Intelligent Design - part IV

Conclusion
The fundamental problem with ID is that it has no explanatory power whatsoever. Its proponents have made no attempt to specify the potential mechanisms of ID or to build a body of evidence to support the theory. Rather their strategy is to point to gaps in particular aspects of evolutionary theory, declare that this lack of knowledge means the entire modern synthesis must be thrown out, and then assume a false dichotomy which means that ID is the default theory to replace it.
The success that the movement has enjoyed can largely be attributed to widespread scientific illiteracy. To anyone familiar with biology or the natural sciences in general, the omissions and misrepresentations within ID material are apparent and easily refuted. In reality most people are not familiar with biology and the claims of ID seem at least as credible as evolution and maybe slightly more appealing ideologically.
A lot of people seem to feel that ID should be taught alongside evolution out of a sense of fairness and an obligation to tell 'both sides of the story'. Most laypeople are not aware that ID has been summarily rejected by the scientific community and that it has failed as a legitimate theory. After all, the ID movement has published many high-selling books, they have professional-looking websites – to deny them a place in mainstream science can appear elitist to those who have not been made aware of the vacuity of ID.
Intelligent Design does not prove Darwin wrong. If ID proves anything it is the importance of basic science education. A lot of scientists have tended to ignore ID as a baseless threat that is not worth taking seriously. Given the success the ID movement has had in winning over lay audiences, I feel this is a dangerous tactic. It is the responsibility of those of us within the scientific community to combat ID directly by ensuring that information about evolution is as accessible as possible and by vigilantly maintaining fundamental science education to its highest possible standard.


References
Baker, P. & Slevin, P. (2005) Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate Washington Post 3rd August

Behe, M. J. & Snoke, D. W. (2004) Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues Protein Science 13: 2651-2664

Behe, M. J. (2000) Correspondence with Science Journals: Response to Critics Concerning Peer-review - http://www.discovery.org/a/450

Behe, M. J. (1996) Darwin’s Black Box, The Free Press

The Centre for Science and Culture (1999) The Wedge – http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

Crowther, R. (2005) Discovery Institute's “Wedge Document”: How Darwinist Paranoia Fueled an Urban Legend – http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/discovery_institute_s_wedge_document_how.html

Dembski, W. A. (2003) Still spinning just fine: A response to Ken Miller - http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm

Dembski, W. A. (2002) No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, Rowman & Littlefield

Dembski, W. A. (2001) Is Intelligent Design a Form of Natural Theology? - http://www.designinference.com/documents/2001.03.ID_as_nat_theol.htm

Dennet, D. C. (2005) Show Me the Science, New York Times August 28th

Dzik, J (2003) Anatomical Information Content in the Ediacaran Fossils and Their Possible Zoological Affinities, Integrative and Comparative Biology, 43(1):114-126

Fedonkin, M. A., Simonetta, A. & Ivantsov, A. Y. (2007) New Data on Kimberella, the Vendian Mollusc-like Organism (White Sea Region, Russia): Paleoecological and Evolutionary Implications, Special Publication Geological Society of London

Forrest, B & Gross P. R. (2004) Creationism’s Trojan Horse – The Wedge of Intelligent Design Oxford University Press

Gingrich, P. D., Wells N. A., Russell D. E. & Shah S. M. I. (1983) Origin of whales in epicontinental remnant seas: New evidence from the early Eocene of Pakistan, Science 220 4595:403-406

Bajpai S. & Gingrich, P. D. (1998) A new Eocene archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from India and the time of origin of whales, Proceedings of The National Academy of Science of the United States of America 95 26: 15464-15468

Jayasena, V. K. & Behe, M. J. (1991) Oligopurine · oligopyrimidine tracts do not have the same conformation as analogous polypurine · polypyrimidines, Biopolymers – Peptide Science Section 31 5:511-518

Johnson, P. E. (1991) Darwin On Trial, Inter-Varsity Press

Johnson, P. E. (1996) Witnesses for the Prosecution, World 30th November

Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District et al, Court transcript 2005

Luskin, C. (2008) Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology - http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/intelligent-design-has-scientific-merit-in-paleontology

Lynch, M. (2005) Simple evolutionary pathways to complex proteins, Protein Science 14: 2217-2225

Macnab R. M. (1999) The Bacterial Flagellum: Reversible Rotary Propellor and Type III Export Apparatus, Journal of Bacteriology 181:23

McMenamin, M. A. S. (2003) Spriggina is a trilobitoid ecdysozoan, Geological Society of America Abstracts With Programs 35 6:105

Meyer, S. et al (2003) Darwinism, Design and Public Education, Michigan State University Press

McMurtrie, B. (2001) Darwinism under attack, Chronicle of Higher Education 21st December

Smith, D. (2005) Intelligent design not science: experts, Sydney Morning Herald 21st October

Thewissen, J. G. M., Madar, S. I. & Hussain, S. T. (1996) Ambulocetus natans, an Eocene cetacean (Mammalia) from Pakistan, CFS Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 191:1-86

Thomas, N. A., Bardy, S. L. & Jarrell K. F. (2001) The archaeal flagellum: a different kind of prokaryotic motility structure. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 25:2 147-174

Vincent, L. (2000) Science vs. Science - http://www.discovery.org/a/148

Wroe, D. (2005) 'Intelligent design' an option: Nelson, The Age 11th August

Young et al. (2005) Why Intelligent Design fails – A scientific critique of the New Creationism Rutgers University Press