Intelligent design

{{gold}}{{crenav}}{{hatnote|For a look at some of the "[[Manufactroversy|controversies]]" around ID, see [[Intelligent design and academic freedom]]}}{{cquote|Try this experiment if you ever find yourself talking to a proponent of ID. Say, "OK, for the sake of argument let's say evolution is wrong and let's forget about it. Now tell me [[Goddidit|how intelligent design works]]." Having tried this a few times myself, I am confident that you will be met with nothing but an awkward silence.|||Amanda Gefter<ref>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627611.200-tracing-the-fuzzy-boundaries-of-science.html Tracing the fuzzy boundaries of science] by Amanda Gefter (2010-05-19) ''New Scientist''.</ref>}}
{{cquote|But ideal design is a lousy argument for evolution, for it mimics the postulated action of an omnipotent creator. Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution — paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce.|||[[Stephen J. Gould]], “The Panda’s Thumb”<ref>“The Panda’s Thumb” (New York: W.W. Norton, 1980), 20-21.</ref>}}
'''Intelligent design creationism''' (often '''intelligent design''', '''ID''', or '''IDC''') is a [[pseudoscience]] that maintains that certain aspects of the physical world, and more specifically [[life]], superficially look designed, and hence ''were'' designed, by an intelligent being (usually, but not always, [[YHWH|the God]] of the [[christianity|Christian]] religion). Although the concept is pre-scientific, it only really came into common circulation after the 1980's.

Supporters of intelligent design (termed 
''[[cdesign proponentsists]]''
 ''design proponents'', less respectfully, ''IDiots'') usually claim that the idea is not based on Christian [[creationism]], although the existence of the [[Wedge Document]] is a pretty big hint that there is a link, and a now-infamous [[cdesign proponentsists|epic editing fail]] in an early draft of the ID textbook ''[[Of Pandas and People]]'' also accidentally revealed the <strike>God</strike> man behind the curtain. Although it attempts to present itself as a form of [[agnostic]] [[creationism]], it is made abundantly clear that intelligent design in its various incarnations inevitably invokes a God, and as such, is inherently religious. Attempts to have ID taught in public schools have been defeated in court, and science papers proposing a "designer" usually cannot get past [[peer review]] — although not for reasons of prejudice against the subject matter.

Intelligent design is widely criticised for its failure to state what mechanism drives it, its lack of [[falsifiability]], and many other problems that leave it lacking as a [[scientific theory]]. Where it has faced the scrutiny of the law, the [[US]] [[law|court]] system (apparently the only one to have considered the question) has appeared to consider it a form of [[Old Earth creationism | Old-Earth creationism]], making its teaching in public schools constitutionally impermissible under the Supreme Court's holding in ''[[Edwards v. Aguillard]]'' (1987).

==Origins==
[[File:Pandas text analysis.png|thumb|Use of the terms "creationism" versus "intelligent design" and "design proponent" in sequential drafts of the book ''Of Pandas and People'']]{{Cquote|Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates are the same thing. Like a clown and a clown carrying an umbrella.|20px|20px|David Thorne<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20140730095326/http://twitter.com/27bslash6/status/4142111661 Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates are the same thing. Like a clown and a clown carrying an umbrella.] by David Thorne (12:30 AM - 21 Sep 2009) ''Twitter'' (archived from July 30, 2014).</ref>}}
The concept of the world and its creatures and people having been intelligently designed is a very old one, central to creationism and common to many of the world's [[religions]]. It is one of the oldest themes of [[philosophy]], having been explored by [[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]]. In Christianity, the concept of intelligent design by a creator is perpetuated by the [[Biblical]] account of the creation. That the world and its creatures aren't just the product of, but actually ''evidence'' of, intelligent design is known as the teleological argument or [[argument from design]]. It is used more frequently in modern times than previously, particularly after the complexity of the [[Cell Theory|biological cell]] was realised. One famous example was William Paley's 1802 use of the "[[watchmaker argument|watchmaker analogy]]," which posits that the complexity of natural life [[teleological argument|must be the product of an intelligent creator]] in the same way that a watch must be the product of a watchmaker — and specifically that it is possible to tell the difference between designed and non-designed objects intuitively.

