"Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent
design is not a scientific concept."
--John Marberger, President George W. Bush's science adviser, responding to
Bush's suggestion that we teach intelligent design creationism in public schools
Intelligent Design Creationism is not science; it makes no testable predictions so it can not be falsified.
Intelligent Design Creationism is a belief system; it is religion.
Ask a proponent of Intelligent Design Creationism what experiment could in principle
be performed and what result could possibly be obtained that would convince him
that Intelligent Design Creationism is wrong. If there is no such experiment and
no such result, then the "theory" is not falsifiable and is, in fact, a construct.
The Discovery Institute (2005) says,
"Of course there's no way to falsify a mere assertion that a cosmic designer exists. This much we are agreed on."
Evolution is easily tested. Show me fossil remains of a cat or dog in a
pre-Cambrian layer of rock. Show me any lifeform on Earth that does not
share half of its DNA with single-celled yeast. This would convince any
rational person that evolution is wrong. The recent finds of Tiktaalik
and human chromosome number 2
are very powerful tests of evolution and both confirmed evolution.
Proponents of Intelligent Design Creationism do not publish their
results in peer-reviewed science journals.
Here is Bill Dembski's rather weak explanation/excuse: "I've just gotten kind of blase
about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to
get things into print," he says. "And I find I can actually get the
turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed
there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read
more."
Or maybe he can't get his work past the editors and reviewers because it's BAD SCIENCE.
It's interesting to compare this with the AIDS deniers' reasons for
not publishing their nonsense in peer-reviewed research journals.
Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers have the same problem.
A skeptic would say, "First publish your argument in a peer-reviewed journal, then I shall read it."
This new stealth version of creationism is trying to distance itself
from its fundamentalist religious origins by referring to an "Intelligent Designer"
for legal reasons, specifically to evade the
Establishment Clause
of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Robert Carroll on the SkepDic
Intelligent Design webpage says,
"There is also much hypocrisy and deceit in a movement that does not
refer to God in published documents as the intelligent designer, but
opens its public presentations with a Christian prayer and doesn't
hesitate to refer to God when alternatives such as aliens as the
designers are brought up".
Ask a proponent of Intelligent Design Creationism if he really believes that
the "Designer" could be an advanced space alien. Who designed the alien, then?
Could the "Designer" be a non-Christian god, like Odin, Zeus, or Brahman?
Could the "Designer" be another supernatural figure
recognized within Christianity? "Of course not!", he will say. Ask him why not.
Who says that Intelligent Design is the same as Creationism?
Before: "Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly
through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive
features already intact fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers,
beaks, and wings, etc."
After: "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began
abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features
already intact fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks,
and wings, etc."
New! For those of you who think incorrectly that both sides of every
issue should be presented just to be fair, a webpage cataloguing all
of the scientific evidence in favor of Intelligent Design Creationism and a list
of all the articles published by Intelligent Design Creationism proponents in
peer-reviewed science journals showing
that Intelligent Design Creationism is a valid research program.
Many more from the
National Center for Science Education
Intelligent design has no place in science, biologist Ayala says
"The theory of intelligent design cannot be tested -- there isn't any evidence, any research or any hypothesis...
It is not a scientific theory. It has not generated peer-reviewed publications. It has not been the subject of any testing or research."
Three creationists were just appointed to a six-member committee to review a draft set of Texas state biology standards
by the Young-Earth faction of the State Board of Ignornace... I mean Education.
Numerous lines of evidence show that life has changed through time. Evolution is the best
scientific explanation for this change. This booklet describes a small portion of the evidence for
this change, especially as documented by the fossil record, and outlines the processes involved
in evolution. Many fascinating questions remain concerning the history of life and the process
through which it has developed. As we continue to learn about life on Earth, the theory of
evolution will itself evolve. That is the strength, adventure, and excitement of doing science!
Priest doubts accuracy of creationism - Coyne, who was director of the Vatican Observatory in Italy until his retirement in 2006,
said intelligent design, or creationism, "belittles God."
The Evolution Debate - Guest editorial by George V. Coyne, Director Emeritus of the
Vatican Observatory. The Physics Teacher January 2008.
