An intelligent designer, also referred to as an intelligent agent, is the pseudoscientific hypothetical willed and self-aware entity that the intelligent design movement argues had some role in the origin and/or development of life. The term "intelligent cause" is also used, implying their teleological supposition of direction and purpose in features of the universe and of living things.
History The popularly termed intelligent design movement is a neo-creationist campaign that arose out of the Christian fundamentalist creation science movement.Ruling, Context Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School DistrictLife in the Big Tent: Traditional Creationism and the Intelligent Design Community Paul A. Nelson. Christian Research Journal, volume 24, number 4, 2002.Expert Witness Report Barbara Forrest. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. (PDF file) Proponents of intelligent design argue to the public that their concept does not posit the identity of the designer as part of this effort, but in statements to their constituency, which consists largely of Christian conservatives, they identify the designer as God.Stephen C. Meyer (Discovery Institute): "I think the designer is God..." Darwin, the marketing of Intelligent Design Nightline ABC News, with Ted Koppel, August 10, 2005."Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? When I preach from the Bible, as I often do at churches and on Sundays, I don't start with Genesis. I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won. Phillip Johnson. Truths that Transform.William Dembski. "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue 4 July/August, 1999"The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's "official position" does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter "Pandas") is a "master intellect," strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world. (P-11 at 85). Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (21:90 (Behe); 38:36-38 (Minnich)). Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants' expert witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe)). In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a direct reference to religion is Pandas’ rhetorical statement, "what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]" and answer: "On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy." (P-11 at 7; 9:13-14 (Haught)). A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Dover trial ruling: Context Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District The Discovery Institute has claimed that university criticism of intelligent design is tantamount to "endorsement of an anti-religious view".
Identity William Dembski states in his book Design Inference that the nature of the intelligent designer cannot be inferred from intelligent designWilliam A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, Cambridge University Press, 1998, , p. 9: "The effect of a design inference is to limit our explanatory options, not to identify a cause. To identify a cause we need to investigate the particulars of the situation in which design is inferred. Simply put, we need more details....The design inference does not by itself deliver an intelligent agent." and suggests that the designer, if one is even necessary for design inference, may or may not be "the God of Scripture."William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, Cambridge University Press, 1998, , p. 60. In December 2007 Dembski told Focus on the Family, "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."
Some leading intelligent design proponents have stated identifying or characterizing the designer is beyond the scope of intelligent design as a line of inquiry. Proponents had hoped that, by avoiding invoking creation by a specific supernatural entity, (such as that employed by creation science), intelligent design would be considered scientific and not violate the Establishment Clause of the US constitution. Proponents feared that were intelligent design identified as a restatement of previous forms of creationism, it would be precluded from being taught in public schools after the 1987 Supreme Court of the United States decision in Edwards vs Aguillard. This line of reasoning was not particularly persuasive to most in the scientific community, which overwhelmingly rejected intelligent design as both a line of scientific inquiry and as a basis for a sound education in science.
On December 20, 2005 federal district court ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that intelligent design was not science and was essentially religious in nature. The ruling not only rendered that public school district's endorsement of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in science classes unconstitutional on the grounds that its inclusion violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, but validated the objections of critics who discounted proponents' claim that the identity was not God.
Highlighting these mutually exclusive claims about the designer, Dembski, despite having said that the intelligent designer or designers could be any god or gods, or even space aliens, has also said that "intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces"Why President Bush Got It Right about Intelligent Design William A. Dembski DesignInference.com, August 4, 2005 (PDF file) and that "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."Signs of Intelligence A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design. William A. Dembski. Touchstone Journal, Volume 12, Issue 4, July/August 1999
At various times, leading proponents in the intelligent design movement have clearly expressed that they consider the Abrahamic God "Elohim" in his role as a creator God, to be the intelligent designer and denied that intelligent designer is God, depending on which audience they are addressing. One example is William Dembski, who on his blog in response to the question "Is the designer responsible for biological complexity God?" said "not necessarily" and "To ask who or what is the designer of a particular object is to ask for the immediate intelligent agent responsible for its design. The point is that God is able to work through derived or surrogate intelligences, which can be anything from angels to organizing principles embedded in nature."Who or what is the designer? William A. Dembski. Uncommon Descent, December 22, 2005. Yet to the intelligent design movement's conservative Christian constituents Dembski has said "intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces. This evidence is available to all apart from the special revelation of God in salvation history as recounted in Scripture. ... Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. This gives intelligent design incredible traction as a tool for apologetics, opening up the God-question to individuals who think that science has buried God"Commending President Bush William A. Dembski. DesignInference.com and "Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." William A. Dembski. DesignInference.com. Stephen C. Meyer, founder and leader of the intelligent design program of the Discovery Institute admitted on national television he believes that the designer is God.Stephen C. Meyer: "I think the designer is God..." Darwin, the marketing of Intelligent Design Nightline ABC News with Ted Koppel, August 10, 2005.
Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the ID movement has stated the goal of the intelligent design movement:
The Discovery Institute's leaked Wedge document sets out the movement's governing goals, including:
Claimed actions Opinion as to the amount of creation the intelligent designer has done varies within the ID movement. Michael Behe's concept of irreducible complexity has natural selection accounting for most of evolution but the intelligent designer contributing the design of some proteins. Others in the ID movement however contest concepts such as common descent, particularly of humans and other apes. Though most in the ID movement seem to be Old Earth Creationists, a few are Young Earth Creationists.
The amount of creation that the intelligent designer did has also been criticised by Young Earth Creationists as not being specific enough, and particularly contradicting their beliefs of Biblical inerrancy and a young earth.AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement - by Carl Wieland, 30 August 2002 'Design is Not Enough' - by Henry H. Morris, Back to Genesis pamphlet series, No.127a, July 1999, Institute for Creation Research. Some intelligent design proponents say the intelligent designer fine-tuned the universe's physical constants in such a way that life is the result of the universe's physical constants being related to one another in a fashion that permits life to exist. The fine-tuned universe argument is a central premise or presented as a given in many of the published works of prominent intelligent design proponents, such as William A. Dembski and Michael Behe.
Criticism