Browse Search Feedback Other Links Home Home The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Index to Creationist Claims,  edited by Mark Isaak,    Copyright © 2005
Previous Claim: CI001.2   |   List of Claims   |   Next Claim: CI001.4

Claim CI001.3:

Intelligent design has been accepted as a mainstream scientific theory. It is argued before school boards; top scientists have published articles about it; its promotional videos have even been shown on public television.

Source:

Winn, Pete, 2003 (Aug. 15). A new day, some new science. Citizen Link http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/A0027372.cfm

Response:

  1. Intelligent design is not mainstream science. (In fact, it is not science at all.) It is not generating any research. Zero scientific research articles have been written about it. Most of the few articles that mention it at all are critical of it (Gilchrist 1997; Lane 2003).

  2. The ID movement has been designed as a propaganda machine for achieving the appearance of respectability (Forrest 2002; Forrest and Gross 2004). The movement relies on deception to become accepted as mainstream.
    The resources of the Discovery Institute and other proponents of intelligent design are devoted to speaking engagements, popular publishing, and political lobbying. There is a lot of hot air surrounding ID, but no substance.

  3. Intelligent design may, in some sense, be mainstream in the public. Most people believe in some kind of divine creation. However, this in itself cannot be considered acceptance of intelligent design because it includes theistic evolution, which most ID proponents find distasteful. Roughly half of Americans believe in creationism, which might qualify as "mainstream intelligent design," but that number has probably fallen since the ID concept was popularized 200 years ago. In one poll, 84 percent of the Ohio public did not know what "intelligent design" is (Bishop 2002).

    More to the point, intelligent design's popularity with the public is a logical fallacy. Astrology, for example, is at least as mainstream and just as wrong.

References:

  1. Bishop, George, 2002. Majority of Ohio science professors and public agree: "Intelligent design" mostly about religion. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/733_ohio_scientists39_intellige_10_15_2002.asp
  2. Branch, Glenn. 2002. Analysis of the Discovery Institute's "Bibliography of Supplementary Resources for Ohio Science Instruction." Reports of the National Center for Science Education 22(4): 12-18,23-24. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol22/4583_analysis_of_the_discovery_inst_12_30_1899.asp
  3. Evans, Skip, 2003. Unlocking the mystery of Illustra Media. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6786_unlocking_the_mystery_of_illus_7_1_2003.asp See also http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=19 for links to related articles.
  4. Forrest, Barbara, 2002. The Wedge at work: How intelligent design creationism is wedging its way into the cultural and academic mainstream. In Pennock, Robert T. (ed.), Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics, MIT Press.
  5. Forrest, Barbara and Paul R. Gross, 2004. Creationism's Trojan Horse, Oxford University Press.
  6. Gilchrist, George W., 1997. The elusive scientific basis of intelligent design theory. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17(3) (May/Jun): 14-15. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2083_the_elusive_scientific_basis_o_3_16_2001.asp
  7. Lane, Les, 2003. Intelligent design in the scientific literature. http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/idlit.html
  8. Mooney, Chris, 2003. John Zogby's creative polls. The American Prospect, 1 Feb. 2003. http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/1/mooney-c.html
  9. NMSR, 2003. Sandia National Laboratories says that the Intelligent Design Network (IDNet-NM/Zogby) "Lab Poll" is BOGUS! http://www.nmsr.org/id-poll.htm

Further Reading:

Forrest, Barbara, 2002. The Wedge at work: How intelligent design creationism is wedging its way into the cultural and academic mainstream. In Pennock, Robert T. (ed.), Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics, MIT Press.

Forrest, Barbara and Paul R. Gross, 2004. Creationism's Trojan Horse, Oxford University Press.
Previous Claim: CI001.2   |   List of Claims   |   Next Claim: CI001.4

created 2003-8-22, modified 2003-9-1