"Intelligent Design" (ID) creationism largely relies on long-discredited forms of argument to try and make a case against naturalistic evolution. However, it also includes some novel elements, such as William Dembski's claim to rigorously identify a reliable signature of intelligent design and thereby establish ID as an independent form of explanation not reducible to "chance and necessity." Such arguments also fail; indeed, intelligence itself appears to be a product of combinations of chance and necessity, where Darwinian processes are critically important in producing genuine novelty. Addressing the scientific mistakes of ID creationism requires attention to current science about intelligence, complexity, and information; it must be a collaborative effort between biologists, physicists, computer scientists and others.
"Why "Intelligent Design" is More Interesting than Old-Fashioned Creationism,"
Georgia Journal of Science, Vol. 63, No. 2, Article 9.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.gaacademy.org/gjs/vol63/iss2/9