Intelligent design

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intelligent Design ( dt . : 'intelligent design ', 'intelligent design '; abbreviated ID ) is the creationist view that certain properties of the universe and life on earth can only be explained by an intelligent creator and not by a process without such Management , like natural selection . This idea was developed by a group of American neocreationists since around the mid-1980s . Almost all leading exponents of intelligent design, such as Phillip Johnson , Michael J. Behe and William A. Dembski, are associated with the “Center for Science and Culture”, an institution of the Christian-conservative Discovery Institute . Intelligent design advocates claim that their research is guided only by an interest in knowledge and is not related to religious beliefs or certain Christian creeds; occasionally they even distance themselves from some biblical fundamentalist varieties of creationism. But their critics agree that they their claims from the creationism - Controversy main reason abänderten to circumvent court decisions that prohibit it in the United States to teach religious content as the traditional creationism as a school subject.

According to its proponents, intelligent design is a scientific theory. In their opinion, concepts of ID such as those of “ irreducible complexity ” and “ specified complexity ” are testable scientific hypotheses. They also accuse the classical evolutionary biologists of their methodical naturalism , which is only a materialistic philosophy, while they themselves would not, without prejudice, rule out any possibility of explanation, including any supernatural.

According to the scientific community , intelligent design is not science.

The US National Science Teachers Association has rated intelligent design as a pseudoscience . Sections of the scientific community have expressly endorsed this assessment, while others believe that it should be viewed more as ' junk science '.


Intelligent Design was created in response to the United States Supreme Court's ruling in the Edwards vs. Aguillard in 1987, about the separation of church and state . As a result, a textbook for biology lessons, Of Pandas and People , first published in 1989, presented creationist teaching as a scientific theory, not as a matter of faith. Other books on the subject appeared in the 1990s. In the mid-1990s, the representatives of intelligent design gradually became active in the environment of the Discovery Institute and began to promote the inclusion of intelligent design in the curriculum of public schools. The central role the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture played in organizing and funding the intelligent design movement increased its publicity in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

The intention to present intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of life in public school lessons ultimately led to the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District. Parents attacked a decree that should feature intelligent design in biology classes. The presiding district judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design was not a science and could "not break free of its creationist and therefore religious roots". Therefore, in his judgment, it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution , according to which the government is prohibited from adopting a state religion or taking actions that inappropriately favor a religion or non-religion.

Origin of the term

Before its modern use from the 1980s onwards, the term intelligent design was used a number of times in a similar sense, but these uses remained isolated and without public response. Lord Kelvin , supporter of a theistically controlled evolution, used "intelligent and benevolent design" around 1871 in a report of the 41st meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science , in which he argued against Darwin's theory of evolution. Also at an annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1873, the botanist George James Allman used the term "intelligent design" because he considered the development of protoplasm through evolution to be impossible.

Modern usage of the term began after the United States Supreme Court in the Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ruled that creationism in the public school curriculum was unconstitutional. According to journalist William Safire , Stephen C. Meyer , co-founder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture , reported that the term came up in Tacoma in 1988 at a conference he attended called Sources of Information Content in DNA . He attributes the phrase to Charles Thaxton , the editor of Of Pandas and People . In early drafts of the book, the word creationism ( creationism ) used, but after the court decision almost without exception by intelligent design replaced. The use of the term was made more widely known by the retired jurist Phillip E. Johnson in his book Darwin on Trial (1991). He advocated redefining natural science in such a way that it would allow claims of a supernatural creation. Johnson, generally regarded as the father of the intelligent design movement , subsequently worked with Meyer.

Today the term intelligent design is often equated with the movement of the same name. The marketing expert Brian Collins spoke of targeted branding , a modern marketing strategy that uses movement in his eyes in order to appropriate certain terms.

In addition to being used within the intelligent design movement, the term and concept e.g. B. also taken up by the New Religious Movement of the Raelians .

Origin of the concept

Intelligent Design ties in with the physical theology of deism in the English Enlightenment, which is based on a physically and quantitatively explained universe whose excellent complexity and inner coherence point to an intelligent, transcendent author. One form of this argument comes from the English theologian William Paley (1743-1805) in his book Natural Theology (1802). Paley inferred a personal divine planner because of the complexity and functionality of living nature . To justify this idea, Paley chose an analogy according to which the finely tuned construction of technical objects (artifacts), such as B. a clock, only allow the conclusion that it was brought about by a purpose-setter who was endowed with intelligence and therefore able to understand its construction. (This is called the watchmaker analogy and, although the modern approaches of intelligent design advocates differ somewhat, it is still used in their reasoning today.)

Intelligent design can be seen as a modern rewrite of 'natural theology'. As the theory of evolution expanded and refined to explain more phenomena, so too did the examples held up as evidence of intelligent design . However, the basic argument has remained the same: Complex systems should imply a designer . In the past, the examples used included the eye (optical system) and the feathered wing; Since both examples have now been conclusively explained by the natural sciences without a designer, the current examples are found on the less well-researched biochemical level: protein functions, blood coagulation and bacterial flagella (see irreducible complexity ).

Intelligent design purposely does not attempt to identify or label an intelligent actor - it simply asserts that one (or more) must exist. Regardless, it is the personal view of all prominent proponents that it is (Christian) God.


Intelligent design was conceived at the end of the 20th century in the USA as an evangelical alternative to the biological and scientific explanations of the origin of life and partly as a neo-conservative battle term against the scientific theory of evolution . It contradicts the synthetic evolutionary theory of the biosciences, which explain the origin of living beings through observable processes such as mutation , recombination and selection and which continuously check this explanation through experiments and the collection of scientific data.

Its stated purpose is to investigate whether one can conclude from the empirical evidence that life on earth came about through the creative act of one or more intelligent acting creators. The mathematician and theologian William Dembski , one of the leading exponents of intelligent design , cited as a central assertion that natural systems could not be adequately explained by undirected natural processes and that they showed characteristics that we would ascribe to an intelligence in any other context.

Proponents of intelligent design distinguish two types of cause in nature; physical and intelligent causes. While the prevailing science, for dogmatic reasons, excludes intelligent causes in nature from the outset, Intelligent Design shows precisely that the world cannot be explained at all without such intelligent interventions. This evidence of intelligent intervention would be obvious, but would be ignored or explained away by scientists. By narrowing the research to natural reasons, it is no longer able to recognize God's work in nature. An explanation by design would be necessary if the phenomenon under study cannot be explained by natural explanations. The most frequently mentioned characteristics are irreducible complexity , information mechanisms and specified complexity . These are inexplicable through materialistic teaching, through the work of chance. The intelligent design supporters argue that one or more of these characteristics can be determined in living beings, from which they conclude that at least some aspects of life must have arisen through a direct creative act of the designer.

