Intelligent Design (ID) and Its Critics

Paper Summary:

The central claim of the ID movement is that certain biological systems are inexplicable by solely naturalistic causes. William Dembski, a prominent ID proponent, argues that he has proven that intelligent causes are responsible for a certain type of information found in nature. Far from meeting with the kind of fame that one might expect to follow such a seminal 'proof,' Dembski has been strongly criticized by scientists, philosophers, and theologians. This paper examines the most prominent critiques from these areas. It concludes that Dembski's scientific claims have been thoroughly refuted, his theology is built on what will appear to many as a false dichotomy, and philosophers have revealed serious flaws in his 'design detecting' analytic machinery.

From the Paper:

"It is pertinent to note that no neo-Darwinian biologist would ever propose that this is how the flagellum came about. Evolutionists maintain that the flagellum evolved from earlier precursors that most probably fulfilled different functions. Dembski's imaginative prob-abilities are therefore not only ridiculous, but completely irrelevant to the question of complexity. Given that Dembski has not successfully demonstrated the complexity criterion, his argument fails and thus specification becomes irrelevant. Nevertheless, Howard Van Till has raised serious concerns even with this latter question. Recalling that Dembski's definition of 'specification' is that an event or object conforms to an independently given pattern, there is good reason to suspect that the flagellum is neither complex nor specified."

More papers on Intelligent Design (ID) and Its Critics:

• Argumentative Essay # 86769 : "Intelligent Design"
• Argumentative Essay # 101309 : "The Intelligent Design Theory"
• Comparison Essay # 115693 : "Intelligent Design versus Evolution"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: