Intelligent design movement: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger
m (Intelligent Design Movement moved to Intelligent design movement: lower case: movements rarely have proper names)
imported>Will Nesbitt
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Intelligent Design''' (ID) is the contention that "certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause". The Intelligent Design Movement seeks to promote the concept of Intelligent Design.  
'''Intelligent Design''' (ID) is the contention that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. The Intelligent Design Movement seeks to promote the concept of Intelligent Design.  


In 2005 a case was brought against a United States school board for requiring the reading of a disclaimer in Biology classes that mentioned Intelligent Design as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. The judge ruled that Intelligent Design is not science, and is essentially religious in nature.<ref>Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, [http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Case No. 04cv2688. (PDF)] December 20 2005 </ref>
In 2005 a case was brought against a United States school board for requiring the reading of a disclaimer in Biology classes that mentioned Intelligent Design as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. The judge ruled that Intelligent Design is not science, and is essentially religious in nature.<ref>Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, [http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Case No. 04cv2688. (PDF)] December 20 2005 </ref>

Revision as of 09:58, 17 May 2007

Intelligent Design (ID) is the contention that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. The Intelligent Design Movement seeks to promote the concept of Intelligent Design.

In 2005 a case was brought against a United States school board for requiring the reading of a disclaimer in Biology classes that mentioned Intelligent Design as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. The judge ruled that Intelligent Design is not science, and is essentially religious in nature.[1]

Many of the most visible advocates of Intelligent Design are fellows and advisors of the Centre for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The senior fellows at the CSC include some Roman Catholics, a secular (non-religious) Jew, a member of Sun Myung-Moon's Unification Church, and many protestant Christians. Intelligent Design has received widespread media attention, especially after legal cases were brought against US school boards for promoting Intelligent Design in their biology curricula. Subsequent letters to the Editor in local newspapers suggest that many members of the public view the issue of Intelligent Design to be a religious one. They deem that the theory is being used as a religious apologetic whether or not the theory itself is formally distinct from the question of a supernatural creator.

In October 2005, in an open letter to newspapers in Australia, nine individuals including the Dean of Science at the University of Sydney, the executive secretary of the Australian Academy of Science and the presidents of the Science Teachers Associations of a number of Australian states signed a statement[2] saying that Intelligent Design is not science. The nine signatories head organisations with a total membership of about 70,000 science professionals, although no polls of the memberships on the issue was reported. The letter coincided with an episode of science program Catalyst, broadcast by the ABC, which showed the Australian Minister for Education, Brendan Nelson, saying that he had no problem with Australian schools teaching Intelligent Design. An ABC poll showed that around two thirds of respondents believed that ID should not be taught in schools.[3] Brendan Nelson later said he meant that he had no problem with ID being taught in religious classes, but not science classes.

Teaching of Intelligent Design in schools

Several leading proponents of Intelligent Design have stated that Intelligent Design should not be taught in the science curriculum, and the official position of the Discovery Institute is that it should not be taught in schools. Instead the Discovery Institute's Centre for Science and Culture have called for students to learn about the difficulties with the theory of evolution by natural selection as published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

In 2005, when the Kansas Board of Education proposed new science standards that would include alternatives to evolution as explanations for the origin of species, 38 Nobel laureates (including winners of the prize in Physics, Chemistry, Economics, Peace and Medicine) wrote to the Board saying "[...] 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."[4].

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that Intelligent Design is an alternative to evolution violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on the basis that it was an endorsement of a religious point of view, that it would be seen as such by a student and by an average citizen of the district.

Furthermore, District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design is not science.[5] He stated that "ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community." His statement alludes to three parts of the "Daubert Standard" [2], which governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four Daubert criteria are:

  • Evidence should be based on a testable theory or technique.
  • The theory or technique should have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
  • In the case of a technique there should be a known error rate and standards controlling the application of the technique.
  • The underlying science should be generally accepted.

See Also

  • Intelligent Design? A special report reprinted from Natural History magazine. Three proponents of Intelligent Design present their views. Each view is followed by a response from a proponent of evolution. [3]
  • Intelligent Design Concept

Notes

  1. Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Case No. 04cv2688. (PDF) December 20 2005
  2. Australian scientists and educators say ID is not science
  3. http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/oz.html Creation & Intelligent Design Watch
  4. The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative [1]
  5. Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Case No. 04cv2688. (PDF) December 20 2005