This seems like an easy question but given the current state of confusion over this concept it must not be that easy to understand. In an effort to explain it better, this article will show how intelligent design alters 20th century paradigms. A paradigm is a view of the world shared by many people. Paradigms are based on assumptions and observations. These assumptions are called axioms. In this article, only 3 axioms will be considered. The naturalistic axiom states that everything has a naturalistic explanation. The observable axiom states that man can accurately observe nature and propose laws and theories to describe it. The existence axiom states that God exists. These axioms serve as the basis for many of the currently held paradigms. To see how they are related consider the diagram below (figure 1). The dark blue circle represents all observable events - the circle must exist because of the observable axiom. All events that happen within this circle can be observed accurately by man. The light blue circle represents all events with naturalistic explanations. The naturalistic axiom forces this circle to exist. Any event that happens inside the naturalistic circle is not a miracle. Anything outside of this circle is a miracle. Notice that the naturalistic circle completely encloses the observable axiom. This means that all observable events must have a naturalistic explanation - No Exceptions. Furthermore, science assumes that every single event (past, present and future) resides entirely within the naturalistic circle.

Figure 1: A Popular Paradigm with no Intelligent Design

Ideally, the region of overlap between the naturalistic and observable circles is where science and evolution should both reside. Science should be fully encircled by the observable axiom. Unfortunately, this is not the case today. While we cannot observe the origin of life directly, we can model and propose hypotheses as to how it might happen. We can test such hypotheses with experiments and mathematical models. We can even accelerate the laboratory conditions to model many hundreds of billions of years in a few weeks. Nevertheless, all of these models have come up empty. Every model that has been proposed whether self replicating protein, RNA, or pre-RNA runs into the same problem. The probabilities of life originating though each of these paths (chapters 9 and 10) is so remote that the age and size of the universe can not offset the poor odds (chapter 15). Thus, science invokes the naturalistic axiom. Despite, our inability to find a hypothesis to explain the origin of life, science assumes that one day future scientists will solve the problem and in the meantime it puts forth solutions that are not possible ( for example perpetual motion - see chapter 10) and relies on the naturalistic axiom to justify this practice.

The net effect of this “one day we will solve it” assumption is to push science (and thus evolution) outside of the observable events circle. The origin of life is of course not observable as it happened many billions of years ago. But the hypothesis designed to test it are observable as are the models that are designed to calculate the likelihood of each origin of life scenario.

A few scientists, myself included, are very uncomfortable with science existing outside of the observable circle but then contained fully within the naturalistic circle. Scientific theories residing here are not testable and are not falsifiable. On the other hand, the naturalistic axiom is self evident to many scientists, and these scientists have no problem with figure 1. These scientists are confident that things that appear to require miracles today will not in the future; as a result, there is nothing disturbing about figure 1 because one day future scientists will pull science and thus evolution back inside the observable events circle.

Figure 1 can only be constructed by people who have faith in the naturalistic axiom. This faith overrides all logic and results in figure 1. All observable events have naturalistic causes and there is no need to test this concept. It is assumed by science to be true. Note: figure 1 does not rule out God. But it does make him kind of lazy in that we can never observe him doing anything in the past, present or future. Figure 1 accurately represents the world view of many evolutionists. Figure 1 implies that Atheism is valid. The religions of the world are shown outside of the naturalitic events circle because these religion are based on abstract ideas, concepts and beliefs. Thus, they should not be drawn inside circles that represent real events or processes. While some would argue that atheism is not a religion, I think it is because it is based on faith and proposes a model for the creation of life and the universe that is based entirely on faith ( not science as some would argue).

If the naturalistic axiom is not assumed true, then figure 1 becomes obsolete and must be modified. The result is figure 2. In figure 2, the observable axiom is not completely enclosed by the naturalistic axiom. So in this world view some events may have naturalistic explanations and others may not. In other words, the naturalistic axiom is no longer assumed true. Now it must be tested. This figure represents events as they appear to science today.

Figure 2: Paradigms with Intelligent Design

Notice that science and evolution exist in three disctint regions:
1) events and processes that can be observed and explained by naturalistic laws.
2) events and processes that can be observed and not be explained by naturalistic processes ( for example, the difficulties associated with the origin of life experiments and models).
3) events that are we cannot observe ( for example the origin of life on earth 4 billion years ago).

