequently, actual design--according to ID theory--is ultimately decoupled from purely naturalistic processes. In case you were wondering, Intelligent Design makes several predictions. Click here to see a few of them.

Presently, ID theory makes no distinction between natural designers (e.g., extraterrestrial beings) or supernatural designers (e.g., extra-dimensional beings). In fact, ID theory doesn't say--by way of analogical reasoning--that one must know the identity of the designer before making a determination of actual design, however, knowing something about the design process may contribute to the factuality of ID theory. As of now, we have no scientific reason to conclude that a natural or supernatural designer wouldn't be able to employ both a naturalistic (law-governed process) and mechanistic (technological) means of creating a biological system (e.g., the cell, a DNA molecule, et cetera) in a world such as our own. With regard to a naturalistic means of design, it should be noted that ID theory is not compatible with a purely random or undirected design process.

ID theory is not meant to replace neo-Darwinism as the explanation of the origin of all biological phenomenon. Rather, ID theory says that neo-Darwinian mechanisms are constrained in their ability to generate novel biological structures and certain types of biological complexity, as ID theory demands an intelligent proxy for doing this. ID doesn't rule out methodological naturalism. This statement is very important because some people will tell you that ID theory unequivocally rules out naturalistic causes for biological design, which is not true. In fact, ID theory postulates that certain naturalistic processes, acting by themselves, are deficient in their creative capacity. Then again, ID theory is compatible with directed/assisted naturalistic processes, but not vice versa. For instance, a computer is built by a naturalistic/methodological process, but that naturalistic process is not simply the forces of nature acting on their own (the use of those naturalistic forces/principles/laws require intelligent coordination). If you are interested, here are some questions to ponder: What's the difference between a natural process and supernatural process? What constitutes a natural cause? Is intelligence naturalistic? Is intelligence decoupled from purely natural causes? Does intelligence supervene naturalistic causation. At what point is a cause no longer natural? Are all causes limited to a three-dimensional space?

Naturalism, empiricism, and materialism are all metaphysical constructs, so, they shouldn't be put on the pedestal of scientific/absolute truth. Moreover, it is sheer dogma, not science, for anyone to insist that everything in existence be subjected to a naturalistic/materialistic explanation of origin. For an example of what I mean, consider the following quote.

'We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.'

Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

So, is there any reason to give up on finding a purely naturalistic and/or materialistic explanation for the origin or evolution of life? My answer would be no, but in light of the quote above, one should know better than to buy into such a pretentious ideology. Now, some people may be frustrated with the notion of Intelligent Design because it allows for the possibility that some types of design can't be explained by a strict set of naturalistic laws. Nonetheless, it is still a leap of faith to insist that all cause and effect relationships are purely naturalistic--even for the sake of maintaining a seemingly simplistic explanation (Occam's Razor). Once again, some people may never settle for anything short of a naturalistic explanation. To insist that everything can/must ultimately be explained naturalistically may one day turn out to be the biggest blooper of science. But, if science is self-correcting, this shouldn't be a problem, right? At any rate, don’t buy scientific materialism’s hype.

If the claims of Intelligent Design theory are true, we may have a revolutionary scientific theory on our hands. However, only time will tell. If you have further questions about Intelligent Design theory, please visit the Intelligent Design & Evolution Center's Intelligent Design FAQs & Primers web page. For the Discovery Institute's FAQs page on Intelligent Design, click here. For the Access Research Network's FAQs page on Intelligent Design, click here. For William Dembski's FAQs page on Intelligent Design, click here. For the Institutes of Design Dynamic's FAQs page on Intelligent Design, click here. It is strongly recommended that you visit these websites, as you will get a lot more in-depth answers about ID theory than can be addressed in this web page. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns regarding the side notes above, you may e-mail me at Wilston@student.utdallas.edu. Thanks for reading.

