Intelligent design

The intelligent design ( Intelligent Design in English) is the theory according to which “certain observations of the universe and the world of alive are better explained by an intelligent cause than by random processes such as the natural selection. ”

This theory was developed by the Discovery Institute , a think tank preserving Christian American. The majority of the commentators see there a resurgence of the Créationnisme, dissimulated under an appearance of scientificity, and the Americans classify it from now on in the theories " néo-créationnistes" , in particular following the publication of the " Wedge document" (see " objectives and stratégie"). From an ideological point of view, the two theses are related (intervention of a higher power).

By arguments as well internal with biology (promoters of the intelligent design appearing to the biologists as not taking account of many observations) that epistemological (in particular the criterion of refutability of Karl Popper) the intelligent design is regarded as concerning Pseudo-science.

Concept

The defenders of this concept, in the field of biology and biochemistry, affirm that the traditional Théorie scientific of the evolution by way of Natural selection is not enough to give an account of the origin, the complexity and the diversity of the life. In particular, the partisans of this concept estimate that there exist examples of irreducible Complexité which cannot be explained by the evolution, and thus plead for the theory of the Intelligent design.

Objectives and strategy

The objectives of the Intelligent design were clearly defined by the " think tank" at the origin of the movement, The Discovery Institute, in a document of internal use: " The Wedge". Escapes will allow finally its diffusion on the Web in 1999.

The objectives of Discovery Institute and the I.D. are of political and religious nature. There exists an unambiguous association between religious Intelligent Design and fundamentalism. Among the objectives, one finds some of nature quantified to term of media and legislative repercussions.

The principle is to make pass the religious doctrines for a science and to sow confusion in the scientific circles, before radiating in all the spheres of the company grace in particular to an advertizing campaign and of shaping of opinion (" publicity and opinion making").

The exposure to the general public of the fundamentalist aimings of the I.D. carried a major blow to its promoters who, fault of being able to deny the existence of the document, proposed of it a second reading edulcorated on their site (" The Wedge document: so what? " - " The Wedge document: and then? "), where Discovery Institute is defended inter alia wanting the establishment of a theocracy.

Extract of " The Wedge" (" page; objectifs")

Scientific character

The national Academy of sciences of the the United States ( United States National Academy off Sciences ) and the National center for the scientific education of the United States ( National Center for Science Education ) described the Intelligent design as being Pseudo-science. The critics affirm that the Intelligent design is an attempt to reexpress the Dogme S religious in form pseudo-scientist, in order to force educational establishments to teach the theory of the Créationnisme. The astronomer chief of the the Vatican, the reverend George Coyne, affirmed that the Intelligent design is not science, even if it of with the claim .

Whereas the scientific model of the evolution is corroborated by observable and reproducible facts, like the principle of the Mutations, of the genetic Flux, the genetic Dérive, the Natural selection and the Spéciation, criticisms shows that the theory of the Intelligent design rests on elements which cannot be reproduced nor observed, and thus does not answer the principle of refutability of Karl Popper: a theory can be described as scientist only if it allows predictions being able to be invalidated by the Expérimentation.

By introducing an external explanation, the Intelligent design does not respect either another scientific principle, that of the Rasoir of Occam, because it creates to explain a phenomenon an additional entity without that bringing additional light in the state.

The assumption of the Intelligent design in addition does not provide any explanation on the manifest anomalies of nature (Point plugs human eye, optical Chiasme, risk of Fausse swallowing, extra-uterine Grossesse, Pouce of the panda, etc).

This assumption more does not achieve the unanimity in the religious mediums, the liberals considering that the scientific step is not supposed being not put on the same plan as the Dogme, and in opposite direction certain dogmatic considering that a revealed Truth does not require an evidence of a scientific nature.

Lastly, the step adopted by holding of the Intelligent design is opposed to the scientific step in what they do not try to show that their arguments are valid but require of their detractors to prove that they are not it.

