Intelligent Design Creationism

Is Not Science

"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.

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Proponents of Intelligent Design Creationism do not publish their results in peer-reviewed science journals.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?

Ironically, the proponents of ID say this. An analysis by Dr. Barbara Forrest of editions of the ID textbook Of Pandas and People before and after the 1987 Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard showed undeniably that ID and creationism are identical.
See also the Quotations from ID proponents at the bottom of this page.

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.

The Pro-ID Webpage

Intelligent Design Creationism

The SMU "Darwin vs. Design" event - 13,14 April 2007

The Texas State Board of Ignorance ... er, I mean Education

2009 is Darwin Year

Dallas-based Institute for Creation Research can't offer masters degrees in science education

Texas Education Agency Director of Science Christine Comer forced out over ID

Ken Miller came to SMU!

Professor Kenneth R. Miller (Brown University Biology)
"Time to Abandon Darwin? What the Collapse of 'Intelligent Design' means for Science & Faith in America"
15 November 2007 at 5:00pm Hughes Trigg Ballroom

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
NOVA - Tuesday 13 November 2007 on PBS at 7:00pm CST
with Professor Kenneth R. Miller (Preview on YouTube)

The Collapse of Intelligent Design - Ken Miller at Case Western Reserve University 2005, 2hr

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."

"Intelligent Design is not Science" guest lecture by Professor John Wise (SMU Biology) 19 November 2008

Intelligent Design is not Science guest lecture by Professor John Wise (SMU Biology) 18 April 2007

(Un)Intelligent Design guest lecture by Professor John Wise (SMU Biology) 17 April 2006

Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Area School District et al. Memorandum Opinion 20 Dec 2005 by Judge John E. Jones III

Taken to School: An Interview with the Honorable Judge John E. Jones, III

- by Jane Gitschier in PLoS Genetics, December 5, 2008

Supplement to Expert Witness Report : Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District by Dr. Barbara Forrest

Intelligent Design Creationism Proponents (Cdesign Proponentsists)

Intelligent Design Creationism Opponents

Every Ph.D. biologist, chemist, geologist, physicist, etc. in the world (except Behe and Wells), but especially



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.

Back to the Debunking Pseudoscience Page