.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

ID in Relation to Bible-Based Creationism

Although the Intelligent Design movement is often portrayed as a variant of Bible-based Creationism, ID arguments are formed in secular terms; they do not cite Biblical evidence of creation, nor do they require that their adherents accept the Bible’s accounts or even the existence of a creator god. ID makes no claims about the identity of the designer, the mechanism of the design process, or the moment in history at which the designer’s intervention occurred. Thus, the conclusions from the key arguments in favor of ID are so broad that they can be adopted by any number of communities that seek an alternative to evolutionary thought, including those that support non-theistic models of creation. For example, the notion of an “intelligent designer” is fully compatible with the materialistic hypotheses that life on Earth was introduced by an alien species, or that it emerged as a result of panspermia.

ID is similar to Biblically literal Creationism in that both assert that the life was created, rather than developing purely naturalistically. It is different from Biblically literal creationism, however, in that while creationists assert that God created life as described in the Biblical book of Genesis, ID makes no explicitly religious claims, relying simply on evidence that life was created by an "Intelligent Designer", which could be the God of any religion or no religion, or some other intelligent being that is not God.

Some proponents of creationism and intelligent designer reject the Hellenic Christian concept of omnipotence and omniscience on the part of the creator, and ascribe to Open Theism or Process theology.

Other ID researchers that propose an omniscient, omnipotent God as the designer face a higher burden of proof, since they must find not only evidence of the design, but the designs themselves must be flawless and anticipate all eventualities. Existing evidence poses many difficult challenges for the advocates of omniscient, omnipotent design, including the poor ability of the human body to repair spinal cord injuries or to grow new limbs, the demands of a more plentiful and sedentary lifestyle were not anticipated leading to chronic diseases such as type II diabetes and atherosclerosis, using the same genetic code for humans as with other animals makes trans-specific transmission of viruses too easy, the lower temperature needed for mammalian spermatogenesis was implemented by carrying the testicles externally in a more vulnerable position, etc.

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#ID_in_relation_to_Bible-based_creationism on 12-17-04

.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Additional Information on Intelligent Design

The theory that the directed organization of living things cannot be accounted for by purely blind natural forces but also requires intelligent agency for its proper explanation. Intelligent Design needs to be distinguished from APPARENT DESIGN and OPTIMAL DESIGN. Apparent design looks designed but actually isn't. Optimal design is perfect design. The adjective "intelligent" in front of "design" stresses that the design in question is actual, but makes no assumption about the optimality of design.

.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Additional Information on Intelligent Design

"Intelligent design" refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof.

Taken from http://www.reviewevolution.com/whatIsIntelligentDesign.php on 2-20-03

Additional Information on Intelligent Design

Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. "Design theory" has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece. The most famous version of the design argument can be found in the work of theologian William Paley, who in 1802 proposed his "watchmaker" thesis. His reasoning went like this: In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever. ... But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think the answer which I had before given [would be sufficient]. To the contrary, the fine coordination of all its parts would force us to conclude that … the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. Paley argued that we can draw the same conclusion about many natural objects, such as the eye. Just as a watch's parts are all perfectly adapted for the purpose of telling time, the parts of an eye are all perfectly adapted for the purpose of seeing. In each case, Paley argued, we discern the marks of an intelligent designer. Although Paley's basic notion was sound, and influenced thinkers for decades, Paley never provided a rigorous standard for detecting design in nature. Detecting design depended on such vague standards as being able to discern an object's "purpose." Moreover, Paley and other "natural theologians" tried to reason from the facts of nature to the existence of a wise and benevolent God. All of these things made design an easy target for Charles Darwin when he proposed his theory of evolution. Whereas Paley saw a finely-balanced world attesting to a kind and just God, Darwin pointed to nature's imperfections and brutishness. Although Darwin had once been an admirer of Paley, Darwin's own observations and experiences—especially the cruel, lingering death of his 9-year-old daughter Annie in 1850—destroyed whatever belief he had in a just and moral universe. Following the triumph of Darwin's theory, design theory was all but banished from biology. Since the 1980s, however, advances in biology have convinced a new generation of scholars that Darwin's theory was inadequate to account for the sheer complexity of living things. These scholars—chemists, biologists, mathematicians and philosophers of science—began to reconsider design theory. They formulated a new view of design that avoids the pitfalls of previous versions. Called intelligent design (ID), to distinguish it from earlier versions of design theory (as well as from the naturalistic use of the term design), this new approach is more modest than its predecessors. Rather than trying to infer God's existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable."

