In a previous article I criticized the current relationship between the mainstream scientific community and Macro-evolution. In that article I also briefly mentioned that there is a viable alternative to that theory called Intelligent Design.
In this article I briefly analyze Intelligent Design skepticism by describing its proponents and their leading critiques of Intelligent Design.
In my next article I will defend the view they are critical of.
Ignorant people, often intentionally ignorant, frequently take pleasure in informing me that Intelligent Design, the leading alternative to Macro-evolution for the explanation of the development of diverse biological kinds, is illegitimate pseudoscience.
There is one possible alternative characterization of the people I call ignorant, however I prefer to claim that those people are ignorant rather than to make the only alternative claim for such statements, which would be that they are liars.
These people may be termed “Intelligent Design skeptics.” Bill Nye, famously known as “The Science Guy,” is one representative of ID skepticism, and also of mainstream science in general:
So there you have it. Strait from Bill. Believe whatever you want, but don’t teach it to your kids. Leave that to the experts. Don’t get me started on the YouTube channel from which such video came. “Big Think,” that YouTube channel, loves to claim the virtues of objective science and also loves to sneak in liberal ideology just far enough below the surface to avoid detection by an untrained viewer.
Back to the topic at hand.
Who else falls into this group called Intelligent Design skeptics? The skeptics include the expected party to the necessary ignorance of such a state of skepticism, the Average Joe, but it is terrifying for some to learn that both the so-called experts of many scientific fields, as well as even many entire organizations who are generally considered credible in their fields, are also Intelligent Design skeptics.
“The article” – One example of an article from a reputable organization which is also skeptical of Intelligence Design.
“The experts” – A sample of statements from the ACLU’s go-to anti-Intelligent Design sell-out scientists and academicians.
“The comments from YouTube” – A single sample taken from a large population conversations with Intelligent Design skeptics.
As mentioned in the introduction, I address the particular problems with these specific works of Intelligent Design skepticism near the end of my next article. Before I deal with those particular examples in that other article, however, I deal broadly with the 5 primary categories of critique of Intelligent Design in general.
There are five primary objections to Intelligent Design given by these ID skeptics:
1) Intelligent Design is not a testable theory and is therefore not scientific in nature.
2) Intelligent Design includes philosophical presuppositions or conclusions and is therefore not scientific in nature.
3) A particular and particularly common subset of reason 2: Intelligent Design is simply Creationism made to look like science.
4) Intelligent Design’s proponents have a moral bias which jeopardizes the scientific credibility of their work.
5) Intelligent Design is not legitimate because there are no, or at least no “good,” peer reviewed scientific articles which support the theory.