The intelligent design advocates further argue that while evidence for the nature of an intelligent cause or agent is not directly observable, its effects on nature are discernible. Dembski writes:

“Proponents see intelligent design as a scientific research program that examines the effects of intelligent causes. It is important to note that the effects of an intelligent cause are being examined, not the intelligent causes as such . "

From this point of view, within a closed system, one cannot check the identity of influences that come from outside this system, so questions about the identity of the designer are beyond the scope of the concept.

Intelligent design as a scientific theory

Intelligent Design advocates argue that their concept is a scientific theory that would provide an alternative to evolutionary biology (ID advocates themselves prefer the term Darwinism for it ). They accuse the scientific biologists of rejecting them for purely ideological reasons. Articles inspired by the intelligent design approach are not published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and are therefore not considered scientific publications . Here too, ideological, not technically justified, unequal treatment is assumed. This criticism is rejected from the scientific side. Scientists do not accept theories or hypotheses that are not based on methodological naturalism , that is, which allow extraneous or supernatural influences to explain observable facts. The reason for this is that such theories would no longer be verifiable (" falsifiable "), since no one can know what a supernatural being could have done for what reasons. Leading protagonists of the ID like Phillip E. Johnson see the controversy in principle the same way. Johnson would like to found a new science which, instead of methodical naturalism, is based on a "theistic realism", which accepts God as the Creator as the objective basis of reality.

Some philosophers of science would be willing to recognize unconventional approaches as scientific if they had proven to be scientifically fruitful, i.e. if they had led to unconventional insights or significant discoveries. The philosopher Michael Ruse dealt with intelligent design under this premise. According to his presentation, intelligent design has not led to unexpected discoveries and, with regard to David Hume, he also considers it to be fundamentally ruled out because the assumption of a creator is a “science stopper” .

The claim of the ID protagonists that their research has shown that the classic explanations of evolutionary biologists are not convincing, incomplete or contradicting does not change the rejection. The scientific representatives see this as a sham alternative. Even if the flawedness of the classical theory was proven (which, however, is strongly disputed), it would not follow that intelligent design must be the correct explanation. Incomplete scientific hypotheses also have explanatory value; natural scientists themselves never claim that their theories are irrefutable or perfect. Within evolutionary biology, scientists are constantly arguing about different explanatory approaches, which, however, always remain within the scientific framework. For inner-scientific reasons, however, they have never felt compelled to question the theory of evolution as a whole. Eugenie Scott , along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many of the points raised by advocates of intelligent design are arguments ad ignorantiam (arguments based on a lack of imagination, or: appeal to ignorance). In the argumentum ad ignorantiam , missing evidence for one view is mistakenly viewed as evidence of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is such an argument because its conclusion is based on the lack of knowledge: the fact that certain aspects of evolution have not yet been worked out precisely, natural explanations, suggest an intelligent reason. They argue that most scientists would reply that the inexplicable is not the inexplicable, and that "we don't know yet" is a much more appropriate answer than using a reason outside of science. Intelligent design has also been characterized as the 'God of the gaps' argument, which takes the following form:

  • There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
  • This gap can be filled with the work of God (or an intelligent designer) and therefore proves the existence of God (or an intelligent designer).

Although there is no generally accepted definition of science , or a hard criterion by which one can distinguish it from other systems of thought, natural scientists are completely in agreement that intelligent design falls short of the methodological standards of a natural science. It gains its credibility not because of internal scientific explanation problems, but because of ideological, especially ethical, problems that come from outside of science. Accordingly, intelligent design is not even represented as an outsider position by evolutionary biologists. The (few) scientists who take positions of intelligent design as an explanatory model have their scientific expertise in completely different fields.

In the light of its apparent failure to adhere to scientific standards, 38 Nobel Prize winners issued a declaration in September 2005 : “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. "( " Intelligent design is in principle unscientific; it cannot be tested as a scientific theory because the central conclusion is based on the belief in the intervention of a supernatural actor. " )

Relevant terms

The more general designation design hypothesis or argument from design is occasionally used in philosophical publications . Today [2006], however, these terms are understood in a much more comprehensive sense and are usually not used in the context that is directed against the theory of evolution, as the term Intelligent Design means, which is also often used today as a term for the movement of the same name. While the more restricted term intelligent design suggests a personal being equipped with understanding, the term "design hypothesis" in the philosophical field is very broad in addition to theistic and non-theistic beings as well as principles and pure mechanisms that steer the universe towards a certain goal.

Individual concepts

Irreducible complexity

The eye is often cited - by supporters like Sarfati, for example - as an example of irreducible complexity, but it can be explained through intermediate evolutionary steps.
(a) pigment spot
(b) Simple pigmented indentation
(c) of the eye cup abalone
(d) complicated eye lens of marine gastropods

Michael Behe , who introduced the concept of irreducible complexity (also known as irreducible complexity, or IC for short) into the discussion, defined an irreducible complex system 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."

" ... a single system consisting of several well-coordinated, mutually influencing parts that contribute to a fundamental function in such a way that the removal of any of these parts would effectively render the system inoperable." "

- Michael Behe ​​in Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference

Behe uses the mousetrap as an illustrative example of his concept. A mousetrap consists of several mutually influencing parts - plate, hook, spring and loop - all of which have to be assembled accordingly so that the mousetrap works as usual. Proponents of intelligent design claim that natural selection cannot produce irreducibly complex systems because the functionality that selection can act on is only available when all the parts are assembled. Behe's original examples of the irreducibly complex biological mechanisms in his eyes include the flagellum of the flagellum , the coagulation cascade , cilia, and the adaptive immune system .

Scientists oppose the assumption that such irreducible complex systems actually occur in nature, which cannot be built up by natural mechanisms. A definition alone is not enough; a practicable procedure must also be specified, according to which it can be precisely determined whether a given system fulfills the definition and according to which it can also be demonstrated that this system cannot arise through natural mechanisms. Here, the burden of proof lies with the Intelligent Design representatives. Even assuming the existence of such irreducibly complex entities, it is argued, evolution often takes place by modifying existing parts or removing them from the system rather than just adding them, with a part that was initially merely beneficial becoming necessary later can when other components change. With such a mechanism, an irreducibly complex system, as defined by Behe, can be formed naturally. This is compared with scaffolding that supports an “irreducibly complex” building until it is complete and can stand on its own - this argument is known as a scaffolding objection (scaffolding stone wall).

