User:Silence/ID

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept 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." Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as pseudoscience or junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

A United States federal court recently ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), United States District Judge John E. Jones III also ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.

Overview
Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. This stands in opposition to mainstream biological science, which relies on experimentation to explain the natural world through observed physical processes such as mutation and natural selection.

Intelligent design's stated purpose is to investigate whether or not existing empirical evidence implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents. William A. Dembski, one of intelligent design's leading proponents, has stated that the fundamental claim of intelligent design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."

Proponents of intelligent design look for evidence of what they term "signs of intelligence": physical properties of an object that point to a designer. For example, if an archeologist finds a statue made of stone in a field, he may, ID proponents argue, justifiably conclude that the statue was designed, and then reasonably seek to identify the statue's designer. He would not, however, be justified in making the same claim if he found an irregularly shaped boulder of the same size. The most commonly cited signs include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity. Design proponents argue that living systems show one or more of these, from which they infer that some aspects of life have been designed.

Intelligent design proponents say that while evidence pointing to the nature of an "intelligent cause or agent" may not be directly observable, its effects on nature can be detected. Dembski states in Signs of Intelligence: "Proponents of intelligent design regard it as a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes. Note that intelligent design studies the effects of intelligent causes and not intelligent causes per se." In his view, one cannot test for the identity of influences exterior to a closed system from within, so questions concerning the identity of a designer fall outside the realm of the concept.

Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation, or intelligent designer&mdash;it merely states that one (or more) must exist. While intelligent design itself does not name the designer, the personal view of many proponents is that the designer is the Christian god. Whether the deliberate ambiguity over the designer's origin is a genuine feature of the concept, or just a position taken to avoid alienating those who might object to more explicitly religious forms of creationism, has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case.

Origins of the concept


For millennia, philosophers have argued that the complexity of nature indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator. The first recorded arguments for a natural designer come from Greek philosophy. The philosophical concept of the Logos, an inherent order and rationality to the universe, is typically credited to Heraclitus, and is briefly explained in his extant fragments. Plato posited a natural "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. Aristotle also developed the idea of a natural creator of the cosmos, often referred to as the "Prime Mover", in his work Metaphysics. In his de Natura Deorum ("On the Nature of the Gods"), Cicero stated that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature".

The use of this line of reasoning as applied to a supernatural designer has come to be known as the teleological argument for the existence of God. The most notable forms of this argument were expressed by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae, design being the fifth of Aquinas' five proofs for God's existence, and by William Paley in his book Natural Theology, where he uses the watchmaker analogy, an argument still used by intelligent design proponents today. In the early 19th century, such arguments led to the development of what was called natural theology, the study of biology as a way to understand the "mind of God". This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens that ultimately led to Charles Darwin's own research.

Intelligent design can be seen as a modern reframing of natural theology. Although some creationists, such as many believers in theistic evolution, consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be largely or fully compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer, intelligent design seeks to change the basis of science and undermine evolutionary theory. As evolutionary biology has expanded to explain more phenomena, the examples that are held up by design advocates as evidence of design have changed, but the essential argument remains the same: complex systems&mdash;what intelligent design advocates would call "irreducibly complex systems"&mdash;imply a designer. In the past, examples that have been offered included the eye and the feathered wing; current examples are mostly biochemical, often relating to protein functions, blood clotting, and bacteria flagella.

The earliest known modern version of intelligent design originated, according to Barbara Forrest, "in the early 1980s with the publication of The Mystery of Life's Origin (MoLO 1984) by creationist chemist Charles B. Thaxton with Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen. Thaxton worked for Jon A. Buell at the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) in Texas, a religious organization that published MoLO."

Origins of the term
Though unrelated to the current use of the term, the phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American, and in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science by Paleyite botanist George James Allman:

"No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible&mdash;in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design."

The term can be found again in Humanism, a 1903 book by Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller: "It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design." A derivative of the term appears in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) in the article on the Teleological argument for the existence of God: "Stated most succinctly, [the argument] runs: The world exhibits teleological order (design, adaptation). Therefore, it was produced by an intelligent designer." The term "intelligent design" was also used in the early 1980s by Fred Hoyle as part of his promotion of panspermia.

The predominant modern use of the term began after the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), ruled that including creationism in public school science curricula is unconstitutional. Stephen C. Meyer, cofounder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture, reports that the term came up in 1988 at a conference he attended in Tacoma, Washington called Sources of Information Content in DNA. He attributes the phrase to Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People. In drafts of the book Of Pandas and People, the word creationism was subsequently changed, almost without exception, to intelligent design. The book was published in 1989 and is considered to be the first intelligent design book. The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial, which advocated redefining science to allow claims of supernatural creation. Johnson, considered the "father" of the intelligent design movement, went on to work with Meyer, becoming the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture in forming and executing the wedge strategy.

