A Word on Intelligence

I thought I would take a moment to remind everyone what Intelligent Design is, and what it is not. I recently read some material on the Internet about ID, and the usual mischaracterizations were present. So let's review, shall we? I will enumerate.

1. ID is the scientific movement that believes certain organisms cannot have come to their present state via naturalistic evolutionary forces. These organisms have or contain irreducibly complex or specifically complex traits. Inference to the best explanation would lead a person to conclude, in ID's view, that such traits were designed.

2. While ID's main proponents are Christians, ID does not name the Intelligence of which it speaks as YHWH. Any person who believes in a personal god (personality being a prerequisite for creativity) could adhere to ID in theory.

3. ID is not a "god of the gaps" theory. Either life evolved naturally, or it was created supernaturally. I know of no tertium quid. (Theistic evolution contains a contradiction--evolutionary theory rules out any divine activity a priori.) When examining irreducibly or specifically complex organisms or traits, then, one must conclude that they either evolved or were created. Evolution has not yet been able to come up with a good explanation of how such complexity has arisen. ID has posited a reasonable explanation based on observation. Therefore, the inference to the best explanation would be that the organisms or traits in question were created.

4. "ID is creationism in disguise." This is perhaps my favorite misconception, because the proponent of this proposition unwittingly confesses to his or her own ignorance by attempting to point out the ignorance of others. I have read a fair bit of ID literature, and I have not come across a single reference to Genesis 1-3, stated or implicit. (Dembski does mention his faith in Intelligent Design; if he quotes Genesis as well, then I have missed it and apologize.) It is true that ID does complement creationism, but ID does not necessarily lead to creationism, and there is no evidence for the claim that these two "isms" are the same. (As an aside, usually when I hear this statement made, it is an exercise in question-begging, thus giving credence to my argument.)

5. "ID is not science." Up until about 1850, most scientists were men of faith. Then, as a result of views first formed during the Enlightenment, a dichotomy emerged. Science withdrew itself from anything to do with faith, the supernatural, God, etc, by erecting an artificial--though infinite--barrier between fact and value. Therefore, any idea that references an intelligent agent outside of human beings is labeled "unscientific" from the outset. This is, of course, a huge hurdle to the development of new ideas and the progression of scientific thought. Think of it this way: If a divine hand really is involved with the goings on of life on earth, then science has been fundamentally wrong for over 150 years. This little exercise alone should make it abundantly clear that science and religion need not be completely separate. Science needs religion to provide its very foundation, or at least to offer a healthy critique of it. Back to the main point, though. ID is testable because scientists can compare known designed items (outboard motors, arrowheads, writing, etc) to items found in nature. Therefore a scientist can test and validate certain hypotheses related to design. Therefore, ID can follow the scientific method and should be correctly labeled as a scientific theory.

I could go on, but this covers most of the basics. Please do your best to avoid some of the pitfalls I have mentioned should you ever find yourself in an evolution-vs.-ID debate (especially if you are debating me).