In the creationist field, irreducible complexity is often associated with the eye, although this example, according to M. Behe, does not correspond to his definition of irreducible complexity. The fact that such complex structures can arise through evolution is often beyond the intuitive power of imagination, but becomes visible on closer examination of the possible functional intermediate steps that have led to this structure. Some of these intermediate steps are sketched in the adjacent figure using the example of the eye. A large number of such "primitive eye types", which can serve as intermediate steps in the development of the eye, still exist in nature (see, for example, Ernst Mayr's book This is Evolution ).

The sensory cells are already arranged between the pigment cells in the flat eye, and nerve fibers transmit the impulses. In the second step, a pit eye is formed in order to recognize the origin of the light. In the third step, the cornea bulges into a pinhole camera. In the fourth step, the cornea is already closed and a lens breaks the light. In the last step, additional muscles and the iris create a complex lens eye. The human eye has a similar structure.

Another example is the bacterial flagellum. Nicholas J. Matzke presented a model that conclusively explains a possible path for the evolution of the bacterial scourge in small steps.

Specified complexity

The concept of specified complexity was conceived by mathematician, philosopher and theologian William Dembski . Dembski says that when something shows specified complexity (i.e., when it is complex and specific at the same time), one can infer that it was created by intelligence (i.e., that it was created by design) and a natural process is excluded. As an example, he offers that a single letter of the alphabet is specific without being complex, while a long sequence of random letters is complex without being specific. A Shakespeare sonnet, on the other hand, is complex and specific. He says the details of life can be similarly characterized, especially the 'patterns' of molecular chains in functional biological molecules like DNA .

Dembski defines complex specified information as everything that can arise with a probability less than (natural) chance. Critics say that this makes the argument a tautology : Complex specified information cannot arise naturally because Dembski defined it as such that the real question is whether it actually exists in nature.

The validity of Dembski's argument is highly controversial. There is no evidence that specified complexity, as Dembski claims, applies to other areas. John Wilkins and Wesley Elsberry characterize Dembski's “explanatory filter” as eliminative, as it removes explanations one after the other: first regularity, then random, then falling back to design by default. They argue that this procedure is useless as a method of scientific inference, since its asymmetrical treatment of the various possible explanations can lead to incorrect conclusions.

Furthermore, the proposed filter is of no importance in practice, since the corresponding probabilities are not known and will not be known in the future either.

Fine tuning of the natural constants

According to an argument often used by the intelligent design advocates, the constants of the physical models for describing the universe have a fine-tuning that makes life possible and that cannot be attributed to chance. This argument does not come from the intelligent design movement itself, but is discussed by cosmologists, whereby either the tracing of current physical models back to more fundamental physical theories without fine-tuning, e.g. B. the superstring theory , or multiverse - or ensemble hypotheses are discussed as possible scientific explanations. The use of fine-tuning as an argument for the design hypothesis was outside of the actual intelligent design movement e.g. B. represented by the British religious philosopher Richard Swinburne . It is also not a typical intelligent design argument in that it does not question the theory of evolution or any other current scientific theory.

The postulated fine-tuning comprises physical constants, e.g. B. the strength of the forces that hold the atomic nuclei together and some parameters important for the development of the universe, such as the cosmological constant. Intelligent Design advocate and Center for Science and Culture associate Guillermo Gonzalez takes the position of fine-tuning that if any of these values ​​were to vary even slightly, the universe would be dramatically different and many chemical elements and properties of the universe would be impossible to match can develop. Hence, he goes on to conclude, life took an intelligent designer to make sure it had the properties it needed. Scientists have answered almost unanimously that this argument cannot be verified and is therefore scientifically useless. Some argue that even if viewed as speculation, the arguments are poorly supported by the evidence.

A number of critics also point out that many of the variables put forward appear to be related and that calculations by mathematicians and physicists suggest that a similar universe is relatively likely to arise. The philosopher N. Bostrum argues that even in the event that explanations such as tracing back to more fundamental theories that would link or eliminate the constants would not be possible, ensemble hypotheses and multiverse theories because of their mathematical treatability from the rational-scientific point of view would be preferable to the design hypothesis. Richard Swinburne writes on this, however: "Postulating a trillion trillion universes instead of one God seems to be the height of irrationality."

Another point of criticism is the question of why life in the universe is so extremely rare when the natural constants have been so optimally adjusted for life. In addition, this argument does not apply to forms of life that are completely unknown to us. Instead of “nature is fine-tuned to life” one could argue with equal right that “life is tailored to nature”, ie exactly what the theory of evolution says.

The designer or designers

Intelligent design arguments are formulated in worldly terms and intentionally avoid identifying the Intelligent Actor they postulate. Although they do not state that God is the designer, it is often implicitly assumed that only he as such could have intervened. While Dembski in The Design Inference speculates that a culture of aliens might meet the conditions, the official description of Intelligent Design explicitly mentions that the universe itself already has properties that suggest design. Dembski has recognized the paradox and draws the conclusion “no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life” (“no intelligent agent who is strictly physical can determine the origin of the universe and the Have initiated life ”). The leading followers have revealed to their wearers that they believe that the designer is the Christian God , to the exclusion of all other religions.

Beyond the debates about whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics go so far as to suggest that the evidence available makes the design hypothesis unlikely. For example, Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago wonders why a designer would build a mechanism into humans to make vitamin C, but then destroy it by turning off one of his enzymes ( "give us a pathway for making vitamin C, but then destroy it by disabling one of its enzymes " ) and why he or she would not equip the islands in the ocean with reptiles, mammals, amphibians or freshwater fish, even though these islands would provide an adequate habitat for these species ( " stock oceanic islands with reptiles , mammals, amphibians, and freshwater fish, despite the suitability of such islands for these species ” ). Coyne also interprets the fact that fauna and flora on these islands are similar to those of the closest mainland, although the surroundings are completely different ( "the flora and fauna on those islands resemble that of the nearest mainland, even when the environments are very different") ), as evidence that they weren't placed there by a designer. Behe argued in the broader context in Darwin's Black Box to the contrary, claiming that people were simply unable to understand the designer's motives so that such questions could not be definitively answered. Quirky design, according to Behe, could for example have been placed there by the designer for artistic reasons; or to demonstrate one's skills; for a practical purpose that has not yet been clarified or for another undetectable reason ( "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 replied that, in the light of the evidence, life either came about not through intelligent design but through evolution, or that the intelligent designer must be a cosmic prankster who designed everything to look like evolution ( “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 " ).

A designer's alleged need for complexity also raises the question of how the designer's design came about. Intelligent design advocates say the question is irrelevant to intelligent design or is out of its reach. Richard Wein counters this by saying that unanswered questions of a theory must be weighed against the improvements in understanding provided by the explanation. To invoke something that is not further explained to explain the origin of something else (the people themselves) is therefore little more than a circular argument, and the new question raised by the explanation is so problematic like the question, which the explanation should answer ( "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 see the claim that the designer does not have to be explained, not as a contribution to knowledge, but as the last word of power to end any discussion when questioning the theory. Without observable, measurable evidence, the question of the designer of the designer leads to an infinite regress that intelligent design advocates can only escape by resorting to religious creationism or by a logical contradiction. In addition, with the postulate of a designer, an additional element that is not needed to explain the development of life is introduced; it therefore contradicts the principle of economy .

Intelligent design as movement

The Intelligent Design movement grew out of a campaign by the Discovery Institute to advocate far-reaching social, academic, and political change through the use of intelligent design arguments in the US public . Movement leaders say that intelligent design exposes the limitations of natural science and the secular philosophy of naturalism . Intelligent design advocates claim that science should not be limited to naturalism and should not require the adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that out of hand rejects any explanation that involves supernatural reasons.

Phillip E. Johnson , who is considered to be the father of the movement, named Intelligent Design's goal to bring creationism to scientific recognition. All leading advocates of intelligent design are associates or employees of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture . Almost all intelligent design concepts and the movement associated with them are the product of the Discovery Institute, which leads the movement and pursues its wedge strategy , while it leads the accompanying Teach the Controversy ("teaching the controversy") campaign.

There are contradicting statements from leading advocates of intelligent design. In public debates, they refer to intelligent design as non-religious, while on the other hand, the biblical basis of intelligent design is pointed out as soon as conservative Christian supporters are approached.

Barbara Forrest, an expert who has studied the movement extensively, attributes this to a Discovery Institute covering up its real views, which is one of its guiding principles. She wrote about the movement: “[the movement's] activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious world-view that undergirds it.” (“The movement's activities do not give an aggressive, systematic agenda only to promote intelligent design creationism, but also to support the religious worldview that underpins it. ")

The religion and the leading followers

The intelligent design arguments are carefully phrased in secular terms and deliberately avoid postulating an identity of the designer. Phillip E. Johnson has said that developing ambiguity through the use of secular language in arguments, carefully crafted to avoid the connotations of theistic creationism, is a necessary first step in ultimately reviving the Christian concept of God as a designer to introduce. Johnson emphasizes "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 "(" after we separate materialistic prejudices from scientific facts ... only then can 'biblical matters' be discussed. ") Johnson urges intelligent design advocates to obscure their religious intentions so that it is avoided that intelligent design is seen as just another packaging for the evangelical Christian message. Most of the main proponents of intelligent design, including Michael Behe , William Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer , are Christians who have declared that in their eyes the designer of life is God . The vast majority of intelligent design advocates are evangelical Protestants. Phillip E. Johnson, William Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer are Protestants, Michael Behe ​​is Roman Catholic, and Jonathan Wells , another key figure, is a member of the Unification Church led by Sun Myung Moon .

The conflicting claims made by intelligent design leaders as to whether intelligent design is based on religious beliefs are the result of their strategy . For example, William Dembski in his book The Design Inference lists a god or an "extraterrestrial life form" as two possibilities for the designer's identity. However, Dembski explains in his book Intelligent Design: the Bridge Between Science and Theology “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. "(" Christ is indispensable for every scientific theory, even if its experts have no idea about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can of course be pursued without recourse to Christ But the fundamental validity of the theory can only be found in Christ in the end. ”) Dembski also said “ 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 "(" Intelligent Design not only redeems us from this ideology, the materialism that suffocates the human spirit, but, as I have personally found it open to the people the way to Christ. ")

Two leading intelligent design believers, Phillip Johnson and William Dembski, cite the Gospel of John as the foundation of intelligent design. Barbara Forrest says these statements reveal that its leaders view Intelligent Design as fundamentally religious in nature, rather than a scientific concept that merely incidentally leads to conclusions that are consistent with their personal beliefs.


The German creationist Siegfried Scherer ( Wort und Wissen ) was a Fellow of the Discovery Institute until 2003, but has now distanced himself from its political goals. The events in the USA are only sporadically reported in the European press. N-tv headed a report on the decision to include intelligent design in biology classes in schools in the US state of Kansas, in addition to the theory of evolution , with the title "Where the earth is flat - Kansas casts Darwin into doubt" .

In Germany, Jehovah's Witnesses generally sympathize with intelligent design; their best-known representative is the geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig , group leader at the Max Planck Institute for Breeding Research . After Lönnig's publication of intelligent design theses on the MPI website, “the institute fought for its good reputation”; Since then the MPI has forbidden its employees to publish personal views on the MPI site unless they are clearly marked as such. The managing director of the MPI, Paul Schulze-Lefert, explained: " We would have made a fool of ourselves if we had continued to tolerate this amalgamation of scientifically proven findings and personal opinions on our sites ."

In Great Britain the mathematician John Lennox and the philosopher Antony Flew represent positions of intelligent design.

Intelligent design controversy

Court decision

In the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District (2005) ruled by a US federal court, represented by District Judge John E. Jones III. that the requirement of a public school district that intelligent design be taught in science subjects as an alternative to evolutionary theory violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment . The basis of this decision was his conclusion that intelligent design is not a science and is essentially religious in nature.

Strategies and points of view

A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is to convince the general public that there is a debate between scientists about whether life has evolved and to convince the public, politicians and cultural leaders that schools “the Teach controversy ”. However, there is no such debate in the scientific community; according to the state of the art, evolution is a fact. Intelligent design is widely viewed as the Trojan horse for its proponents' campaign against what they call the materialist foundation of science, which they argue leaves no room for the possibility of a god.

The intelligent design controversy revolves around three issues:

  1. whether intelligent design can be classified as a science,
  2. whether the evidence supports such theories
  3. whether it is appropriate and lawful to teach such theories in public schooling.

On the part of the natural scientist, all three questions are clearly answered with no.

Supporters argue that religious neutrality requires that both the theory of evolution and intelligent design be taught within biology classes at school. In their eyes, the exclusive teaching of evolutionary theory unfairly discriminates against those who hold creationist beliefs. Teaching both , the supporters argue, leaves the possibility of such a belief open without the state encouraging it. Many intelligent design enthusiasts believe that " scientism " is itself a religion that promotes secularism and materialism and seeks to erase theism from public life. They see their work to promote intelligent design as a way to restore a central role to religion in education and other public areas. Some contend that this larger debate is often the undertone of arguments made for intelligent design, although others note that intelligent design serves as an effective empowerment for the religious beliefs of prominent intelligent design advocates to express their religious point of view to bring society in.

According to the critics, intelligent design has not delivered any scientific notion and is merely an attempt to teach a religion in public schools. This is prohibited under the Establishment Clause in the United States Constitution. Critics even claim that intelligent design has turned public support for scientific research for the worse itself. Furthermore, if the proponents of "equal time for all theories" were to be taken literally, there would be no logical upper limit to the number of potential "theories" that could be taught in the public school system, including undoubtedly more silly ones like the "theory" of the public school system Flying Spaghetti Monster (a parody of Intelligent Design). There are innumerable, mutually exclusive, supernatural explanations for complexity. Intelligent Design offers no mechanism by which to exclude any of them. In addition, intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable, which, according to critics, violates the scientific condition of falsifiability . Even the intelligent design advocate Michael Behe makes the admission "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment." In German: "Intelligent design cannot be proven experimentally."

The major Christian denominations reject creationism and intelligent design in favor of theistic evolution . In 2005, Cardinal Schönborn reaffirmed the official Catholic teaching on this issue in consultation with the Pope. He sees "purpose and design in the natural world" but has "no difficulty ... with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory" ("no difficulty with evolution in the Limits of Scientific Theory ”) . He attacked naturalistic and materialistic interpretations of the theory as unscientific transgressions of boundaries and affirmed the Catholic position that they are incompatible with the humanistic and Christian image of man. At the same time, he advocated that US schools should also be allowed to talk about this plan and used the term intelligent design for this. However, he distanced himself from the accusation of representing creationist positions. The Evangelical Church in Württemberg has drawn up a declaration of principle “On creationism and the theory of 'intelligent design'”.

Intelligent design critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence, the Daubert standard used by most American courts. It regulates what evidence is recognized as scientific in US federal and most state courts. The four Daubert criteria are:

  • The theoretical foundation of the methods must make verifiable predictions by which the theory could be falsified.
  • The methods should preferably have been published in a specialist journal with peer review .
  • There should be a known error rate that is used to evaluate results.
  • The methods should correspond to the state of research , i.e. H. be generally recognized in the scientific community.

In the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District on December 20, 2005 , Judge John E. Jones III consented to the indictment and ruled, “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 ”(“ We have raised the fundamental question of whether ID is a science. We concluded that it is not and also that ID cannot disconnect from the creationist and thus religious predecessors ”) . After the verdict, the judge received death threats and had to be protected by US marshals .

Intelligence as an observable trait

The phrase intelligent design assumes that observable intelligence is a definable property, but there is no scientifically recognized definition for such a concept. William Dembski, for example, wrote: "Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature" . Proponents of intelligent design assume that there are such characteristic properties of intelligence and that they can be observed without specifying criteria for measuring this intelligence. Instead, Dembski states: "in special sciences ranging from forensics to archeology to SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), appeal to a designing intelligence is indispensable" ("in some disciplines of science, from forensics to archeology to SETI , are schemes, which can be used to infer design through an intelligence, indispensable ”) . How these schemes should look like and what they say regarding the definition of intelligence are topics that are largely not addressed. Seth Shostak , a researcher at the SETI Institute , claims the opposite of Dembski. According to his presentation, the intelligent design proponents derive their conclusions on the basis of complexity - the argument being that some biological systems are too complex to be created by natural processes - while the SETI researchers mainly rely on signals of artificial origin would seek.

Critics say the design recognition methods proposed by intelligent design advocates are radically different from conventional methods, undermining the key elements that would make them legitimate science. Intelligent design proponents, they say, want to look for a designer without knowing anything about his or her abilities, idiosyncrasies, or intentions (unlike scientists when they look for the results of human intelligence), and so they don't take any Differentiation between natural and man-made design, which allows scientists to compare complex artifacts created by design with the background of the complexity found in nature.

Some skeptics have criticized the challenges for intelligent design that arise from the field of artificial intelligence . The criticism is a counter to claims by Intelligent Design about what makes a design intelligent, specifically "no preprogrammed device can be truly intelligent, that intelligence is irreducible to natural processes" ("no preprogrammed device can be really intelligent, intelligence is not on." natural processes reducible ”). In particular, while there is an implicit assumption that the alleged "intelligence" or creativity of a computer program is determined by the possibilities that the programmer gave it, artificial intelligence does not necessarily have to be linked to an inflexible set of rules. On the contrary, if a computer program has a source of chance at its disposal, the result is flexible, creative and adaptive intelligence. Evolutionary algorithms , a sub-area of machine learning , were used to mathematically show that randomness and selection can be used to "evolve" complex, highly adapted structures that were not specifically designed by a programmer or his / her direct design sprang from. Evolutionary algorithms metaphorically use Darwinian selection (survival of the most adapted / strongest) and random mutation to solve a wide variety of mathematical and scientific problems that are generally not solvable with conventional methods. In addition, excursions to areas such as quantum computers seem to indicate that real probabilistic calculation functions may be available in the future. Intelligence that is derived from randomness is in principle indistinguishable from “natural” intelligence in relation to biological organisms and represents a challenge for the intelligent design concept that intelligence itself necessarily requires a designer. The cognitive sciences study the nature of intelligence in this regard, but the intelligent design scene seems to be broadly content to rely on the assumption that intelligence is a fundamental and fundamental property of complex systems.

The point of view of critical rationalism in the debate is represented by Jan Michl. This point of view clearly distances itself from both the intelligent design supporters and from some prominent opponents. Because, according to Michl, even the most vehement critics (especially Richard Dawkins ) uncritically assume a “creationist” view of man-made objects and thus accept a central assumption of intelligent design. He believes that, in the light of research in the field, this assumption is clearly mistaken, and that when this assumption collapses, Intelligent Design will dissolve into a cloud of smoke. The emergence of species therefore actually has correspondences with intelligence in some respects, however, insofar as intelligence, creativity and creative activity work evolutionarily in humans. All analogy-based intelligent design arguments turn out not to be arguments against, but rather arguments for evolution.

Improbability and impossibility

The improbability of a given scenario cannot necessarily be interpreted as an indication that this scenario did not come about by chance:

“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. "

“Rarity alone shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. If a bridge hand of thirteen cards is dealt, the odds of that hand being dealt are less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to conclude that they couldn't have received a sheet by chance because they looked at it carefully and calculated that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion. "

- John Allen Paulos : Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences

This argument is a refutation of the claim of the intelligent design advocates, who argue that only a Creator could have arranged the universe to produce life (see e.g. arguments with specified complexity or arguments with fine-tuning ). In this context, the likelihood that life "evolved" rather than "was created" will seem very low at first glance. Yet the evidence that it is so could be said to be so clear, deep, and so thoroughly scrutinized that it would be illogical to conclude that other (and arguably less scientifically convincing) theses should take its place as the main theory .

Documentary film

The documentary Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial describes the background to the decision Kitzmiller vs. Dover .


In the meantime, ID has evoked a whole series of parodies that make arbitrary theses appear scientific to the outside world through the satirically exaggerated requirement of seriousness in communication. Counter-movements like unintelligent design and intelligent falling aim to attract attention and ironically expose inconsistencies in the logic of intelligent design. The flying spaghetti monster, in particular, contributed to its great popularity , the inventor of which, in an open letter to the Kansas School Board, in which he made a connection between global warming and the decline in pirates on earth, demanded that ID and the flying spaghetti monster should be added to teach.

See also


Literature from representatives



  • Michael Behe: Darwin's Black Box. The biochemical challenge to evolution . Touchstone Books, New York 1998, ISBN 0-684-83493-6 .
  • John Lennox : God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? Lion Hudson Plc, Oxford 2009, ISBN 0-7459-5371-9 .
  • Meyer, Stephen C .: The Methodological Equivalence of Design & Descent: Can There Be a Scientific “Theory of Creation”? , in: JP Moreland (Ed.): The Creation Hypothesis. InterVarsity Press 1994 (English).
  • William Dembski: The Design Inference. Eliminating chance through small probabilities . CUP, Cambridge 1998, ISBN 0-521-62387-1 .
  • William Dembski: The design revolution. Answering the toughest questions about intelligent design . InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill. 2004, ISBN 0-8308-3216-5 .
  • William Dembski: Intelligent design. The bridge between science and theology . Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill. 1999.
  • William Dembski: No free lunch. Why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence . Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Md. 2002, ISBN 0-7425-1297-5 .
  • Guillermo Gonzales, Jay W. Richards: The privileged planet. How our place in the cosmos is designed for discovery . Regnery Publications, Washington, DC. 2004, ISBN 0-89526-065-4 .

Literature from critics, the supporters of theistic evolution are

  • Collins, Francis (from the English by Arne Feddersen): God and the genes. A scientist decodes the language of God. Verlag Herder, Freiburg 2013, ISBN 978-3-451-06353-4 (The English edition was on the New York Times bestseller list for many weeks)
  • Miller, KR (2000): Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution . ISBN 0-06-093049-7
  • Miller, KR and Levine, J. (2002): Biology: The Living Science .
  • Miller, KR (2008) Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul ISBN 978-0-670-01883-3
  • Stinglhammer, Herrmann: Introduction to Creation Theology . WBG (Scientific Book Society), Darmstadt 2011, p. 100 f. (and passim).

Literature by atheist critics

  • Dawkins, Richard: The Blind Watchmaker - Why Evolutionary Findings Prove That The Universe Was Not Made By Design , DTV, ISBN 978-3-423-34478-4

Literature by critics

Web links

Commons : Intelligent Design  - collection of images, videos and audio files

Pages from representatives

Pages from critics, the supporters of theistic evolution are

  • The Biologos Foundation , a foundation of renowned scientists, which stands for the compatibility of science and Christian faith, but rejects intelligent design (English)

Pages from critics

Individual evidence

  1. Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design? . Discovery Institute . Retrieved May 13, 2007.
  2. Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell (PDF; 168 kB) Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center. 2004. Retrieved May 13, 2007.
  3. ^ Ronald L. Numbers: The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Harvard University Press, 2nd edition 2006. ISBN 978-0-674-02339-0 , at page 373.
  4. Jonathan Wells: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Simon and Schuster, New York 2007. ISBN 978-1-59698-614-5 . on page 7.
  5. Books by Center for Science and Culture Fellows , accessed August 27, 2018.
  6. ^ Definition of Intelligent Design Discovery Institute - Center for Science and Culture. accessed on August 27, 2018.
  7. Jonathan Wells: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Simon and Schuster, New York 2007. ISBN 978-1-59698-614-5 . The Science of Intelligent Design, page 138 ff.
  8. Stephen C. Meyer: The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories . Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Ignatius Press, 2005).
  9. ^ AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory , July 1, 2013.
  10. ^ Intelligent design is not science Letter to Australian Newspapers, Australian Academy of Science, October 21, 2005
  11. National Science Teachers Association: NSTA Position Statement: The Teaching of Evolution. accessed on August 27, 2018.
  12. ^ Attie, AD: Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action . In: American Society for Clinical Investigation (Ed.): Journal of Clinical Investigation . 116, 2006, pp. 1134-1138. doi : 10.1172 / JCI28449 .
  13. ^ H. Allen Orr: Devolution — Why intelligent design isn't . In: Annals of Science . May 2005. Retrieved January 4, 2011: “Biologists are alarmed by the arrival of Intelligent Design in Dover and elsewhere not because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they are alarmed because intelligent design is junk science. "
  14. Dan Agin: Junk Science . Macmillan, 2006, pp. 210 ff.
  15. ^ A b Robert T. Pennock (2003): Creationism and Intelligent Design. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 4: 143-163. doi: 10.1146 / annurev.genom.4.070802.110400
  16. ^ Ronald L. Numbers: The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Harvard University Press, 2nd edition 2006. ISBN 978-0-674-02339-0 , at page 373.
  17. James M. Kushiner: Berkeley's Radical. An interview with Phillip E. Johnson. . In: Touchstone Magazine . June 2002. Retrieved January 4, 2011.
  18. ^ Jodi Wilgoren: Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive . In: The New York Times , August 21, 2005. 
  19. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District , 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005), Conclusion of Ruling .
  20. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion." This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. ( Notes on the Cornell Law School Establishment Clause )
  21. On the Origin of Life, From the Presidential Address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science; held at Edinburgh in August, 1871, By Lord Kelvin (William Thomson)
  22. ^ The British Association. The Times (Saturday, September 20, 1873), p. 10 column A.
  23. ^ William Safire: On Language: Neo-Creo . The New York Times (August 21, 2005).
  24. Who Owns Intelligent Design? by Steven Heller. AIGA, the professional association for design, April 11, 2006.
  25. The Raelian Movement
  26. Ben Wagoner: William Paley (1743–1805) (University of California, Berkeley, August 21, 1996)
  27. ^ William Dembski: The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design . InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois USA, 2004. ISBN 0-8308-3216-5 . on p. 27.
  28. ^ The Design Inference, by Ed Hopkins ., accessed August 28, 2018.
  29. ^ 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 . William Dembski: The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design . InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois USA, 2004. ISBN 0-8308-3216-5
  30. ^ A b Elliott Sober (2007): What is wrong witth Intelligent Design? Quarterly Review of Biology 82 (1): 3-8.
  31. ^ A b Finn R. Pond & Jean L. Pond (2010): Scientific Authority in the Creation-Evolution Debates. Evolution: Education and Outreach 3 (4): 641-660. doi: 10.1007 / s12052-010-0242-0
  32. ^ Phillip E. Johnson: Starting a Conversation about Evolution. A review of The Battle of the Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate by Del Ratzsch. online August 31, 1996.
  33. Michael Ruse: The Evolution-Creation Struggle (Harvard. Univ. Press, 2005), ISBN 0-674-01687-4
  34. a b Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch: “Intelligent Design” Not Accepted by Most Scientists ( Memento of the original from February 4, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (National Center for Science Education September 10, 2002). @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot /
  35. ^ The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity
  36. Nick Bostrom: Anthropic Bias, Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy (Routledge, 2002), ISBN 0-415-93858-9
  37. cf. for example WE Lönnig: the eye refutes the chance evolution .
  38. Irreducible complexity of these examples is controversial, see Kitzmiller pp. 76–78 and Ken Miller Webcast ( Memento of June 13, 2006 in the Internet Archive ). Dembski himself denies these objections, in his eyes the definition has been falsified. As a refutation, he calls for experimental evidence of the formation of a scourge under laboratory conditions, see Afterword - Ten Years Later in Michael Behe: Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (2006), pp. 255-272.
  39. Nicholas J. Matzke: Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum ; Mark J. Pallen, Nicholas J. Matzke: From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella . Nature Reviews Microbiology , Volume 4, 2006, pp. 784-790 doi: 10.1038 / nrmicro1493 ; ( Animation on YouTube )
  40. See Dembski: Intelligent Design , page 47
  41. ^ A b Claudia Wallis: The Evolution Wars . Time Magazine (Aug 15, 2005), p. 32
  42. ^ John S. Wilkins and Wesley R. Elsberry: The Advantages of Theft over Toil: The Design Inference and Arguing from Ignorance. Biology and Philosophy 16 (2001), 711-724, doi: 10.1023 / A: 1012282323054 .
  43. Elsberry, Wesley, and Jeffrey Shallit, 2003. Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski's “complex specified information”.
  44. Fitelson, Brandon, Christopher Stephens and Elliott Sober, 1999. How not to detect design. Philosophy of Science 66: 472-488.
  45. Guillermo Gonzalez: The Privileged Planet
  46. review of The Privileged Planet ( Memento February 4, 2009 in the Internet Archive ). The Panda's Thumb
  47. See e.g. B. Gerald Feinberg and Robert Shapiro: A Puddlian Fable. In Huchingson (Ed.): Religion and the Natural Sciences (1993), pp. 220-221
  48. Nick Bostrum, Anthropic Bias, Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy , Routledge, 2002
  49. ^ Richard Swinburne: Is there a God? Oxford University Press, 1996, 68
  50. ^ Theodore M. Drange: The fine-tuning argument revisited (2000) . In: Philo Volume 3, Number 2, 2000, pp. 38-49.
  51. "The theory of Intelligent Design holds 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." (In German, for example: "The Intelligent Design Theory says, that certain properties of the universe and living beings can best be explained by an intelligent cause, not by unmanaged processes like natural selection. ” ) See point What is Intelligent Design? at Discovery Institute: Questions About Intelligent Design .
  52. ^ Dembski: The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendence and Immanence ( Memento of January 25, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
  53. Jerry Coyne: The Case Against Intelligent Design . The New Republic , August 22, 2005.
  54. ^ "What designed the designer?" Donald E. Simanek: Intelligent Design: The Glass is Empty ( Memento from July 14, 2012 in the Internet Archive )
  55. "One need not fully understand the origin or identity of the designer to determine that an object was designed. Thus, this question is essentially irrelevant to intelligent design theory, which merely seeks to detect if an object was designed ... Intelligent design theory cannot address the identity or origin of the designer – it is a philosophical / religious question that lies outside the domain of scientific inquiry. Christianity postulates the religious answer to this question that the designer is God who by definition is eternally existent and has no origin. There is no logical philosophical impossibility with this being the case (akin to Aristotle's 'unmoved mover' ) as a religious answer to the origin of the designer… ” (In German something like : “ You don't have to fully understand the origin or the identity of the designer to determine that an object was created by design, so this question is essentially irrelevant to intelligent design theory, which is merely trying to find out whether an object was created by design ... Intelligent design theory can be identity or identity Not addressing the origin of the designer - it is a philosophical / religious question that is beyond the reach of scientific research. Christianity posits that the religious answer to this question is that the designer is God, who by definition is eternal and none One cannot, logically and philosophically, exclude that this applies as a religious answer to the origin of the designer, similar to de m motionless mover by Aristotle . “ ) FAQ: Who designed the designer? (IDEA)
  56. ^ Richard Wein: Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates . talkreason (2002).
  58. a b "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so did we can get the issue of intelligent design, Which really Means The reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." About (In German: "Our The strategy is to modify the topic a little so that we get Intelligent Design, which actually means the reality of God, in the academic world and in schools. ” ) Johnson: Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin ( Memento from August 22, 2007 on the Internet Archive ) (2004). "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy. ” (In German something like: “ This is not really a debate about science, and it never has been. It's about religion and philosophy. ” ) Johnson: Witnesses For The Prosecution . World Magazine (1996) "So the question is: '' How to win? ' That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the 'wedge' strategy: 'Stick with the most important thing' — the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, 'Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?' and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do. ” (In German something like : “ So the question is' How to win? 'Then I began to develop what can now be developed in a mature form in the' Wedge 'strategy:' Stick to the most important things' - the mechanisms and structure of the information. Take the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate, because it is better not to stick to the black and white Would like to involve painting between the Bible and science. Formulate an argument in such a way that it can be heard in the secular academic field and in such a way that it reunites religious deviants. That is to say, responding to the question 'Do you need a Creator and does one need an act of creation, or can nature do it all by itself? 'to focus and not get distracted by other matters, which people always try. " ) Johnson: Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson ( Memento dated April 3, 2004 in the Internet Archive ). Touchstone magazine (2000).
  59. a b “I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science. [...] Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? [...] I start with John 1: 1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves. ” (In German something like : “ I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, dedicated to the learning and writing that this program promotes, that calls into question the materialistic basis of science. ... Well, in my eyes, the logic of our movement works like this. First of all, you understand that Darwin's theory is not true. It is disproved by all this evidence and the logic is terrible. If if you understand that, the next question is, well, how do you find the truth? ... I'll start with John 1: 1. In the beginning was the Word. In the beginning there was intelligence, purpose, wisdom. The Bible lies completely correct. And the materialistic scientists are fooling themselves. ” ) Johnson: How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won ( Memento of March 27, 2004 in the Internet Archive ). Reclaiming America for Christ Conference (1999).
  60. See Discovery Institute fellows and staff and Center for Science and Culture fellows and staff ( Memento of July 14, 2004 in the Internet Archive )
  61. Barbara Forrest : The Wedge at Work: Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics (2001)
  62. "... the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ... This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact. ” (In German, for example: “ First of all, the Bible must disappear from the discussion. ... That is not to say that biblical matters are unimportant; the main thing is that the time to address them is only after we have separated materialistic prejudices from scientific facts. ” ) Phillip Johnson: The Wedge . Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity (July / August 1999)
  63. ^ "Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. ... The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed. " (In German, for example: " Intelligent design is an intellectual movement and the wedge strategy does not work if we are just seen as just another wrapper for the evangelical Christian message ... The evangelists are doing their job very well and I hope our work opens some doors for them that were previously closed ” ) Phillip Johnson: Keeping the Darwinists Honest, an interview with Phillip Johnson. Citizen Magazine (April 1999)
  64. ^ William Dembski: The Design Inference (1998).
  65. ^ Dembski: Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology (1999), p. 210
  66. Dembski: Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris ( Memento of July 29, 2012 in the web archive ) (2005).
  67. ^ "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Dembski: Signs of Intelligence. Touchstone Magazine 12 : 4 (July / August 1999)
  68. Phillip E. Johnson. 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. "Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? When I preach from the Bible, as I often do at churches and on Sundays, I don't start with Genesis. I start with John 1: 1. 'In the beginning was the word ...' In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves. "
  69. ^ "What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own. "..." Intelligent design, as it is understood by the proponents that we are discussing today, does involve a supernatural creator, and that is my objection. And I am objecting to it as they have defined it, as Professor Johnson has defined intelligent design, and as Dr. Dembski has defined intelligent design. And both of those are basically religious. They involve the supernatural. ” (In German something like : “ I'm talking about the essence of intelligent design and its essence is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Well, that speaks pretty much for itself as far as their motives are concerned. I speak also about the definition of Intelligent Design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of the Gospel of John. That speaks for itself ... Intelligent Design, as it is understood by the followers we are discussing today, includes a supernatural Creator and that is mine Objection. And I object to it, the way you defined it, how Johnson defined intelligent design, and how Dr. Dembski defined intelligent design. And both of them are fundamentally religious. They encompass the supernatural. ”) Barbara Forrest, reviewer in the minutes of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District sixth day (October 5th)
  70. See section The Machinations of the Discovery Institute in Catherine Bouchon: Creator or Chance? (2006)
  71. Where the earth is flat - Kansas casts Darwin into doubt Report on n-tv
  72. Is Belief in God Unscientific? Jehovah's Witnesses: Watchtower Online Library
  73. Urs Willmann: drafts in God's name. In: Die Zeit No. 19 of April 30, 2003.
  74. Urs Willmann : Drafts in God's Name In: Die Zeit No. 19 of April 30, 2003.
  76. ^ "Intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 6: Conclusion, section H.
  77. Linda Shaw: Does Seattle group "teach controversy" or contribute to it? Seattle Times (March 31, 2005).
  78. See Statement on Teaching Evolution ( July 6, 2010 memento in the Internet Archive ) by the National Association of Biology Teachers
  79. Mark Coultan: [Intelligent design a Trojan horse, says creationist]. Sydney Morning Herald (November 27, 2005)
  80. Intelligent Design: Creationism's Trojan Horse, A Conversation With Barbara Forrest (Americans United for Separation of Church and State, February 2005)
  82. ^ Eugenie C. Scott , G. Branch: Evolution: what's wrong with 'teaching the controversy' . In: Trends in Ecology and Evolution . 18, No. 10, 2003, pp. 499-502.
  83. ^ Joel Belz: Witnesses For The Prosecution . World Magazine (1996).
  84. Jon Buell and Virginia Hearn (eds.): Darwinism: Science or Philosophy (PDF; 514 kB) (1992). (Proceedings)
  85. Karl Giberson: Intelligent design's long march to nowhere . Science & Theology News (December 5, 2005)
  86. ^ Ö1 Inforadio: Schönborn rejects the theory of evolution again ( Memento from August 28, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) February 8, 2007.
  87. Archive link ( Memento from February 3, 2006 in the Internet Archive )
  89. Archive link ( Memento from February 5, 2016 in the Internet Archive )
  90. LJWorld: Judge in Dover ID case touts legal independence September 27, 2006
  91. ^ Dembski: Intelligent Design? . Natural History magazine (April 2002).
  92. "In fact, the signals actually sought by today's SETI searches are not complex, as the ID advocates assume. ... If SETI were to announce that we're not alone because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of artificiality. ” (In German, for example: “ In fact, the signals that today's SETI researchers are looking for are not complex, as ID proponents assume. ... If SETI announced that we were not alone based on a signal, it would be based on its artificial origin. ” ) Shostak: SETI and Intelligent Design .
  93. Taner Edis: Darwin in Mind: Intelligent Design Meets Artificial Intelligence ( Memento August 15, 2009 in the Internet Archive ). Skeptical Inquirer Magazine (March / April 2001).