Recent scientific attempts

See also: Néo-créationnisme

These rather solid criticisms caused dissensions in the same rows of the Intelligent design, of which a fringe rather sets up this in theory theoretical concept within the scientific reasoning than in a science in itself. Thus one has seen stinging, for a few years, of the attempts more rigorous - that one evokes often under the name of “Créationnisme old woman ground” ( Old-Earth Creationism ), in opposition to the “young Créationnisme ground” ( Young-Earth Creationism ) - and more separated from the dogmatic reasoning (to which one prefers a teaching of the “theological implications” of the model of creation “at side” of this model), attempts which want to be allegedly refutable and testable - scientists, therefore -, and try to show a certain scientific integrity.

The current, carried by rationalist , but exclusively Christian scholars (since he claims to be able to support the veracity of the Bible), is in particular represented with the the United States and the Canada by the astrophysicist Hugh Ross, the biochemist Fazale Rana, but also by the theologist and exégète Walter Kaiser Jr and the philosopher, epistemologist and theologist Kenneth Samples. Their approach answers (though partially) the opinions of the legal authorities and academic qualified by them of “nonsectarian”, and thus worthy of faith. Preferring blow to distinguish their model which wants to be scientific, theological implications of this model, with for aiming promoting at the same time, and in a separated way, a scientific step and a religious teaching.

Besides this extract of a text by Hugh Ross indicates the innovative aspect and somewhat dissident that this movement wants to give to the concept of the Intelligent design (all the emphases are added):

In the highest levels of research and scholarship, the brittleness of the theories naturalists is more and more freely allowed. Even if holding them Intelligent design do not do anything to expose the inadequacies and the inconsistencies of the explanation theories naturalists on the cosmos and the Vie, the naturalism can autodétruire.

To gain the argument of the intention without identifying the author of the intention offers, at best, an unmethodical model of the origins. Such a model has only one light positive impact, if as well is as it has one of them, on the community of the scientists and other scholars. Such a model is not offered to the checking, nor cannot make specific and credible predictions. On each side, the scholars, and in particular the scientists, would be reticent to admit the viability of the concept and to give a serious attention to him. This approach does not offer to them, either, of direction spirituelle.

The experiment persuades me owing to the fact that the moment is ideal for a direct approach, a single jump in the battle of the origins. To introduce bibliquement a model of the creation founded and scientifically verifiable represents such a jump . It combines an at the same time scientific and spiritual dynamism. It builds confidence, stimulates the discussion, slackens an useless tension about a hidden religious diary, and directs the attention in a fast and profitable way towards the put to the test and the Prédiction S .

An honest discussion and a Critical of the various models of the origins, including various Christian models of the origins, can as a whole have an positive impact on the continuation of the scientific effort. the Dogma S cut off and the “correct Politiquement” have since too many years blocked progress towards a body of knowing.

There is a exemplifier appropriateness here the freedom which exists in Christ. the Vérité does not constitute a threat for the Christian . The truth in the scientific discipline, which can be directly or indirectly put to the test, will be always coherent with the truth in the spiritual field. And, in spite of the protests of all shares, the truth in nature must be connected to something, or Somebody, beyond the natural world - something or Somebody responsible for the existence and the characteristics of the Nature. |Dr. Hugh Ross| More Than Intelligent Design

Working since about fifteen years, this current does not meet the same opposition érudite nor same media focusing as young Créationnisme ground, since it is on the one hand rather scattered, enjoying only much more slightly a structure of lobby (of the scientists support this vision of the things without being committed in a structured movement), and on the other hand because it is opposed clearly, that it either on exegetic or scientific bases religious empirical, with designs (pseudo) scientific headlights of the fundamentalist Protestant mediums (supremacy of the Bible on science, not-value of the scientific methods of dating, inexistence of the Big Bang, old Ground of 6.000 years, spontaneous and simultaneous generation of the animals and of the human beings together the same day (12 midnight), Déluge historical and world, etc) by worrying more than one harmony with the procedures and the world scientists. It should be believed that these features, to differing degree, probably explain growing success that the movement gains in the scientists, the students and in the Christian communities, being essaimant as far as South America, in Eastern Europe, South Africa and Australia and New Zealand.