Show Me the Science - By Daniel C. Dennett
in The New York Times 28 August 2005
From RNA to Humans - A Symposium on Evolution, Rockefeller University, 1-2 May 2008
What is...'Intelligent Design?'
by Terence Kealey, from The Times (London) December 18, 2004.
Quoting from the story: "... theories of intelligent design and creationism are transparently absurd and driven not by a search for truth but by faith."
Quoting from the website:
'To illustrate the concept of irreducible complexity, Behe uses the
common snap mousetrap. "If any one of the components of the mousetrap
(the base, hammer, spring, catch, or holding bar) is removed, then the
trap does not function. In other words, the simple little mousetrap
has no ability to trap a mouse until several separate parts are all
assembled. Because the mousetrap is necessarily composed of several
parts, it is irreducibly complex." (Behe, 1996).' WRONG!
Fuz Rana vs. John Rennie on NPR's Glenn Mitchell show, KERA 90.1 FM Dallas, TX, July 9th, 2002 transcript
SPORE - from EA Games (Now if someone would just make an Intelligent Design video game:
begin, create the universe exactly as it is now, game over.)
Teach the Controversy - Why stop with evolution vs. creationism? Teach both sides of EVERY science!
Give the flat earth theory a chance in school. Did extraterrestrials build the pyramids? Remember, the heliocentric theory is just a theory!
How to get kicked off Bill Dembski's blog: Raise the question of the
age of the Earth.
The "big tent" is the fact that ID welcomes all views on the age of the Earth, including Young Earth Creationist views
that the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old!
INTELLIGENT DESIGN: CREATIONIST ASTRONOMER DENIED TENURE
Quoting from the website:
"Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure at Iowa State University. The
Discovery Institute was shocked at this blatant disregard of the
cherished principle of 'viewpoint diversity.' With Jay Richards, a
theologian, Gonzalez wrote The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in
the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. It's a daffy twist on the
anthropic principle, which was already daffy enough. The simple fact
is that his colleagues voted him off the island. It's not like he
was tenured and then fired." --Robert Park, What's New Friday, May 18, 2007
Flock of Dodos - The Evolution - Intelligent Design Circus
Intelligent Design vs. Evolution -- THE GAME!
From Living Waters Ministries' Ray Comfort (guess which side they take).
With an endorsement by Kirk Cameron, how can it possibly be trash?
Banana: The Athiests Nightmare
- Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. (No, they're not joking; they are completely serious.) Do you think Ray Comfort knows that the Cavendish banana that he is
holding is a product of artificial selection BY HUMANS?
This is just too funny!
Casey Luskin, Esquire, from discovery.org has recently pointed out, referring to this very webpage,
"Their listing of course readings on ID lacks a single article that is friendly towards ID! ...
There is not a single article by an ID-proponent to balance out the 3 dozen or so articles that
they list in this "Intelligent Design" section."
Imagine that! No articles friendly toward the nonsense that is Intelligent Design Creationism in a course
devoted to debunking pseudoscience. Shocker! But also wrong. I guess he didn't get as far as
the section below. Should I complain that the Discovery Institute
also presents a one-sided version if ID?
Vatican celebrates Darwin - The Vatican is holding a conference next year to mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of the Species
Dallas-based Institute for Creation Research can't offer masters degrees in science education
Recommended: Ken Miller's 'Only a Theory'
Here are the first three parts of a very entertaining presentation Ken Miller gave at the University of Texas-Austin,
titled "God, Darwin, and Design - Lessons from the Dover Monkey Trial."
Rather than testifying in the Kitzmiller case, Bill Dembski removed himself as a witness for the defense (why, pray tell?)
and instead posted this animation complete with flatulence sound effects.
Bwa ha ha! Quoting from the website:
"Just when you think the ID guys can't get any sillier and more immature, you see stuff like this." --Nick Matzke
"In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal
question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not,
and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and
thus religious, antecedents."
--Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller et al. vs.
Dover Area School District et al. Memorandum Opinion
20 Dec 2005
"Intelligent design isn't science, even though it pretends to be.
If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent
design should be taught when religion or cultural history
is taught, not science."
--Reverend George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory
"Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent
design is not a scientific concept."
