Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

FAQ 1 is Open For Comment


1] ID is “not science”

On the contrary, as Dr William Dembski, a leading Intelligent Design researcher, has aptly defined:

Intelligent Design is . . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.”

In turn, science at its best is an unfettered (but ethically and intellectually responsible) progressive search for the truth about our world; based on empirical evidence and reasoned analysis. If instead one assumes or asserts the prior constraint that scientific explanations must be “naturalistic” or even — as Lewontin openly said materialistic,” that mistakenly imposes materialistic conclusions before the facts can speak. This blatantly begs the question, but such a blunder is now all too common; even among those who try to speak authoritatively in the name of science, education or the law. Similarly, an obvious alternative to a “natural” cause is an “artificial” — i.e. intelligent – one. And, as experience abundantly confirms, intelligent acts typically result in empirically observable signs of intelligence.

Just look all around you.

Moreover, ID satisfies all the conditions usually required for a scientific theory:

  1. It is based on empirical data: the empirical observation of the process of human design, and specific properties common to human design and biological information (CSI).

  2. It is a quantitative and internally consistent model.

  3. It is falsifiable: any positive demonstration that CSI can easily be generated by non design mechanisms is a potential falsification of the ID theory.

  4. It makes empirically testable and fruitful predictions (see point 4)