Opinion of American justice

Seizure, an American federal court ruled into 2005 that the Intelligent design is not a science but which it is primarily a religious concept. Following this judgment, judge John E. Jones III received several death threats of holding of the Intelligent design.

A powerful lobbying

In the years 1990 and 2000, following important a Lobbying and whereas the creationnism was since 1987 withdrawn officially of all the school handbooks after a long legal battle, many American states (Pennsylvania, Kansas, Georgia, the Mississippi, etc) reconsidered the question and tried to make so that the theories resulting from the Darwinism are presented to the schoolboys like simple concurrent theories, but of nothing higher, with the dogma creationnist, this step is in particular constant by George W. Bush. Some of these steps were reversed on the level of the Councils of State on education.

With Dover, in Pennsylvania, the office of local education decided in October 2004 to say to all the 14 year old pupils that the theory of the evolution is only one simple theory by proposing that a text their is read before the beginning of the course of biology tackling the subject. A book of popularization of the Intelligent design, Off Pandas and People ( Of the pandas and Men ), is even proposed with those wishing to look further into the question. However the federal court of Harrisburg in Pennsylvania concluded the December 20th 2005 (see the detailed article: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School ) that the teaching of the intelligent design as an alternative to the theory of the evolution of Darwin in the classes of science of the schools is anticonstitutional. To give this judgment, judge John Jones based himself on the fact that the intelligent design is only one disguised form of religious belief and to teach it enfreint the separation of Worships and the State and prohibition to promote an unspecified religion in public education in the United States. He was very critical on the behavior of the office of education of Dover by declaring that “the citizens of the area of Dover are badly been useful by the members of their office of education having voted in favor of the intelligent design”. He has also defendant certain parents of the school council of Dover to have lied and declares on this subject which “it is ironic that several of these individuals, who post openly and proudly their religious convictions in public, lied systematically to disguise their true goal. ”

In Europe, in May 2005, the minister Dutchwoman of education, Maria van der Hoeven, of the remarks on this subject by calling upon it held also the theory of the Intelligent design which initially seeks to establish “scientifically” the fact that the nature seems to be “thought” before venturing itself to imply by which it was it. However, it was not followed by the remainder of its government.

The Intelligent design and the creationnism are theories which are a certain success near the Protestant , but relatively little near the catholic for which the Old Testament should not be read with the first degree and where the Pape Jean-Paul II, in 1996, admitted that the theory of the evolution of Charles Darwin was “more than one assumption”. Its successor Benoît XVI seems on the other hand to promote the return of the religion in the middle of the scientific step.

In France

Because of the laic tradition of France, one does not find there researchers supporting the Intelligent design clearly, or does not propose a theory openly supported on an evolution guided by a divine power. On the other hand there exist various currents which the biologists regard as concerning same mobility, or concerning the same step. For the most engaged biologists, these thinkers are even not acknowledged neocreationnists. Guillaume Lecointre, paleanthropologist with the National Museum of Natural history, speaks about Créationnisme " doux" to qualify this movement. The same term was employed by the Dominican theologist Jacques Arnould during an emission on Canal Academy on the various forms of creationnisms in France and Europe

Jean Staune, enquiring autodidact and general secretary of the Interdisciplinary University of Paris, is one of principal the spokesperson of a religious anti-darwinienne mobility and in particular of the debate around the Intelligent design.

It is the same for the Inside Story , theory discussed bearing on the origin of the bipédie at the Homo sapiens developed by the paleontologist Frenchwoman Anne Dambricourt-Malassé. The latter rejects the recovery of its theory by certain creationnists, like William Demsky, and declares that as a paleontologist, cannot adhere to such a movement of thought .

In the same way, the diffusion of the Atlas of Creation was noticed enough by the press. Recognizing that the Earth has 4,6 billion years but affirming that the fossil forms of life are the same ones as the current ones, this book is placed between the intelligent design and the traditional creationnism.

The French senator Guy Lengagne (PS) saw his report/ratio the dangers of the creationnism in education withdrawn at the last time of the diary of the meeting of the Council of Europe in June 2007, under the pressure of the Belgian member of Parliament ultraconservator Luc van den Brande, president of the Council.

See too

References

Random links: