ID is a religious hypothesis that has been found to be scientifically unsound. That is to say, being posited by scientists as a possible theory for explaining the creation of the universe, the ID hypothesis failed. The conception of it as a scientific hypothesis in any sense is solely a misconception put forth by adherents of ID that either do not understand what a scientific theory is, or are deliberately misrepresenting their hypothesis of intelligent design as a scientific theory. As a religious hypothesis, as it is put forth by The Discovery Institute and its constituents, ID is primarily based on the Christian version of creationism. It is not a hypothesis that necessarily includes the gods of other religions, even those that are closely related to it such as Islam or Judaism. Rather, its reference to creation by a deity is to the Christian God. The possibility of ID being the consequent of a god or gods other than the Christian God is not considered by ID. This is important to understand because by limiting alternative theories, ID does two things: first, it creates a false dilemma, and secondly it binds itself inextricably to Christianity. ID creates a false dilemma by limiting the possible conclusion that a god created the universe to specifically one God: the Christian God.
It is also important to understand that given the statistics concerning religious belief in the USA, ID is not the product of religious fanatics. Rather, it is a mainstream religious view. Even though many Christians, those considered as extremely liberal, try to couple it together with biological evolution and physics the fact remains that a belief that the universe is created by a deity remains inherent in the Christian religion. The discussion as to how God played a part in the creation of the universe does not change the real argument that ID attacks: if God played a part in the creation of the universe. If one chooses to interpret the bible “loosely” as do many liberal Christians, or if one chooses to take the bible verbatim as do many conservative Christians does not change the primary basis of ID: that God created the universe. The argument that only “religious fanatics” posit intelligent design is simply false. ID as put forth by groups such as The Discovery Institute and CRSC is the product of Christian beliefs and doctrines. The proposition that God did play a part in the creation of the universe does not change.
One point that good science makes is that the hypothesis of ID needlessly complicates things. In fact, many scientists have pointed out that the universe being created by a god can be erased from scientific cosmological theories without a single result; the plausibility of the physical explanation for the existence of the universe is not given one iota more warrant with God than without. This reasoning is often referred to as “Occam’s Razor”, the idea of not needlessly complicating explanations. Religions other than Christianity also posit a form of intelligent design, but again, applying Occam’s razor, the necessity of god in explaining the existence of the universe becomes utterly useless regardless of which religion poses it. In fact, no religion not only offers no plausible explanation for the existence of the universe, no religion offers any credible reason that can be considered whatsoever beyond that of spiritualism, cultural myth or mysticism. While such evidence as spiritualism and mysticism may be deemed credible to some, they are not credible in any way to good science or to good scientists.
Earlier, I pointed out that adherents of ID either do not understand what a scientific theory is, or are deliberately misrepresenting the hypothesis of intelligent design as a scientific theory. It is simply hard to believe that highly educated persons such as Dr. Paul Chien Michael Behe are ignorant of the difference between hypotheses and theories, especially in terms of science. They are both scientists, and as such have the responsibility to know the difference. If they do not know the difference, then in actuality, they have no business calling themselves scientists. If they do know the difference and have since found that their hypothesis does not hold up to peer-review (which it has not), then as good scientists they have the responsibility to do more research and supply more evidence that will bolster their arguments and hold up to professional scrutiny. They have not supplied such evidence for further scrutiny, nor does it seem that they have done much research either. Instead, they have tried in various ways to push their hypothesis as fact including through the legal system.
The Discovery Institute and CRSC continues to maintain that ID is in fact a scientific theory, and they continue to claim that rather than their being mistaken, scientists and the scientific community continue to be biased against their ideas. Claiming that they have become aware of the “real” explanation of the universe, they seem to expect the scientific community to bend to their will out of submission to emotional pleas. This leaves the last possibility: that they are intentionally deceptive, and motivated not by science, but by their own desires and agendas. Being brushed off by science as being ridiculous, and unable to overturn court decisions and to redefine the scientific method, ID adherents turn to yet more fallacious reasoning. Because creationists have succeeded in entering the concept of ID into the public arena, but not into the scientific arena, so-called “debates” concerning the validity of evolution have entered into public discourse. However, real debates concerning ID are few and far between both in the public and scientific arena. This is not because ID is respected or revered. Rather, it is because intelligent design theories proposed by religious believers are usually accepted in one form or another by the first, and dismissed outright by the latter.