Concepts
The following are summaries of key concepts of intelligent design, followed by summaries of criticisms. Counter-arguments against such criticisms are often proffered by intelligent design proponents, as are counter-counter-arguments by critics, etc.

Irreducible complexity
The concept of irreducible complexity was put forth by Michael Behe, who defines it as:

"...a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

Behe uses the mousetrap as an illustrative example of this concept. A mousetrap consists of several interacting pieces&mdash;the base, the catch, the spring, the hammer&mdash;all of which, he asserts, must be in place for the mousetrap to work, though this claim has been disputed. In the analogy, the removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Intelligent design advocates argue that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selectable function is only present when all parts are assembled. Behe's original examples of allegedly irreducibly complex biological mechanisms include the bacterial flagellum of E. coli, the blood clotting cascade, cilia, and the adaptive immune system.

Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary, and therefore could not have been added sequentially. They argue that something which is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary, as other components change. Furthermore, they argue that evolution often proceeds by altering preexisting parts or by removing them from a system, instead of by adding them; this is sometimes referred to as the "scaffolding objection" by an analogy with scaffolding, which can support an "irreducibly complex" building until it is complete and able to stand on its own.

Specified complexity
The concept of specified complexity in intelligent design was developed by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski. Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and specified, simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes. He provides the following examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified." He states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA.

Dembski defines complex specified information as anything with a less than 1 in 10150 chance of occurring by (natural) chance, which he calls the universal probability bound. Critics say that this renders the argument a tautology: Complex specified information (CSI) cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature.

The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument is strongly disputed by the scientific community. Specified complexity has yet to be shown to have wide application in other fields, as Dembski claims. John Wilkins and Wesley Elsberry characterize Dembski's "explanatory filter" as eliminative, because it eliminates explanations sequentially: first regularity, then chance, finally defaulting to design. They argue that this procedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because the asymmetric way it treats the different possible explanations renders it prone to making false conclusions.

Fine-tuned universe
One of the arguments of intelligent design proponents that encompasses more than just biology is that we live in a fine-tuned universe, with many features that make life possible that cannot be attributed to chance. These features include the values of physical constants, the strength of nuclear forces, and many others. Intelligent design proponent and Center for Science and Culture fellow Guillermo Gonzalez argues that if any of these values were even slightly different, the universe would be dramatically different, with many chemical elements and features of the universe like galaxies being impossible to form. Thus, they argue, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular outcome. Scientists have responded almost unanimously that this argument cannot be tested and is not scientifically productive, and some argue that even when taken as mere speculation, these arguments are poorly-supported by existing evidence.

Critics of both intelligent design and the weak form of the anthropic principle argue that the arguments are essentially tautological; in their view, these arguments amount to the claim that life is able to exist because the universe is able to support life. The claim of the improbability of a life-supporting universe has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination (a type of argument from ignorance) for assuming that no other forms of life are possible; life as we know it might not exist if certain variables were different, but a different sort of life might exist in its place. A number of critics also suggest that many of the stated variables appear to be interconnected, and that calculations made by mathematicians and physicists suggest that the emergence of a universe similar to ours is quite probable.

Intelligent cause
Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent they posit. Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene. Though Dembski speculates in The Design Inference that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements, the authoritative description of intelligent design explicitly states that the universe displays features of having been designed. Acknowledging the paradox, Dembski concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life". The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian god, to the exclusion of all other religions.

Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics go so far as to argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science. For example, Jerry Coyne, of the University of Chicago, asks why a designer would "give us a pathway for making vitamin C, but then destroy it by disabling one of its enzymes" and why he or she wouldn't "stock oceanic islands with reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and freshwater fish, despite the suitability of such islands for these species." Coyne also points to the fact that "the flora and fauna on those islands resemble that of the nearest mainland, even when the environments are very different" as evidence that species were not placed there by a designer. Arguing to the contrary in this broader context, Behe wrote in Darwin's Black Box that we are simply incapable of understanding the designer's motives, so such questions cannot be answered definitively. Odd designs could, for example, "have been placed there by the designer... for artistic reasons, to show off, for some as-yet undetectable practical purpose, or for some unguessable reason". Coyne responds that in light of the evidence, "either life resulted not from intelligent design, but from evolution; or the intelligent designer is a cosmic prankster who designed everything to make it look as though it had evolved."

