Intelligent Design Theory

None of this should be taken to suggest that the eye functions poorly. It is a superb visual instrument that serves us exceedingly well... The key to the intelligent design theory. .. is not whether an organ or system works well but whether its basic structural plan is the obvious product of design. The structural plan of the eye is not.16... 

Fuller, S. (2006). Intelligent design theory A site for contemporary sociology of knowledge. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 31(3), 277-289. 

The theory of intelligent design cannot explain the presence of nonfunctional pseudogenes unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, in contrast, can easily... 

Loyalty to an institution is fine, but bare loyalty is not an argument. All in all, the effect of scientific chauvinism on theories of the development of life is an important sociological artifact to consider, but ultimately its intellectual importance for the topic of intelligent design is nil. 

The fourth and most powerful reason for science s reluctance to embrace a theory of intelligent design is also based on philosophical considerations. Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don t want there to be anything beyond nature. They don t want a supernatural being to affect nature, no matter how brief or constructive the interaction may have been. In other words, like young-earth creationists, they bring an a priori philosophical commitment to their science that restricts what kinds of explanations they will accept about the physical world. Sometimes this leads to rather odd behavior. 

Susskind, L. (2005). The Cosmic Landscape String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design. New York Little Brown. 

Neither Creation nor evolution can be conclusively proven by scientific methods. So whether you choose to believe in Creation or evolution, it takes faith. And for faith to be sustained and grow, it must eventually be rewarded with some evidence, however small. Here is where creationists, and Christians in particular, are at a distinct advantage. Evolutionists have their faith bolstered every time a new discovery is made that seems to support the theory of evolution, only to have their faith shaken when that new "evidence" is proven scientifically unsound. Creationists, on the other hand, have their faith rewarded every day. "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork" (Psalm 19 1). From the synchronization of the cosmos to the wonders of nature and the intricacies of the DNA molecule, everything points to the hand of an intelligent designer behind this universe of ours. 

Many questions about how this or that happened remain unanswerable by means of scientific investigation, but more and more evidence is being uncovered that indicates the universe and all that is in it was the work of an intelligent designer, not chance. Evolutionists are fond of stating, "Evolution is a fact." But a fact is incontrovertible, meaning it is certain, undeniable, and not open to question. The truth is that the theory of evolution is not as factual and convincing as its proponents pretend. 

The heroic revolution that rescued modern science from the shackles of authority spanned centuries, over the eras of renaissance, reformation, industrial revolution, enlightenment, and continues to this day. In the hands of too many pseudo-scientists the Hebrew Bible as scientific authority remains at loggerheads with modern concepts such as biological evolution, and still dictates the philosophy behind standard cosmology and the theory of intelligent design. 

J.H. de Boer, A.K. Smilde and D.A. Doombos, Introduction of a robustness coefficient in optimization Procedures Implementation in mixture design problems. Part I Theory, Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 7 (1990) 223-236. 

This was not because their theories of matter were more advanced than the ideas of Democritus or of Empedocles. Indeed, in a very essential particular, their views were less in line with scientific advance than their predecessors. For Plato and Aristotle were not so much concerned with accounting for phenomena by the operation of properties inherent eternally in matter as they were in interpreting the phenomena of nature as the expression of design, harmony and beauty, as the expression of a directing will and intelligence. 

---