The term "intelligent design" emerged much more recently than the design argument itself. It had been used occasionally during the twentieth century, but was popularized after the aforementioned 1987 legal case of ''Edwards v. Aguillard'', in which "[[creation science]]" was ruled to be 
complete bollocks
 a religious concept, and therefore unfit to be taught in [[public schools]] under [[United States|American]] constitutional law. Subsequently, many aspects of creation science were rebranded as "intelligent design", which is ostensibly a non-religious concept since its adherents claim that it leaves open the question of who the designer might be.

==Promoters==
{{cquote|Do you see how all proponents of intelligent design eventually sound just like [[Kent Hovind]] if you listen to them long enough?|||[[Professor Dave]]<ref>[https://youtu.be/MVQGQz-0Xeo?t=795 Exposing the Discovery Institute Part 3: Michael Behe] by Professor Dave Explains (Sep 23, 2022) ''YouTube''.</ref>}}

The [[Discovery Institute]] has taken the lead in promoting intelligent design, and urging for it to be incorporated into [[public education]]. The Discovery Institute's [[Wedge Document]] specifically states that the intelligent designer is the Christian God, thus undercutting the claims that the intelligent design movement is not strictly religious. In the ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'' case (2005), the Court found that intelligent design was primarily religious and fostered unnecessary entanglement of church and state. The Court further found that intelligent design is not science. As [[Thunderf00t]] later noted, the Discovery Institute abruptly altered its stance in light of Kitzmiller, claiming that it considered Intelligent Design a valid scientific theory but did not advocate its integration into public school curricula.

==Scope and definition==
The theory of evolution by natural selection deals only with the question of how organisms develop and form new [[species]]. Logically it can have nothing to say about the [[Big_bang#Question|origin]] of the [[universe]] or the [[origin of life]]. It appears that some of the more, shall we say, [[Michael Behe|scientifically-minded believers]] in ID attempt to constrain themselves similarly and claim no more than 
God
 somebody is [[theistic evolution|controlling evolution]]. [[Expelled: Leader's Guide|Others]] however go further and claim that ID explains not only the origin of life but even the origin of the universe. This expansion in the claimed scope of the theory is probably caused by two things:

*If you see ID as a code word for "God" then the temptation to [[Goddidit|ascribe all of existence]] to "ID" is very strong.
*There is a common misconception among [[fundamentalism|fundamentalists]] about what evolution actually is. For many, ''any'' scientific theory is an example of evolution and, to compete, ID must be capable of including anything which they erroneously believe evolution includes.

There is also a difference of opinion about what is actually involved biologically in ID. Again, for the more scientifically-minded it is simply evolution which is guided by God and [[common descent]] is fully accepted. For the more fundamentalist believers it is equivalent to [[Old Earth Creationism|progressive creationism]] in which complete new species are periodically created by 
God
 someone. It is patently absurd for something which is presented as a scientific theory to be so lacking in any clear definition of scope and definition. (A reader who takes a close look at the pro-ID description of ''Expelled'' will notice a number of these contradictions.) The contradictions exist as a consequence of the fact that ID attempts to include so many creationist ideas under the guise of science.

During an interview with R. C. Sproul, [[Ben Stein]] defined intelligent design as the "hypothesis" that "an [[Omnipotence|all-powerful]] designer" created the universe, including living things in their present forms.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqfJQir60yI A discussion between R. C. Sproul & Ben Stein about evolution, and the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".]</ref> John G. West and [[Casey Luskin]] have compared this hypothesis to the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. They have concluded that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1454 The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators,] page 4, column 1, paragraph 7.</ref> They refer to their conclusion as "the scientific theory of intelligent design."<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1454 The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators,] page 4, column 1, paragraph 1.</ref> 

Does their conclusion transform the intelligent design [[hypothesis]] into a "scientific theory"? '''No.''' A scientific theory, by its own merit, cannot be based on "all-powerful designers" or other supernatural causes (unless their existence can be shown by evidence, in which case, they cease to be supernatural and are merely unexplained). Their conclusion that intelligent design is the "best" explanation is an example of a [[propaganda]] technique called "[[Argument by assertion|assertion]]."<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20060210044548/http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm Propaganda Techniques: Assertion.]</ref>