Taken from http://arn.org/id_faq.htm on 2-20-03

The CTMU and Intelligent Design - By Christopher Michael Langan

Design theory, which traces its origins to traditional theological "arguments from design" holding that nature was more or less obviously designed by a preexisting intelligence, maintains that the observed complexity of biological structures implies the involvement of empirically detectable intelligent causes in nature. Intelligent Design, the most recent scientific outgrowth of Design Theory, is a scientific research program based on a more philosophically neutral, and therefore scientific, search for instances of a clear, objective, standard form of biological complexity. According to William Dembski, one of the movement's leading spokesmen, this has led to "a theory of biological origins and development" according to which "intelligent [and empirically detectable] causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology." In view of the informational nature of complexity, Dembski observes that "information is not reducible to natural causes…the origin of information is best sought in intelligent causes. Intelligent design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow."

One of the first things to note about the above definition is that it couples the implied definitions of intelligence, causation and information to a greater extent than do most dictionaries, pointing in principle to a joint definition of all of them. Since any good definition requires a model, one might be strongly tempted to infer on this basis that ID, as here defined, has a well-defined model in which all of its constituent concepts are related. It may therefore come as a surprise to many that perhaps the most frequent, or at any rate the most general, objection to ID in the wider intellectual community is that it "has no model". According to its critics, it lacks any real-world interpretation specifying a fundamental medium able to support it or a means by which to realize it.

Furthermore, its critics claim, its central hypothesis is not only beyond proof, but unrealistic and not amenable to empirical confirmation.

In all fairness, it must be noted that insofar as science has itself spectacularly failed to agree on a global model of reality, this is really nothing more than an exercise in hypocrisy. Science observes, relates and extrapolates from observations with what often turns out to be great efficiency, but has time and time again proven unable to completely justify its reductions or the correspondences between its theories and the real universe as a whole. Although some critics claim that beyond a certain point, explanation is pointless and futile, they do not speak for science; the entire purpose of science is explanation, not rationally unsubstantiated assertions to the effect that a closed-form explanation is "unavailable" or "unnecessary". In seeking a coherent explanation for existence – an explanation incorporating an ontological design phase that is rational, coherent and therefore intelligent – the ID program is in fact perfectly consistent with science.

However, being perfectly consistent with science means merely that something is in line for a model, not that it already has one. It has thus been possible for dedicated critics of ID to create the illusion, at least for sympathetic audiences, that they have it at a critical disadvantage. They contend that while science must be instrumental to society, yield specific predictions, and thus cite specific structural and dynamical laws that nontrivially explain its contexts of application, ID is nothing more than a Trojan horse for religious ideology, makes no nontrivial predictions, and is devoid of theoretical structure. Due to the number of sympathetic ears that such claims have found in Academia, this illusion has all but promoted itself to the status of a self-reinforcing mass delusion in certain closed-minded sectors of the intellectual community. Obviously, it would be to the advantage of the ID movement, and society as a whole, to end this contagion by putting forth something clearly recognizable as a model.

The problem, of course, is that as long as science in general lacks a fundamental model, so do all particular strains of science including Intelligent Design. Due to the close connection between fundamentality and generality, ID or any other field of scientific inquiry would ultimately have to provide science in general with a fundamental model in order to provide one for itself. This might have led some people, in particular those who doubt the existence of a stable fundamental model of reality, to suppose that the ID controversy would remain strictly within the realm of philosophy until the end of time. But this is not the case, for if there were really no fundamental model – if there were no way to map theoretic cognition onto reality in its entirety - perception itself would lack a stable foundation. Perception, after all, can be described as the modeling of objective reality in cognition, and the modeling of cognition in objective reality. The self-evident perceptual stability of reality, on which the existence and efficacy of science and scientific methodology absolutely depend, bear unshakable testimony to the existence of a fundamental model of the real universe.

