Intelligent Design as defined by the Discovery Institute:
‘Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process as natural selection.’
And there you have it, a bunching of scientific sounding terminology that properly explains ‘God did it’ or if you want ‘the Intelligent Cause did it’; also available and is more widely used is ‘the Intelligent Designer did it’. All three phrases are expressions to explain the assumed ‘who’ part of ID equation, but the problem is they all do not explain absolutely nothing, since there is no explanation of the ‘how’ something was done.
The ID Movement is a political policy group of self-described community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars, one of which was a law professor at Berkeley, who totally misunderstands the Theory of Evolution and natural selection, but still states they follow a scientific research policy that seeks evidence of design in nature.
This scientific research policy of ID, actually opposes methodological naturalism as a whole, which is the basic principle within all science, to limit it to natural phenomena and causes. As a fundamental understanding within scientific methodology, that 'science does not comment on the supernatural', period.
If one was to actually analyze the definition expressed by the ID Movement, a clear and utterly confusing understanding can be made, by asking a few questions:
- ‘holds that certain features’
To define ‘certain’ as a specific and known, but not named or would that ‘certain’ are that is indefinite or hard to describe be the definition expressed. The question I would more incline to ask is ‘who decides the ID Movement’s self-appointed design theorists, are able to determine which ‘certain features’ are a product of chance, natural law, ID or a combination thereof? When intelligent agents act, what instrumentations and reference points are used to conduct the observation of the types of acts, which illustrate the fact that an intelligent cause is present?
To properly address the present of intelligent agents is to first assume that intelligent agents actually exist and then assume that one can judge when they act.
- ‘best explained’
To define ‘best’ as the most desirable, excellent or beneficial, of which begs the question of ‘who’ determines the criteria that calculates the level of ‘best’. When the usage of ‘best’ is drawn on, it is from the individual’s point of view, which makes it a subjective term. To apply intelligence to the understanding of any type of informational construct, one would have to possess the knowledge, experience or perspective of the properties beforehand to decipher and apply a pattern of recognition. Those design theorists, of which the ID Movement applies to differentiate between natural design used within the Theory of Evolution and the supernatural. The special scientific methods, created and exclusively employed by those individuals in the ID Movement, of which single-handedly violate the defining principle of all science – science does not comment on the supernatural.
The ID Movement accepts evolution when defined as simply ‘change over time’ and the acceptance of the relation of common ancestry of living things. The dominant problem with the ID Movement seems to stem from an outdated expression of ‘Neo-Darwinism’, of which has been replaced as Modern Evolutionary Biology (MEB), due to advances in both technological and scientific discovery. The driving forces expressed with MEB are through natural selection, which is driven by the occurrences of mutations, predictable and purposeful processes that have a possibility to effect the discernable direction towards the survival of a species.
The ID Movement, as a whole and through whatever exercises it wishes to undertake, shall always result in the same outcome, when it comes to the Theory of Evolution, Neo-Darwinism and Modern Evolutionary Biology – simply put – absolutely none. As soon as any representative of the ID Movement, be it a lawyer, philosopher, mathematician, theologian or biologist utilizes a research policy that incorporates an intelligent cause as a possible explanation – all credibility is lost. More so, any and all questioning ceases at when intelligent causes act, without any investigation into the ‘who, how and why’ it acted.