Asserting the need for a designer of complexity also raises the question, "what designed the designer?" Intelligent design proponents say that the question is irrelevant to or outside the scope of intelligent design. Richard Wein counters that the unanswered questions a theory creates "must be balanced against the improvements in our understanding which the explanation provides. Invoking an unexplained being to explain the origin of other beings (ourselves) is little more than question-begging. The new question raised by the explanation is as problematic as the question which the explanation purports to answer." A number of critics also see the claim that the designer need not be explained not as a contribution to knowledge but as a thought-terminating cliché. Absent observable, measurable evidence, the very question "what designed the designer?" leads to an infinite regression from which intelligent design proponents can only escape by resorting to logical contradiction.

Movement
The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign directed by the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the United States. Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of naturalism. Intelligent design proponents allege that science shouldn't be limited to naturalism, and shouldn't demand the adoption of a naturalistic scientific philosophy that dismisses out-of-hand any explanation that contains a supernatural cause.

Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the intelligent design movement, has stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept. All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture. Nearly all intelligent design concepts are the products of the Discovery Institute, which guides the movement and follows its wedge strategy while conducting its adjunct "Teach the Controversy" campaign.

Leading intelligent design proponents have made conflicting statements regarding intelligent design. In statements directed at the general public, they have said that intelligent design is not religious, yet when addressing conservative Christian supporters, they have stated that intelligent design has its foundation in the Bible. Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy who has written extensively on the movement, describes this contradiction as being due to the Discovery Institute obfuscating its agenda as a matter of policy. She has written that the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious world-view that undergirds it".

Religious views
Intelligent design's arguments are carefully formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer. Phillip E. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments which are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the designer. Johnson emphasizes that "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion" and "after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact... only then can 'biblical issues' be discussed." Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having intelligent design identified "as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message". Most of the principal intelligent design advocates, including Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer, are Christians who have stated that in their view the designer of life is God. The vast majority of leading intelligent design proponents are evangelical Protestants. Jonathan Wells, another principal advocate, is a member of the Unification Church, headed by Reverend Sun Myung Moon.

The conflicting claims made by leading intelligent design advocates as to whether or not intelligent design is rooted in religious conviction are the result of their wedge strategy. For example, William Dembski lists a god and an "alien life force" as two possible options for the identity of the designer in his book The Design Inference. However, in his book Intelligent Design: the Bridge Between Science and Theology, Dembski states that "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ." Dembski has also stated that "ID is part of God's general revelation.... Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ."

Two leading intelligent design proponents, Phillip Johnson and William Dembski, cite the Bible's Book of John as the foundation of intelligent design. Barbara Forrest contends that such statements reveal that leading proponents see intelligent design as essentially religious in nature, as opposed to a scientific concept that has implications with which their personal religious beliefs happen to coincide.

Controversy
A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is to convince the general public that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved, seeking primarily to persuade the public, politicians, and cultural leaders that schools should "teach the controversy". However, while there may be such a controversy or debate politically or socially, there is none within the scientific community; the scientific consensus is that life evolved. Intelligent design is widely viewed as a stalking horse for its proponents' campaign against what they claim is the materialist foundation of science, which they argue leaves no room for the possibility of God.

The intelligent design controversy centers on three issues:
 * 1) Whether intelligent design is scientific;
 * 2) Whether the evidence supports intelligent design; and
 * 3) Whether the teaching of intelligent design in public schools is appropriate and legal.

Natural science uses the scientific method to acquire a posteriori empirical knowledge based on observation alone. Intelligent design proponents seek to change the scope of science by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from the definition and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, calls "theistic realism", which means belief in a transcendent, non-natural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, non-natural deity; critics have labeled this belief "methodological supernaturalism". Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena, and that supernatural explanations provide a very simple and intuitive explanation for the origins of life and the universe. Proponents say that evidence exists in the forms of irreducible complexity and specified complexity that cannot be explained by natural processes alone.

Supporters also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, saying that teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs. Teaching both, intelligent design supporters argue, allows for the possibility of religious belief, without causing the state to actually promote such beliefs. Many intelligent design followers believe that "Scientism" is itself a religion that promotes secularism and materialism in an attempt to erase theism from public life, and view their work in the promotion of intelligent design as a way to return religion to a central role in education and other public spheres. Some allege that this larger debate is often the subtext for arguments made over intelligent design, though others note that intelligent design serves as an effective proxy for the religious beliefs of prominent intelligent design proponents in their efforts to advance their religious point of view within society.

According to critics, intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case, and is an attempt to teach religion in public schools, which the United States Constitution forbids under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. They allege that intelligent design has substituted public support for scientific research. Furthermore, if one were to take the proponents of "equal time for all theories" at their word, there would be no logical limit to the number of potential "theories" to be taught in the public school system, including admittedly silly ones like the Flying Spaghetti Monster "theory" (a deliberate parody of intelligent design). There are innumerable mutually-incompatible supernatural explanations for complexity, and intelligent design does not provide a mechanism for discriminating among them. Furthermore, no known observable or repeatable experiment can be used to verify or falsify intelligent design, which critics argue violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. Indeed, intelligent design proponent Michael Behe concedes, "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."

Many religious people do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material, and support theistic evolution which does not conflict with scientific theories. An example is Cardinal Schönborn who sees "purpose and design in the natural world" yet has "no difficulty... with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory."

Intelligent design as science
The scientific method refers to a body of techniques for the investigation of phenomena and the acquisition of new knowledge of the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural. Intelligent design proponents have often said that their position is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution, and want a redefinition of science to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design". This presents a demarcation problem, an issue in the philosophy of science concerning how and where to draw the lines around science. It is generally accepted that for a hypothesis to qualify as scientific, it must be:
 * Consistent, both internally and externally;
 * Parsimonious, sparing in proposed entities or explanations (see Occam's razor);
 * Useful, meaningfully describing and explaining observed phenomena;
 * Empirically testable and falsifiable;
 * Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments;
 * Correctable and dynamic, changing as new data are discovered;
 * Progressive, achieving all that previous theories have and more; and
 * Provisional or tentative, admitting that it might not be correct, rather than asserting absolute certainty.

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few, or none at all, then it cannot be considered scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as scientific are that it lacks external consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.

In light of its apparent failure to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying that "intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." Additionally, in October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".

Intelligent design critics also say that intelligent design does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence used by most courts, the Daubert Standard. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four Daubert criteria are:
 * The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
 * The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
 * There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.
 * The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.

In deciding Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District on December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones III agreed with the prosecution, ruling that "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".

Peer review
The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse, and the failure to submit work to the scientific community which withstands scrutiny, have weighed against intelligent design being considered valid science. To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the principles of science, which limit its inquiries to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data, and which require explanations to be based upon empirical evidence. Dembski, Behe and other intelligent design proponents claim bias by the scientific community is to blame for the failure of their research to be published. Intelligent design proponents believe that the merit of their writings is rejected for not conforming to purely naturalistic non-supernatural mechanisms rather than on grounds of their research not being up to "journal standards". This claim is described as a conspiracy theory by some scientists. The issue that the supernatural explanations do not conform to the scientific method became a sticking point for intelligent design proponents in the 1990's, and is addressed in the wedge strategy as an aspect of science that must be challenged before intelligent design could be accepted by the broader scientific community.

The debate over whether intelligent design produces new research, as any scientific field must, and has legitimately attempted to publish this research, is extremely heated. Both critics and advocates point to numerous examples to make their case. For instance, the Templeton Foundation, a former funder of the Discovery Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that they asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, but none were ever submitted. Charles L. Harper Jr., foundation vice president, said that "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review." At the Kitzmiller trial the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing.

The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards. Written by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture Director Stephen C. Meyer, it appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in August 2004. The article was literature review, which means that it did not present any new research, but rather culled quotes and claims from other papers to argue that the Cambrian explosion could not have happened by natural processes. The choice of venue for this article was also considered problematic, because it was so outside the normal subject matter. (see Sternberg peer review controversy)

In the Kitzmiller trial, intelligent design proponents referenced just one paper, on simulation modeling of evolution by Behe and Snoke, that mentioned neither irreducible complexity nor intelligent design and that Behe admitted did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms. Dembski has written that "Perhaps the best reason [to be skeptical of his ideas] is that intelligent design has yet to establish itself as a thriving scientific research program." In a 2001 interview Dembski said that he stopped submitting to peer-reviewed journals because of their slow time-to-print and that he makes more money from publishing books.

In sworn testimony at the Kitzmiller trial Behe stated that "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." Further, as summarized by the judge, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his claims of intelligent design or irreducible complexity. Despite this, the Discovery Institute continues to claim that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer reviewed journals, including in their list the two articles mentioned above. Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, pointing out that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Instead, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lack impartiality and rigor, consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.

