THE LANGUAGE AND THE APPEAL OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN

“Intelligent Design” is a term usually understood holistically within the context of science education/ public policy. That is to say, it is thought to be a very general label for a particular ideology and its community of advocates. However, closer examination shows that “ID” lacks a single definition. It is for this reason that science educators often find themselves at cross-purposes with ID proponents. I argue that “Intelligent Design” can be properly understood in three ways: 1.) as a philosophical argument concerning the nature of science; 2.) as an aspiring scientific research program based on a particular epistemology; and 3.) as a multilayered, largely un-unified social movement.

ID’s philosophical argument calls for an expansion of the criteria under which we distinguish science from non-science to include modes of inference not confined by “methodological materialism.” It depends on a Kuhnian view of scientific paradigms (or worldviews), under which science is defined by dominant consensuses in and between scientific communities. The ID research program claims the ability to identify evidence for intelligent causation (natural or supernatural) in nature using scientific methods of inquiry. Lastly, the ID social movement is a conglomeration of official and unofficial groups of individuals; including, but not limited to, those actively formulating and promoting design theories. The movement lacks central leadership, has no unified voice, and gives no formal account of what ID’s central philosophical tenets are.

I argue that science educators would benefit from being able to identify how these three constituent entities overlap and reinforce one another rhetorically. The outcome of this will be a better understanding of how Intelligent Design is able to maintain its cultural and intellectual appeal by addressing the very real philosophical concerns of many Americans while circumventing certain objections. Such concerns are often mischaracterized by media personalities and by educators on both sides of the issue who are neither familiar with the formal arguments used by Intelligent Design theorists, nor, for that matter, educated in philosophy.