Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design" Page 1 of 4

Religion & Belief | Religion and Schools

Frequently Asked Questions

About " Intelligent Design"
September 16, 2005
Q: What is intelligent design?
A: Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific set of beliefs based on the notion that life
on earth is so complex that it cannot be explained by the scientific theory of evolution
and therefore must have been designed by a supernatural entity.
VICTORY!
Q: Is ID a scientific theory? > The Case Against
A: No. A scientific theory must be testable and based on "Intelligent Design"
observable evidence. A scientific theory makes predictions
about occurrences in the natural world that can then be tested through scientific
experimentation. ID makes no predictions and cannot be scrutinized using the
scientific method. So although proponents of ID couch their views in scientific terms,
their assertion that ID is a scientific theory is false.

Q: How is ID like and unlike traditional creationism and creation science?

A: ID is the most recent incarnation of creationism. Unlike traditional forms of
creationism, ID does not openly rely on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Nor does it
take a stand on such issues as the age of the earth, in order to secure a broad base of
support from creationists with differing views. Like traditional forms of creationism, it
claims to have scientific evidence for the existence of design in the biological world;
unlike them, it refrains from claiming that the designer can be ascertained to be God.
Yet, although some proponents have suggested that the designer could be a space alien
or a time-traveler from the future, such possibilities are not seriously entertained. In its
scientifically unwarranted criticisms of evolution, ID's arguments are a subset of those
used by traditional forms of creationism.

Q: What is biological evolution?

A: Biological evolution is a scientific theory that explains how life on earth has changed
over time. The belief that species have evolved existed before Darwin, and was first
stimulated by finding fossils of animals that no longer exist. Evolution has undergone
many important developments since Darwin's time, most notably the incorporation of
genetics.

Q: Why isn't ID a possible alternative to evolution?

A: ID is not a scientific theory and therefore cannot be put forward as an alternative to
the scientific theory of evolution. ID has no explanatory power or predictive power. It
simply says that some things that seem very complex could not have happened based
on natural causes. So where it sees complexity, it declares that it must have been
created by a supernatural entity. This is not science.

http://www.aclu.org/print/religion-belief/frequently-asked-questions-about-intelligent... 2010-12-07
Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design" Page 2 of 4

Q: Who is behind the ID movement?

A: The ID movement is led by a small group of activists based at the Discovery
Institute's Center for Science and Culture (formerly Center for the Renewal of Science
and Culture) in Seattle, WA. There are very few credentialed scientists among the
group's leadership, and those who are scientists typically studied in fields unrelated to
biology. Their approach to religion is very different from the leading scientists in the
United States who are religious. Most legitimate scientists who are people of faith
accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the scientific theory of evolution and see
no conflict between the two.

Q: What is the "Wedge Strategy?"

A: The Wedge Strategy is an internal memorandum from the Discovery Institute that
was leaked to the Internet in 1999. Although ID proponents publicly declare that they
are neutral on many questions related to their religious motivations, the Wedge
document reveals in clear terms that their assertions are at best deceptive. The
document specifically outlines plans to reverse prevailing scientific practices and
methods, and makes clear that the motivations of ID's main supporters are religious,
not scientific. It is indeed curious that they would choose deception to advance their
religious beliefs.

Q: Why not "teach both sides"?

A: This would be like teaching astrology in an astronomy course or alchemy in a
chemistry class. There are not "two sides" to the science. Evolution is a scientific theory
that seeks to explain how life on earth has changed over time, while ID is simply an
ideology that attacks science and asks that its ideas be accepted as if they are true.
Evolution and ID address different topics, employ different methods and certainly
should be judged by entirely different standards.

Q: How does ID undermine science education?

A: Teaching ID as a so-called "alternative" to evolution would misinform students as to
the scientific standing of the theory of evolution and the workings of the scientific
method. In addition, it would improperly prepare them for postsecondary science
education, placing them at a significant disadvantage to their peers. All scientists and
physicians who study such diseases as SARS and AIDS, as well as those who trace how
bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, completely rely on evolutionary theory to
understand the phenomena they are examining. We are certain that even ID
proponents would prefer to rely on these scientists rather than a scientist who believes
that SARS or AIDS was created by intelligent design and can be explained only by
intelligent design.

Q: How does ID undermine religious freedom?

A: ID is attempting to insert its particular religious beliefs into science education - as if
it were science. By trying to use governments to give the prestigious label of "science"
to their controversial theories, they are misleading children and parents. By attempting
to elevate a single religious viewpoint over others and situating religion in conflict with
science, they are endangering the religious freedom of all Americans. In the words of
Theologian John F. Haught, "If a child of mine were attending a biology class where the
teacher proposed that students consider ID as an alternative to?evolution I would be
offended religiously as well as intellectually." (Haught, J, rep. App. 3, tab F, at 7.)

Q: What's wrong with the claim that evolution is "just a theory"?