Intelligence as an observable quality
The phrase intelligent design makes use of an assumption of the quality of an observable intelligence, a concept that has no scientific consensus definition. William Dembski, for example, has written that "Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature." The characteristics of intelligence are assumed by intelligent design proponents to be observable without specifying what the criteria for the measurement of intelligence should be. Dembski, instead, asserts that "in special sciences ranging from forensics to archaeology to SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), appeal to a designing intelligence is indispensable." How this appeal is made and what this implies as to the definition of intelligence are topics left largely unaddressed. Seth Shostak, a researcher with the SETI Institute, refutes Dembski's claim, saying that intelligent design advocates base their inference on complexity &mdash; the argument being that some biological systems are too complex to have been made by natural processes &mdash; while SETI researchers are looking primarily for artificiality.

Critics say that the design detection methods proposed by intelligent design proponents are radically different from conventional design detection, undermining the key elements that make it possible as legitimate science. Intelligent design proponents, they say, are proposing both searching for a designer without knowing anything about that designer's abilities, parameters, or intentions (which scientists do know when searching for the results of human intelligence), as well as denying the very distinction between natural/artificial design that allows scientists to compare complex designed artifacts against the background of the sorts of complexity found in nature.

As a means of criticism, certain skeptics have pointed to a challenge of intelligent design derived from the study of artificial intelligence. The criticism is a counter to intelligent design claims about what makes a design intelligent, specifically that "no preprogrammed device can be truly intelligent, that intelligence is irreducible to natural processes." This claim is similar in type to an assumption of Cartesian dualism that posits a strict separation between "mind" and the material universe. However, in studies of artificial intelligence, while there is an implicit assumption that supposed "intelligence" or creativity of a computer program is determined by the capabilities given to it by the computer programmer, artificial intelligence need not be bound to an inflexible system of rules. Rather, if a computer program can access randomness as a function, this effectively allows for a flexible, creative, and adaptive intelligence. Evolutionary algorithms, a subfield of machine learning (itself a subfield of artificial intelligence), have been used to mathematically demonstrate that randomness and selection can be used to "evolve" complex, highly adapted structures that are not explicitly designed by a programmer. Evolutionary algorithms use the Darwinian metaphor of random mutation, selection and the survival of the fittest to solve diverse mathematical and scientific problems that are usually not solvable using conventional methods. Furthermore, forays into such areas as quantum computing seem to indicate that real probabilistic functions may be available in the future. Intelligence derived from randomness is essentially indistinguishable from the "innate" intelligence associated with biological organisms, and poses a challenge to the intelligent design conception that intelligence itself necessarily requires a designer. Cognitive science continues to investigate the nature of intelligence to that end, but the intelligent design community for the most part seems to be content to rely on the assumption that intelligence is readily apparent as a fundamental and basic property of complex systems.

Arguments from ignorance
Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance. In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, an intelligent cause is assumed. They contend that most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not necessarily unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside of the natural world. In particular, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a false dilemma where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. In scientific terms, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" for naturalistic explanations of observed traits of living organisms. Scott and Branch also contend that the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research.

Although there are certain aspects of abiogenesis, the generation of life from nonliving matter, that remain unexplained or controversial among biochemists, intelligent design proponents cannot logically infer that an intelligent designer must be behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically, since they have not shown that anything supernatural has occurred. The inference that an intelligent designer (a god or an "alien life force") created life on Earth has been compared to the a priori claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids. In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable, observable, or falsifiable, and also violates the principle of parsimony. From a strictly empirical standpoint, one may list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, but must admit ignorance about exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids.

Intelligent design has also been characterized as a "God of the gaps" argument, a type of argument for the existence of God which has the following form:
 * There are things which are not yet known, "gaps" in scientific knowledge.
 * These gaps can be filled by assuming a supernatural, miraculous cause, such as a God (or intelligent designer).
 * Therefore, such a supernatural cause must exist.

A God of the gaps argument is the theological version of an argument from ignorance. The key feature of this type of argument is that it answers outstanding questions with explanations that are unverifiable and ultimately themselves subject to unanswerable questions.

Improbable versus impossible events
In "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences", John Allen Paulos states that the apparent improbability of a given scenario cannot necessarily be taken as an indication that this scenario is therefore more unlikely than any other potential one: "Rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion.  Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been [randomly] dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable."

This argument can be seen as a rebuttal to advocates of intelligent design who claim that only a sentient creator could have arranged the universe in such a way as to be conducive to life (see for example specified complexity arguments or fine-tuning arguments). In this context, the probability of life "evolving" rather than having been "created" may appear unlikely at first sight, but the evidence that this is the case could be argued to be so widespread, deep, and heavily scrutinized that it would be illogical to conclude that any other (and arguably less scientifically compelling) hypothesis should take its place as the primary theory.