Intelligent Design Theory (ID) is essentially a mutation of the Teleological Argument, in that it is an argument from design. What sets it apart from other theories of this kind is that it seeks specified complexity in nature.
Basically this means that it looks for recognizable patterns that look like they may have been designed, and labels them as designed.
Proponents of this theory argue that such amazing things as biological structures are unlikely to have occurred at random. They have complex systems built into them that seem, if observed in the right light, to have been designed. Essentially, it is an attempt to take Occam's Razor to the design question.
The following of this theory has been growing, largely in recent years. It has been used primarily by opponents of Darwinism in an attempt to debunk the Theory of Natural Selection.
<editorial>
The problems with the Intelligent Design Theory are many. The most obvious ones follow:
- The entire theory depends far too much on the anthromorphizing of a 'designer', in that it assumes a designer would think as humans do. In my opinion, this is its principal flaw. (See: Stupid Design Theory)
- It tries to pass itself off as scientific, but falls far short. Science is the observation of the empirical, and the study of the non-empirical, or a priori is completely in the sphere of philosophy. There are many adherents to the ID theory who say that it is wholly empirical. While it is true that finding specified complexity may be considered empirical, observing a designer of some kind is not. Therefore it is as philosophical as any other argument of its kind.
- It is presented as a non-theological argument, yet most of its proponents are theists who think that it proves God exists. The Teleological Argument is far more to the point and doesn't try to present itself as science.
- There is a large website (www.arn.org) with lots of information on this theory, and after looking at it for a while, it becomes clear that these people attempt to debunk Darwinism by hook or crook. They cite examples of incorrect drawings being used in schools to teach evolution, among many other things. If the ID theory held water, this sort of low-dealing would be unnecessary. The merit should lie in the argument, not in an attempt to dissect irrelevant things to make the argument look more appealing.
</editorial>