As a proponent of Intelligent Design I am always dismayed by the number of people who fail to accept Intelligent Design for what it is - a general theoretical framework that attributes specified complexity to intelligent agency. In fact, much of my time in evangelizing ID is spent trying to rollback assumptions and notions that people have about the theory. Given this, I felt that a page devoted to this issue was in order. The top four misconceptions about Intelligent Design and rebuttals for each follows.
1. It's Creationism in Sheep's Clothing
At the top of the list is the notion that Intelligent Design is Creationism couched in abstraction. The truth is that while there are similarities, there are huge differences between the two paradigms. First, the foundation of Intelligent Design Theory is largely mathematical in nature and is founded upon the principles of information theory. Intelligent Design considers the accepted scientific age of the Universe, the number of particles in the Universe, and the number of phase transitions in the Universe to derive a probability bound beyond which random chance can be precluded. Creationism on the other hand is influenced primarily by the Biblical Genesis Creation Model. Believers in Creationism typically are Christians, Jews, or Muslims - all of whom hold the book of Genesis as an inspired work of God. And while Intelligent Design draws many of the same folks, hypothetically there could be atheists that buy into ID. For example, the zoo hypothesis says that life on Earth was created intelligently by aliens that evolved in another region of the Universe more suitable than our solar system.
Lastly, it is important to note that Intelligent Design synthesizes with some variants of evolution (theistic, directed). If Intelligent Design was equivalent to Creationism, then this would not hold true.
2. An Expectation of Optimal Design
Often critics of Intelligent Design fall prey to the Optimal Design straw man which basically says that the establishment of less than optimal (or perfect) design invalidates Intelligent Design Theory. While Optimal Design implies Intelligent Design, the reverse is not true. There are many designs that are not perfect but fulfill the role and desires of the designer. Consider the perfect automobile, then consider the car that you drive back and forth to work. It is quite clear that although your car is not the optimal design for an automobile that your car is the result of intention and intelligence.
The key here is that even poor designs usually show the signature of intelligent causation. There is indeed a chasm between what we can expect chance to do versus what even basic intelligence can produce.
3. Intelligent Design is guilty of the God of the Gaps
In times past mankind would often invoke God for phenomena that they could not understand. They filled in their gaps of scientific knowledge with God as appropriate. Most would agree that more and more of these gaps have closed over time.
So what makes the framework of Intelligent Design any different from other attempts to ascribe authorship of objects and events to supernatural influence?
Intelligent Design Theory builds upon the foundation of advances in scientific knowledge, not the absence of it. Specifically, Intelligent Design Theory leans upon the science of information theory, astrophysics, chemistry, and biology. Given this knowledge base, theorists can attempt to pose scientific questions concerning whether or not objects that exist within this universe have been designed.
However note that with any theoretical framework that attempts to explain past events there will always be some lack of certainty with regards to conclusions that can be drawn from Intelligent Design Theory. But this fact is separable from the God of the Gaps charge and can also be said of many other scientific theories, including Darwinism.
In the end, the God of the Gaps charge against Intelligent Design Theory ignores the solid scientific knowledge base that it is built upon. Of course, critics that have an "a priori" commitment to naturalism will likely continue to level this charge because they cannot accept supernatural agency as a possible scientific explanation. In their mind, by default, any explanation for a phenomenon that involves God cannot be true. They are committed to believe that there must be some yet undiscovered naturalistic explanation for that given phenomenon. Ultimately, there is no satisfactory response to folks that hold this position.
4. The Strong Dichotomy with Evolutionary Theory
Often Intelligent Design is squared off against Evolutionary Theory, but Intelligent Design can be synthesized with some variants of Evolutionary Theory. In fact, theistic (or directed) evolution is arguably a form or expression of Intelligent Design. My theory is that many people wrongly associate Intelligent Design with Creationism, thus feel comfortable with drawing the dichotomy between ID and Evolutionary Theory.
Lastly, I'd even go as far to say that any aspiring theoretical framework that seeks to explain biology must synthesize with Evolutionary Theory - since aspects of Evolutionary Theory are clearly demonstrable. Natural selection and random mutations have indeed played some role in the biology of our planet. The extent to which this is true of course is what is up for debate.