In a relatively recent “debate”, the Ethics and Education Committee of Washington University in St. Louis put together a forum concerning ID. Dr. Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University and a Mr. John Calvert “debated” whether or not ID should be taught in public school science classrooms. Mr. John Calvert is the managing director of something called the “Intelligent Design Network”. The argument given by Mr. Calvert was based on the same main premise as the previous arguments concerning creationism: the universe may have been designed and thereforewas actually designed. He claims that design is observable and predictable. Above and beyond that he also claims that evolution is being “kept safe from criticism”, that science is ideologically “indoctrinating” the children of America, and that the idea of ID is a scientific controversy. He claims that there is an over abundance of data that supports this but did not give but one example of such supporting data: a biological chart by a professor Shapiro who was not present, and which was proven inadequate by Dr. Krauss.
Dr. Krauss is a noted cosmologist and pointed out a few other things about ID that was not mentioned by Mr. Calvert. Dr. Krause pointed out that ID presupposes that the universe is too complex to be explained, and as such Id assumes with no warrant that it must have been intelligently designed. Another way of putting this explanation is that because we are ignorant of many things concerning the universe, it must be explained through ID. It was pointed out by Dr. Krauss that ID does not deserve to be taken seriously by the scientific community because it is trying to wedge itself in by circumventing first, the scientific method, and the method by which scientific theories are tested: peer review. He noted that scientific theories are published if they are held to be viable and productive hypotheses in explaining phenomenon. According to Dr. Krauss, there is a pretty standard path: research, peer review through respected journals etc…, scientific consensus through the scientific method, and finally acceptability through publication into science textbooks.
ID, he claimed, is trying to circumvent this process by going from the research step directly to the publication into science textbook step. In other words, ID desires to be accepted by the scientific community without any justification. The claim that ID has not been considered because evolution is protecting itself is ludicrous. ID has not been considered by the scientific community because it is not a valid science. Another problem with the ID proposition is that it begs the question of a creator. Also, it is not a science because its premise is beyond the scientific method: it cannot be observed, it cannot be tested, and it cannot predict anything. Furthermore, the explanation offered by ID is simply not necessary, it is vague, and is offered by those that have an apparent motive outside that of science.
The supposed controversy between ID and evolutionary biology is not important because there is a possibility that ID is a valid argument. The reason that the ID hypothesis must be considered is that it is being considered by politicians as being a serious component of scientific education. ID should in no way be a component of the scientific curriculum of American public schools because it offers no results, no way of validating its worth and no viable predictive powers. Intelligent design is simply an offshoot of creationism. ID adherents must act dishonestly because they cannot validate their theory honestly. The dishonesty stems from the fact that ID is nothing more than a religious invention with religious motivations rather than a science with scientific intentions. ID is not to be respected because it demands the respect, dignity of the scientific method without earning that respect and dignity. As Dr. Krauss pointed out, intelligent design is based on ignorance, and ignorance must not be validated.
Scientific knowledge is a product of using reason and rationality. It depends on the ability of scientists to admit to being mistaken when necessary, and to learn from those mistakes. Religion cannot learn from its mistakes because its claims are considered the infallible claims of God. Furthermore, religious peoples are not limited by rationality, methodology, or reason. They can claim the impossible, the improbably, the unlikely, the completely ridiculous and expect to be not only considered but respected. That they have no boundaries to their claims, and that their claims are to be respected in a religious sense (as long as they adhere to that particular religion) creates the illusion of being beyond evidence, warrant, and inference. With a wave of their spiritual and religious hoopla they can circumvent any need for the bothersome things that science holds so dear. But, there is a price for such meaningless freedom. Christopher Hitchens points out that scientists have an expression for hypotheses that are utterly useless even for learning from mistakes. He writes, “They refer to them as being ‘not even wrong’”. Most spiritual and religious discourse is of this type. ID does not offer anything of use because it has never operated under the auspice of a theory. Rather, it has always been the product of wishful thinking by imagination-handicapped people who feed on and further the fear of others as well as their own. It is “not even wrong” because it has never been capable of being “right”.