A: Calling evolution "just a theory" is deeply misleading because it confuses the
everyday meaning of the word "theory" (a "hunch" or an "opinion.") with the scientific
meaning (requiring an explanation that is testable, grounded in evidence and able to

http://www.aclu.org/print/religion-belief/frequently-asked-questions-about-intelligent... 2010-12-07
Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design" Page 3 of 4

predict natural phenomena better than competing theories). The scientific theory of
evolution is one of the most robust theories in modern science. It has been
corroborated by hundreds of thousands of independent observerations and has
succeeded in predicting natural phenomena in every field of the biological sciences,
from paleontology to molecular genetics. No persuasive evidence has been put forward
in the last 150 years to contradict the theory of evolution. In the words of Theodosius
Dobzhansky, one of the most prominent geneticists of the 20th century, "Nothing in
biology makes sense except in light of evolution."

Q: Does the scientific theory of evolution deny the existence of an

intelligent designer or God?
A: No. Since the question of God's existence is outside the realm of science, the theory
of evolution is silent on it. Darwin himself openly wondered about the existence of a
supreme designer throughout his life, but kept these questions separate from his
scientific work. Accepting evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive. Many
scientists hold personal religious beliefs, including Dr. Francis Collins, leader of the
Human Genome Project and an evangelical Protestant, and Dr. Kenneth Miller, a
Catholic and a prominent biologist who was called as an expert witness in Kitzmiller v.
Dover .

Q: Aren't there controversies among scientists about evolution?

A: There are many debates within science about aspects of any theory, and scientific
theories are constantly being revised as new and compelling information is learned. In
evolution, as in all areas of science, our knowledge is incomplete. There are many
important debates within evolutionary theory. For example, what features of animals
are due to sexual selection as opposed to natural selection? How much of evolutionary
change occurs because of the need to adapt to changing environments versus random
genetic change? Does natural selection occur only at the level of the individual
organism or can it occur also at the level of groups or even species? The list goes on.
None of these debates, however, undermines the scientific standing of evolution itself.
In fact, each has added to our understanding of the ways in which evolution works, and
strengthened the core elements of the theory.

Q: Why not teach ID as just one controversy about evolution along with
others?
A: Unlike real scientific theories, ID cannot provide any evidence in favor of its
conclusions - meaning that it is an ideology and not science.

Q: But what about gaps in the theory of evolution that cannot be explained
by scientists?
A: Most important scientific theories have gaps that need to be filled, and unanswered
questions do not render a theory invalid. Doubters of Galileo's theory of the earth's
rotation around the sun asked, why, if the earth is spinning, don't we all fly off it? It
took roughly a half-century for Isaac Newton to develop the theory of gravitational pull,
which answers this question. A scientific theory is not disqualified simply because it
raises new questions; in fact, the ability of a theory to inspire new questions and
experiments is a measure of its quality. Furthermore, most of the so-called
"unexplainable gaps" pointed out by ID proponents have in fact been answered by
scientists. For many years "creationists" argued that there were serious gaps in the
"fossil record" and that there was no fossil record of transitional species. During the
last twenty years several such transitional species have been found -- something that ID
people are reluctant to admit -- making the original assertion more and more dubious.

http://www.aclu.org/print/religion-belief/frequently-asked-questions-about-intelligent... 2010-12-07
Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design" Page 4 of 4

Q: Have the ID critiques of evolutionary theory been published in peer-

reviewed scientific journals?
A: Peer review is the standard process by which scientists judge each other's work and
deem it acceptable for publication in scientific journals. Only one article supporting ID
has ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal - the Proceedings of the Biological
Society of Washington - and it was later disavowed by the Society's governing council.
The writer was a philosopher of science, not a practicing scientist, and the article
reported no original data. Other scientific publications by authors affiliated with ID
were on subjects other than ID. Aside from this one instance, proponents of ID have
published their work in the popular press, avoiding review by experts.

Q: What do ID proponents mean by "irreducible complexity" and how do

they argue that this concept implies design?
A: Michael Behe, a Discovery Institute fellow, coined the term "irreducible complexity"
as a description of organisms that are so complex that they could not come into
existence gradually. He uses a mousetrap as an example: a mousetrap has many
different parts, and if one of them did not work, you wouldn't have an inferior
mousetrap, rather your mousetrap would not work at all. Therefore, the mousetrap
couldn't work at all until all the parts were in place. In biology, structures that don't
function are weeded out by natural selection, so Behe concludes that complex biological
systems must have been designed with all their parts in place as well. However,
evolution does not necessarily occur in a linear progression, with each new part being
added on, one at a time. Instead, structures develop for one purpose, and then get co-
opted for a different task. Scientists have been able to chart these changes in many
organisms that seem irreducibly complex in their current form, showing how natural
selection can produce stunning variety from the same building blocks. The failure of
Behe's irreducible complexity argument is a perfect example of ID's failure as a whole:
misunderstanding how evolution works, ID's proponents reject it in favor of divine
intervention.

Published on American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org)

Source URL: http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/frequently-asked-questions-about-
intelligent-design

http://www.aclu.org/print/religion-belief/frequently-asked-questions-about-intelligent... 2010-12-07