Taken from http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf, see Pg. 49

Back to Top

8. What is Biological Evolution?

The theory of Biological Evolution is both a generalized and scientific explanation for the occurrence of biological/morphological change in living organisms. Seeing that microevolution does occur, we know that Biological Evolution is a real phenomenon, but whether or not microevolution extrapolates to macroevolution is still a controversial/debatable issue. Please keep in mind that the evolution of life is not the same thing as the origin of life, therefore, Biological Evolution is not necessarily concerned with how life actually got started. In effect, abiogenesis, spontaneous generation, and chemical evolution are loosely tied to Biological Evolution. For instance, Biological Evolution doesn't tell us how organelles and other biological structures of a cell were really formed.

Presently, the theory of Biological Evolution is not demonstrably capable of explaining, naturalistically, the origins of all, if not most, biological phenomena. More so, neo-Darwinian Biological Evolution has not been proven. Then again, is science in the business of proving things, that is, demonstrating something is true with a hundred percent certainty? Better yet, can the neo-Darwinian mechanism(s) really provide a purely naturalistic explanation for speciation (i.e., the origination of organismal body plans)?

NOTE: Biological Evolution is not the same thing as neo-Darwinian Biological Evolution. Neo-Darwinian Biological Evolution--neo-Darwinism, for short--is a synthesis of hypotheses regarding some naturalistic mechanism(s) that might have driven macroevolution/speciation. Biological Evolution is a scientific fact simply because microevolution does occur. However, neo-Darwinism is not a scientific fact because it has not been fully corroborated. To further clarify, "neo-Darwinian" is concatenated with Biological Evolution to signify a more specific case of Biological Evolution. Neo-Darwinism is actually a set of working hypotheses regarding how biological macroevolution (i.e., the origination of organismal body plans), from a purely undirected and naturalistic process, might have occurred.

 

Additional Information on neo-Darwinian Biological Evolution

(a.k.a. Neo-Darwinism or Modern Synthesis)

Neo-Darwinism is the modern version of Darwinian evolutionary theory: the synthesis of Mendelian genetics and Darwinism. Darwin knew very little about the mechanism of variation; he merely recognized that whatever its source, phenotypic variation allowed for natural selection to operate. It was modern genetics that provided the key insight into the means by which variation in biology originated.

Neo-Darwinism postulates that natural selection acts on the heritable (genetic) variations within individuals in populations and that mutations (especially random copying errors in DNA) provide the main source of these genetic variations. Because positive mutations seem to be rare, Neo-Darwinism contends that evolution will be a slow, gradual process.

Neo-Darwinism holds that the processes responsible for small-scale micro-evolutionary changes can be extrapolated indefinitely to produce large-scale macro-evolutionary changes leading to major innovations in form. Neo-Darwinism is also called the Modern Synthesis (as such, it synthesizes or brings together classical Darwinism with modern genetic theory).

Taken from http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Neo-Darwinism on 12-17-04

Additional Information on Biological Evolution

Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at the genetic level as organisms' genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations. Sometimes, individuals inherit new characteristics that give them a survival and reproductive advantage in their local environments; these characteristics tend to increase in frequency in the population, while those that are disadvantageous decrease in frequency. This process of differential survival and reproduction is known as natural selection. Non-genetic changes that occur during an organism's life span, such as increases in muscle mass due to exercise and diet, cannot be passed on to the next generation and are not examples of evolution.

Taken from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html#Q01 on 2-20-03

Additional Information on Biological Evolution

Darwin defined this term as "descent with modification." It is the change in a lineage of populations between generations. In general terms, biological evolution is the process of change by which new species develop from preexisting species over time; in genetic terms, evolution can be defined as any change in the frequency of alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation.

Taken from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/index.html on 2-20-03