==Scientific evaluation==
{{cquote|[T]he most credible philosophical argument against ID being treated as science is to point out the absence of any positive specification of its fundamental concepts, intelligence and design[.] ... The basic claim is that, in the absence of such a specification, ID cannot be a substantive theory, scientific or not. In the case of intelligence, there is no positive specification at all. In the case of design, there is no coherent specification.|||Sahotra Sarkar<ref name="k731">{{cite journal | last=Sarkar | first=Sahotra | title=The science question in intelligent design | journal=Synthese | volume=178 | issue=2 | date=2011 | issn=0039-7857 | doi=10.1007/s11229-009-9540-x | pages=291–305 | url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11229-009-9540-x | access-date=2025-07-04}}</ref>{{rp|302}}}}{{cquote|I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable.|||[[Phillip Johnson]]<ref>quoted in [https://web.archive.org/web/20060901072446/http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution "In the matter of Berkeley v. Berkeley"] by Michelangelo D’Agostino</ref>}}{{cquote|Some, reasoning that science admits it is fallible, but that God (or the Vedas, or the Buddha) cannot be wrong, decide to jettison science instead. In this camp we find creationists, and Intelligent Design theorists like William Dembski.|||Mark Owen Webb<ref name="j700">{{cite journal | last=Webb | first=Mark Owen | title=Hizmet, Religious Knowledge, and Scientific Education | journal=Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais | publisher=FapUNIFESP (SciELO) | volume=31 | issue=90 | year=2016 | issn=1806-9053 | doi=10.17666/31909-16/2016 | doi-access=free | page=09}}</ref>}}

=== Method ===
An outstanding issue of intelligent design is what mechanism the hypothesized "designer"<ref group=note>Should we capitalize "designer," since we all know [[YHWH|who they think He is]]?</ref> uses to initiate design diversity. According to the [[Theory_of_evolution|theory of evolution]], this mechanism is [[genetic]] [[mutation]] resulting from environmental stresses and point mutations caused by the cellular chemical environment. As of this time intelligent design supporters have yet to offer a plausible mechanism to which diversity can be attributed that differentiates from the mechanisms listed by the theory of evolution. As such the intelligent design proponents have yet to offer any [[Empirical reality|empirical]] evidence to support the claim of a designer.

=== Evidence ===
ID proponents such as [[Michael Behe]] promote hypotheses such as "[[irreducible complexity]]" as evidence for their ideas. Irreducible complexity posits that there are certain organs and structures found in nature that have no convincing gradual evolutionary pathway, and are too complex to have come about in whole by chance. These ideas are hotly disputed (or dismissed as non-science) by scientists, but regardless of their truth value they do not constitute evidence for an intelligent designer. Proponents of intelligent design make an assumption unwarranted by the evidence in that their logic goes along the lines of "The origins and diversity of the species cannot be accounted for by evolution and natural selection alone, therefore there must have been a designer involved."

The very [[argument from ignorance|lack of positive scientific evidence]] suggesting that there is a designer involved in creating life raises the question of how the design hypothesis came about. Opponents of the design hypothesis would suggest that proponents are religiously motivated, and that their ideas are not about understanding how life came to exist but rather about promoting a particular religious world view — as espoused in the Wedge Document.

One problem with finding evidence for intelligent design is the inability to distinguish "naturally" evolved mechanisms from "designed" mechanisms. Nobody knows what the "design" of a supernatural creator looks like; [[Intuition|how can we tell what was and was not designed?]]

=== Periodicity ===
There has also been no attempt to specify the periodicity of the [[miracle|miraculous]] interventions by the hypothesized "intelligent designer". In other words, the hypothesis does not state if the miraculous interventions take place annually, monthly, daily, or only when the designer feels that miraculous intervention is necessary.

=== Falsifiability ===
{{main|Falsifiability of creationism}}
ID proponents have yet to demonstrate that their idea is even remotely scientific by identifying what they believe could [[falsification|falsify]] it.

In fact, we await with interest any submission from supporters of this concept which would elevate it to the realms of science. Our article on what could [[Disproving Intelligent Design|disprove intelligent design]] remains embarrassingly void of valid arguments.

=== Abiogenesis ===
Slightly better educated supporters of ID sometimes complain that the theory of evolution lacks any mention of, or generally accepted hypothesis about, [[abiogenesis]]. It is of interest, however, that versions of ID which pretend to be science also lack any such mechanism — though the unstated assumption is that it was the work of God.

The objection also betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, which does not propose an explanation of how life started. It merely describes what happens after some form of life is extant.

==Specifics==
IDers have come up with some ideas as to how ID works and why ID is true. They're unequivocally flawed.