--John Marberger, President George W. Bush's science adviser, responding to
Bush's suggestion that we teach intelligent design in the schools
"ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent
review and have established at least two purportedly "peer-reviewed"
journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of
material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more
overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak
standard of "peer review" that amounts to no more than vetting by the
editorial board or society fellows."
--Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey in
"Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution" Washington University Law Quarterly 83 (1)
"To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a
supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves
unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like
'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy
way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life
was always there', and be done with it." --Richard Dawkins,
The Blind
Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without
Design p. 141
"The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which
formerly seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of
natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that,
for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been
made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There
seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in
the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind
blows."
--Charles Darwin from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin
"While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are
his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our
collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science,
has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as
scientific."
--Lehigh University Biochemistry Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"
"Pseudoscientists make poorly substantiated or demonstrably false claims and refuse to relinquish them
when shown the counterevidence. 'Scientific' creationism and its 2.0 version, 'intelligent design,' provide
the canonical examples of the conservative embrace of pseudoscience. Creationists and intelligent design
proponents claim to act scientifically, but in fact they do little more than spread scientific-sounding
arguments in defense of a biblical or religious agenda. It is doubtful whether any amount of evidence
would change their minds."
--Chris Mooney in The Republican War on Science p. 22
"Dembski's law of conservation of information and the rest of
Intelligent Design are not just pseudoscience, they are wrong pseudoscience."
--Victor J. Stenger in The Emperor's New Designer Clothes
"Incorporating intelligent design into science classrooms is an obvious impediment
to scientific progress."
--Alan J. Scott in "Danger! Scientific Inquiry Hazard" Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 31, No. 3, May/June 2007
"Let's not kid ourselves. Regardless of superficial scientific appearances, intelligent design
was fabricated by a handful of Christian apologists with the mission of discrediting evolution
and of bringing conservative Christian values into public school classrooms."
--Charles L. Rulon in "Debating Creationists" Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 31, No. 3, May/June 2007
"... putting intelligent design in opposition to Darwin is like
offering a program on faith healing versus oncology. Faith healing is
worth discussing, but not as a scientific alternative to medical
treatment ..."
--Lee Cullum, "A problem at its genesis,"
Dallas Morning News Opinion Viewpoints 4 April 2007.
Quotations from ID proponents
I thought you guys claim that ID is science and not religion. Your own words say something quite different:
"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated
in the idiom of information theory."
--William Dembski, Signs of intelligence: A primer on the
discernment of intelligent design. Touchstone 12(4) (Jul/Aug 1999): 76-84.
"the conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ"
--William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology, 1998, p. 209
"As a Christian man, yes, I do believe it is God as the divine power and as the intelligent designer of evolution."
--William Dembski, Darwin's Unpaid Debt, Baylor University 22 October 2008
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can
get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of
God, before the academic world and into the schools."
--Phillip Johnson, American Family Radio, 10 January 2003.
"there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for
intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations
which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of
any biological system occurred."
--Michael Behe, 2005
"Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I
should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my
fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying
Marxism."
--Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.
(Incidentally, the person whom Wells calls "Father" is
Sun Myung Moon,
founder of the Unification Church which is also known as the "Moonies", and the ultraconservative Washington Times.)
"Many states have brought in Intelligent Design but they have
called it science. A design needs a designer which is god. It's
religion, not science."
--William Nowers, one of the founders of
Creation and Evolution Studies Ministry and author of the book,
Creation-Evolution and a Nation in Distress, being surprisingly honest
about the goals of "intelligent design"/creationism proponents. His
ministry is making an effort to put religion in science classes in
Virginia.
Eric Rothschild: But you are clear, under your definition, the
definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a
scientific theory, correct?
Michael Behe: Yes, that's correct.
--Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Trial transcript: Day 11 (October 18, 2005), PM Session, Part 1
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."
--Ray Mummert, Dover PA pastor
More quotations from ID proponents can be found in
The Horse's Mouth
by Brian Poindexter, 2003.
Science is intolerant. Science is biased. Science does not operate
democratically. Not every idea is worthy of inclusion in the vast
system of knowledge. We don't teach astrology in the astronomy
courses. We don't teach alchemy in the chemistry courses. We don't
teach Holocaust denial in the history courses. Intelligent Design Creationism
is pseudoscience masquerading as science, and as such it deserves the
attention it receives in our course.