Introduction

UCS Statement on Science, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (html) (pdf)
Section 1: Science as a Way of Knowing

Section 2: Science and Society

Section 3: Evolution, Creationsim, and Intelligent Design

Section 4: Why Intelligent Design is not Science

Section 5: Science Education and Intelligent Design

Section 6: Fairness and Balance in the Classroom and Beyond

Section 4: Why Intelligent Design is not Science

The intelligent design movement is exceptionally good at creating false controversies and misconceptions. Yet their basic claims are easily debunked.

• There is scientific controversy over evolution: There is no debate about evolution among the vast majority of scientists, and no credible alternative scientific theory exists. Debates within the community are about specific mechanisms within evolution, not whether evolution occurred.

• Structures found in nature are too complex to have evolved step-by-step through natural selection [the concept of “irreducible complexity”(1)]:  Natural selection does not require that all structures have the same function or even need to be functional at each step in the development of an organism.

• Intelligent design is a scientific theory (2): A scientific theory is supported by extensive research and repeated experimentation and observation in the natural world. Unlike a true scientific theory, the existence of an “intelligent” agent can not be tested, nor is it falsifiable.

• Intelligent design is based on the scientific method (3): Intelligent design might base its ideas on observations in the natural world, but it does not test them in the natural world, or attempt to develop mechanisms (such as natural selection) to explain their observations (4).

• Most scientists are atheists (5) and believe only in the material world: Such accusations are neither fair nor true. The scientific method is limited to using evidence from the natural world to explain phenomena. It does not preclude the existence of God or other spiritual beliefs and only states that they are not part of science. Belief in a higher being is a personal, not a scientific, question.

Suggested Resources

Responding to Intelligent Design

• “Intelligent Design? A special report reprinted from Natural History Magazine” - A nicely laid out report that presents a position statement by an intelligent design proponent followed by a rebuttal from a pro-evolution proponent.  Includes many of the key players in the debate.
• “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense” - July 2002 article published in Scientific American by editor-in-chief John Rennie. (see rebuttal by Johnson and Harrab “15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense”)
• “The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity” by Kenneth R. Miller, professor, department of molecular biology, cell biology and biochemistry, Brown University, 2004. A pre-publication article with a good explanation of why the Intelligent Design argument of irreducible complexity is not supported by science. (See response to Miller by William A. Dembski.)