===Irreducible complexity===
{{main|Irreducible complexity}}
Irreducible complexity is the idea that there are things in nature which are so complex that they could not have evolved, but must indeed have come directly from 
Santa's workshop
 Jehova's drawing board. This concept is not only false on its own terms, but also relies on [[begging_the_question|the prior assumption that complexity ''entails'' design]].

While the [[ID]]iot phase of the Creationist movement was accompanied by a marked increase in the outright reliance on [[technobabble]], this stylistic change didn't come without its fair share of overhead. And speaking of complexity for complexity's sake — ''today'', it would be considered unwise to construct one's central thesis on the basis of the supposed ability to 'rationally measure' (never mind ''define'') "complexity" in the very same context wherein intentional cascades of technobabble are relied upon to obfuscate the many flaws otherwise apparent in the arguments presented.

Ergo, the design inference ultimately rests on a conception of "complexity" with the crystal clarity of a [[Not_even_wrong|physically derivable comparative absolute quality of an essentially abstract relational property of relative particulars]].{{efn|Notably, [[cdesign proponentists]] have '''never''' been able to work their favorite buzzword, "complexity" — be it '[[Specified complexity|specified]]' or 'irriducible' — into anything remotely resembling basic applicability — let alone ''internal coherency''. And [[Dembski|not for lack of trying]], either.}}

===Designed by whom?===
[[Image:Emptycage.jpg|thumb|300px|Actually God did intelligently design a creature for the cage, only it was designed in such a way that it could get out of the cage.]]{{cquote|[[God_of_the_gaps|Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel—fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being.]]|||Michael Behe, grasping at straws while failing to understand how the [[burden of proof]] works<ref name=behe>"The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis," ''Philosophia Christi'', Series 2, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2001), p. 165.
See: [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341 ''Is Intelligent Design Theory Really an Argument for "God"?'', by Casey Luskin]</ref>}}
Behe raises the issue of a "new age force" or "space aliens" being the causal agent.<ref name=behe/> Others have made the object of their complaint ''naturalism'', while the name "Intelligent Design" does not suggest the supernatural. An intelligent designer need not be supernatural, and the supernatural need not be an intelligent designer. Genies are not "teleological" - they fulfill your wishes without concern for the consequences, and a magic ring can be used for good or evil. And, of course, humans, other intelligent animals and (presumably) space aliens are not supernatural. In order to solve a complaint about the "random" in evolution, one is looking for a goal-directed (a possible sense of "intelligent") agency, and whether or not it is supernatural is irrelevant. While in resolving a complaint that sciences are improperly ignoring supernatural causes, intelligence is not required.

Almost all proponents of intelligent design have promoted [[theism]], arguing that the creator must be God. Many [[Young Earth creationism |"Young-Earth creationists"]] advocate for ID (somewhat ironically, since none of the prominent promoters of ID dispute the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth - [[Jonathan Wells]], for specific example, has used the [[Cambrian explosion]], which he claims (as do many more-credible scientists) occurred hundreds of millions of years ago, as a "dramatic refutation" of evolutionary biology). Such [[Young Earth creationism |YEC-supporters]] use ID to rebut the theory of [[evolution]], and, by extension, the [[fact]]s that support it. They generally take the position that evolution through [[natural selection]] and physical forces and principles alone are not solely responsible for the current diversity of life on earth. However, some believers in [[Old Earth Creationism |"Old Earth creationism"]] believe intelligent design to be the guiding mechanism behind [[theistic evolution |theistic or "guided" evolution]].<ref>See, for example, [https://web.archive.org/web/20021008134439/http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/progressive.html "Progressive Creation: An Overview"] at Godandscience.org.</ref> 

The intelligent-design argument is not inherently incompatible with [[atheism]]: even if one accepts that the complexity of nature proves an intelligent designer, it does not logically follow that the "designer" has the characteristics of a god or is worthy of worship. Some (largely obscure) intelligent-design theories conjecture that life on earth could have been cultivated by intelligent [[extraterrestrial]] beings. [[Francis Crick]] (1916-2004) is sometimes cited as an example of an atheist ID-proponent, since his concept of [[directed panspermia]] arguably shared some concepts with ID. Crick later partially retracted his claim based on an what he called an overly pessimistic model for [[abiogenesis]].<ref>Orgel LE, Crick FH (January 1993). [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7678564/ "Anticipating an RNA world. Some past speculations on the origin of life: where are they today?"] (PDF reprint). FASEB J. 7 (1): 238–9. PMID 7678564.</ref> The [[Raëlism| Raëlian]]s constitute a less scientific example of atheistic ID-proponents - their belief that all life on earth is the creation of [[ancient astronauts]] posits intelligent agency but does not (necessarily) attribute divinity to the designer.

Some ID proponents honestly acknowledge that their critique is informed by a rejection of [[methodological naturalism]] (by which [[physical science]] examines the world) and consequently cannot be science. Others are a bit more evasive, but the overwhelming majority of scientists dismiss intelligent design as pseudoscience.

Ironically, most intelligent design proponents appear to consider the idea that aliens designed everything on Earth as "silly", which is strange considering extraterrestrial design has the following advantages over God-based design:

* Not [[scientific]]ally impossible (assuming that [[Faster-than-light travel |FTL]] or [[relativity| time-dilating]] travel technologies exist). No [[Superstition| superstitious]] or [[supernatural]] elements that couldn't be duplicated by any "normal" being (one clearly and objectively bound by the laws of nature) are assumed.
* Doesn't necessarily conflict with evolution. Even in a designed ecosystem evolution could still occur and nothing prevents the aliens from having evolved normally themselves.
* A plethora of reported sightings, carvings, photographs, radar signatures, all of which ([[Aliensdidit|regardless of their authenticity]]) provide a lot more evidence than the number of sightings and photographs of God.
* Explanation for [[Falldidit |mistakes]], [[Why Won't God Heal Amputees |illness]], [[problem of evil| nature's cruelty]] etc. Since physical beings do not have any obligation to be "all-perfect" or [[omnibenevolence |"all-loving"]], and are by definition not [[omnipotence| all-powerful]], aliens get a free pass on all of that.

Proponents of intelligent design sometimes make the leap from "design" (the abstract concept) to a designer (a singular agent). However, the theory of design, as well as the tradition of design (dating back at least as far as [[Aristotle]]) and the experience of contemporary design practice can all emphasize the role of '''design teams'''.<ref>
For example:
{{cite book
 |last1                = Cockton
 |first1               = Gilbert
 |author-link1         = Gilbert Cockton
 |editor-last1         = Bardzell
 |editor-first1        = Jeffrey
 |editor-last2         = Bardzell
 |editor-first2        = Shaowen
 |editor-last3         = Blythe
 |editor-first3        = Mark A.
 |chapter              = Way Back to Some Design Futures: Aristotle's intellectual Excellences and Their Implications for Designing
 |title                = Critical Theory and Interaction Design
 |url                  = https://books.google.com/books?id=Lr34DwAAQBAJ
 |location             = Cambridge. Massachusetts
 |publisher            = MIT Press
 |publication-date     = 2018
 |page                 = 302
 |isbn                 = 9780262037983
 |access-date          = 14 February 2022
 |quote                = By placing character at the heart of all intellectual excellences, Aristotle places designers center stage [...]. [...] there can be no ''episteme'' in place until ''nous'' directs attention to potential interactions [...]. Such nous can only come from a design team. Design needs designers. Without designers' ''nous'', ''episteme'' will remain useless and will never add to ''sophia''.
}} 
</ref><ref>
{{cite book
 |last1                = Chang
 |first1               = Kuang-Hua
 |chapter              = 2.5: Decisions in Engineering Design : Game Theory
 |title                = Design Theory and Methods using CAD/CAE
 |url                  = https://books.google.com/books?id=FhykAwAAQBAJ
 |series               = Computer aided engineering design series
 |location             = Amsterdam
 |publisher            = Academic Press
 |publication-date     = 2015
 |page                 = 67
 |isbn                 = 9780123985163
 |access-date          = 14 February 2022
 |quote                = In engineering design, design decisions are often not made by a single designer or a single design team. Instead, multiple designers or multiple design teams are working on the product design and are involved in design decision making, with each designer or team being responsible for one or more design objectives and/or sub-systems.
}} 
</ref>
If the metaphor of intelligent design implies a divine creation, the implied divine system suggests a metaphorical [[polytheism]] of multiple designers rather than the [[monotheism]] of a single designer.

Intelligent design also suggests an obvious research program that proponents do not follow through on. It proposes that an intelligent designer has/had a technology or ability to create new types of living things. This sounds like something that would make current human technologies involving [[GMO| genetic modification of organisms]] obsolete. This technology would appear to have obvious commercial potential for the people lucky enough to reverse-engineer this process. And it sounds like fun to play with. Given this, the apparent lack of curiosity among ID advocates about the tech used by the intelligent designer to create living things from scratch is disappointing.

===Front Loading===
In order to reconcile the ID hypothesis with the fact that billions of years ago only unicellular organisms existed, the ID advocates have invented the idea of "front loading" which is that ALL the features of every single organism that exists today were loaded into the original single-celled organism by the Intelligent Designer billions of years ago, somehow, so that they would eventually emerge at some point in the future, thus allowing what appears to be evolution to happen. 

The old argument against front loading is genetic decay. If the genes were loaded into the DNA but were not used until billions of years later, mutations would rapidly destroy them. This happened for example to the Y chromosome. The ID rebuttal to this argument is that the genes which were originally loaded into the unicellular organism were useful for a different purpose, and that the intelligent designer somehow foresaw that the genes loaded were going to be adapted to perform a different function (this is known as exaptation). The only way to verify this hypothesis of course is to find an organism that contains every single gene of every single organism on the planet. Nobody has ever found such an organism.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20121122051026/http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/06/08/exaptation-vs-front-loading-wh/ Dispatches from the Creation Wars: Exaptation vs Front Loading: Why Evolution Wins] by Ed Brayton (June 8, 2007) ''Science Blogs'' (archived from November 22, 2012).</ref>

Compare front loading with the 18th century theory of {{wpl|Preformation}}, that each individual exists with its major organs formed within the bodies of its ancestors back to the beginning of creation.

==Legal issues in education==
[[Image:Design.jpg|thumb|left|Teaching the controversy.]]{{main|Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District}}{{cquote|If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the [[stork theory]] as an alternative to biological reproduction.|||Judith Hayes}}
No appellate precedent exists by which to judge the legality of teaching intelligent design in public schools. However, in the landmark district federal court case, ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', Judge John E. Jones III ruled that given that the policy of teaching intelligent design was supported by religious rhetoric, it amounted to a teaching of religion by the state, in violation of the [[First Amendment]] of the [[United States Constitution]].

Intelligent design was "religion" because, in the legal language applied, a reasonable person (based on the events surrounding the policy's adoption) could have concluded that it had the purpose or effect of establishing a particular religion. In short, when a school board tries to teach intelligent design, the level of religious rhetoric is directly related to the likelihood of its unconstitutionality under the ''Lemon v. Kurtzmann'' test.

This precedent, and the correlation it establishes between religious rhetoric and the likelihood of any intelligent design policy being found unconstitutional, will be vitally important in heading off future school boards which attempt to teach intelligent design as "science." Intelligent design's "wedge" appeal rests on its attempt to characterize itself as non-religious, after all. Fortunately, the idea that intelligent design is non-religious is being rebutted on a practically daily basis... by ''its own proponents''.

Consider a [[Kentucky]] schoolteacher who sought to teach intelligent design to her seventh grade [[biology]] class. The teacher curiously taught the "scientific theory" as something practically indistinguishable from [[creationism]], complete with [[flood geology]] and young earth chronology.<ref>[http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/intelligent-des-48.html "Intelligent Design Deployed in Kentucky"] at Panda's Thumb.</ref> The school board, after being made aware of the same by the [[American Civil Liberties Union|ACLU]], and the likely legal troubles it would face, terminated its tacit approval of intelligent design.

Additionally, the leading light of intelligent design, [[Michael Behe]], is only able to publish his pro-intelligent design theories in one scientific journal - Philosophia Christi - the proceedings of the [[Evangelical]] Philosophy Society.<ref>Michael J. Behe, ''The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Breaking Rules'', Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Volume 3, Number 1, p. 165 (2001).</ref>

And finally, the "movie" ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', which bills itself as describing how intelligent design is systematically excluded from academia for no other reason than bias, describes intelligent design in its own advertisements as "creationism."<ref group=note>See our article on the "[[Expelled: Leader's Guide|Leader's Guide]]" to the movie.</ref>

===Wedge strategy===
{{main|Wedge strategy}}
Intelligent design is strongly pushed by the Discovery Institute as part of the wedge strategy as outlined in the Wedge Document in their attempt to create a sciency-sounding version of creationism. It is roundly rejected by most scientists on the grounds that it has no [[peer review|peer-review]]ed publications of any standards, and has produced no positive [[evidence]] for its claims. The wedge strategy itself is to create a public furor over the concept of "[[Teach the controversy|teaching the controversy]]." In the real scientific world, of course, there is no such controversy over the facts and theories underlying modern concepts of evolution.

To date, intelligent design has been officially introduced into exactly one school district - and there, it tore apart the community, cost the school board millions of dollars, and was eventually thrown out after the ''Kitzmiller'' trial. Although intelligent design is always a "Trojan horse" for creationism - that is to say, creationism with a new name and a few obfuscating principles - there is a sliding scale of how egregious and visible the disguise is. Some people actually believe it to be real science (albeit erroneously), while others use it as a clear pretext for preaching, er, teaching creationism.

In the ''Kitzmiller'' case, the disguise was patently obvious. "Intelligent design proponents" there sought to have the book ''[[Of Pandas and People]]'', a creationist screed, taught as part of a new "intelligent design" curriculum at the local Dover public high school. ID supporters hoped to prove at trial that the book was legitimate science, and not creationism. However, there was one slight problem - the book was a book about ''creationism'', with the words "creator," "creationism," etc., merely replaced with "designer," "intelligent design," etc. by a basic word-processor "find/replace" function. The ruse was made glaringly obvious by spelling errors like "[[cdesign proponentsists]]."<ref>PBS, "[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ NOVA]: Judgment Day, Intelligent Design on Trial."</ref>

==Further reading==
*''Not Very Intelligent Design Too: Planet Earth, a perfect place for human life?'' Neel Ingman (2020, Palaceno House) [[Special:Booksources/978-0473473969|ISBN 978-0473473969]]
*''The Not-So-Intelligent Designer: Why Evolution Explains the Human Body and Intelligent Design Does Not'' Abby Hafer (2016, Lutterworth Press) [[Special:Booksources/978-0718894207|ISBN 978-0718894207]]
*''Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement'' John Brockman (2006, Knopf Doubleday) [[Special:Booksources/978-0307277220|ISBN 978-0307277220]]

==See also==
{{fun|Unintelligent design}}{{fun|Incompetent design}}
*[[Christopher Langan]]
*[[Creationism]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Irreducible complexity]]
*[[Acceptance of evolution by religious groups]]
*[[Acceptance of evolution in Christian institutions of higher education]]
*[[Complex Specified Information]]
*[[Ancient Aliens]]
*[[Flying Spaghetti Monster]]
*[[A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism]]
*[[Moody Institute of Science]] &mdash; a precursor to intelligent design

===Intelligent alternatives===
{{collist|2|
*[[Astrology|Intelligent astronomy]]
*[[Alchemy|Intelligent chemistry]]
*[[Scientific storkism|Intelligent delivery]]
*[[Baraminology|Intelligent design with some evolution]]
*[[Intelligent falling]]
*[[Copromancy|Intelligent gastroenterology]]
*[[Flat Earth|Intelligent geography]]
*[[Speaking in tongues|Intelligent linguistics]]
*[[Santa Claus|Intelligent logistics]]
*[[Numerology|Intelligent mathematics]]
*[[Faith healing|Intelligent medicine]]
*[[Phrenology|Intelligent neuroscience]]
*[[Snake handling|Intelligent ophiology]]
*[[Natural vision correction|Intelligent ophthalmology]]
*[[Magic|Intelligent physics]]
*[[Horoscope|Intelligent psychosocial assessment]]
*[[Prayer|Intelligent telecommunication]]
*[[Dianetics|Intelligent therapy]]
}}

==External links==
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20071107113557/http://discovermagazine.com/2006/mar/unintelligent-design Unintelligent Design] (for real)
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqkzfn7H1aQ&feature=PlayList&p=A38D214C994848BD&index=37 The Incompetent Design Hymn] (YouTube)
*[http://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2014/12/13/introduction-to-intelligent-design-alastair-noble-review/ Introduction to Intelligent Design Alastair Noble (review)] Paul Braterman's blog for December 13, 2014
*[http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED260916.pdf A review of 31 creationist books that have been pushed in classrooms, as of 1982]
*The only [http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/2005/10/only-debate-on-intelligent-design-that.html debate] on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject!

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|90%}}

{{crebox}}
{{apolbox}}

[[Category:Apologetics and counter-apologetics]]
[[Category:Existence of gods]]
[[Category:Intelligent design creationism| ]]
[[Category:Misnomers]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]
[[Category:Types of creationism]]

Categories: Apologetics and counter-apologetics, Existence of gods, Intelligent design creationism, Misnomers, Pseudoscience, Types of creationism