The origin of life and the evolution of the first genes and proteins appear to require a miracle (they are not contained within the naturalistic circle or observable circles). The experiments designed to test origin of life theories are observable and they are governed by naturalstic laws. But the results of these experiments provide tangible evidence that life did not originate through naturalistic laws. This creates a region where science and evolution exist outside of the naturalistic circle, but within the observable events circle. And finally, because the origin of life is not observable, it is now pushed outside of both the naturalistic and observable circles.

Drawing the relationships like this reveal an important concept. Many events in science such as universe fine tuning, the origin of life, and the evolution of the first genes require miracles.

It is possible to define intelligent design using figure 2. Notice, no circle is labeled intelligent design. Intelligent design is not an assumption, a belief, or an ensemble of events. Thus, it cannot have its own circle. Intelligent design is a process that interprets observations using logic. When one looks at figure 2 and observes that many miracles are required to explain why we are here, it is possible to draw an inference. This inference is as follows: if the naturalistic axiom does not explain all events, then a supernatural force is necessary to explain these events. This is indirect logic. In short, intelligent design is a process that identifies many almost impossible events and then shows that the age and size of the universe do not make these almost impossible events possible. Thus, a designer is required. Notice that the red circle in figure 2 labeled “events or processes controled or created by the designer” is dashed. The dashes indicate that this circle is derived from elementary logic ( it is not assumed to be true like all other circles in both figures 1 and 2).

So intelligent design is a the logical process that establishes the dashed red circle that implies that a designer is required. Once a designer is established, faith can take one to any world religion as shown. No religion is prefered over any other. Atheism is not implied today. But because intelligent design can be disproved atheism can reestablish itself if intelligent design is disproved by future scientists.

Anyone who criticizes intelligent design is criticizing logical thinking. Many make this mistake because they don’t believe that figure 2 is accurate. They are either unfamiliar with the mathematical models that support it, or they are so enamored with the naturalistic axiom that they reject figure 2 (on faith) in favor of figure 1.

The best thing about figure 2 is that it can be disproved. As soon as a scientist figures out how life originated, figure 2 evaporates and so does intelligent design. Figure 1 cannot be disproved, as its validity is assumed true (using the naturalistic axiom).

Intelligent design has been confused with many things.

Some think it is creation science or creationism. But it cannot be creation science or any form of creationism because it does not overlap or reside within the circle labled Christianity. Also notice that the circles that enclose religions in figure 2 are solid. They depend of the existence axiom, and all religions assume that this axiom is true. The circles enclosing the religions of the world must exist because the existence axiom establishes each one. Intelligent design does not originate or depend on the existence axiom, so its line is dashed rather than solid. Intelligent design suggests that the existence axiom is valid, but it does not assume that it is valid. Instead intelligent design observes nature, finds evidence of miricles and infers that a designer exists. Intelligent design cannot be a religion, because there is not faith involved. Intelligent design is a process or a methodogy that examines scientific evidence without assuming that everything has a naturalistic axiom. Given this definition, it cannot be equated to religion.

Others have labeled intelligent design an alternative to evolution. This is certainly not true. Evolution has its own circle in these diagrams because it can be represented by a series of events that have happened. Intelligent design is the logic that allows us to correctly interpret figure 2. There are no world events associated with this interpretation thus there is no circle for intelligent design.

Others have labeled it science. But this definition also fails. Science assumes that the naturalistic axiom is true. (Science did not always make this assumption - for example, many of the great scientists of the past like Newton tried to place God in his proposed models of the universe). But modern science does assume that the naturalistic axiom is true. And this assumption means that intelligent design is not science.

Many critics have claimed that intelligent design establishes Christianity/Creationism as a preferred religion. These claims are politically motivated and formulated to keep intelligent design out of public schools. The design inference does not establish any religion as superior to any other. In fact, even the religion of atheism has its place within the figure 2 world view because intelligent design can be disproved.

Intelligent design is a process that uses indirect logic to interpret scientific observation. Because this process does not accept the naturalistic axiom as self evident, the conclusions that it draws are often different than mainstream science. There is nothing more to it. It is not creationism, it is not an alternative to evolution, it is not a form of religion, and it is not science.

One final point. Figure 2 suggests that the existence axiom is correct, but it does not prove that it is correct. Religions are all based on faith and no logical pathway exists to move from intelligent design to Christianity or any other religion. Further, figure 1 suggests (but does not prove) that the existence axiom is incorrect. This is not too suprising in that figure 1 starts with the assumption that everything has a naturalistic explanation. Figure 1 does lend support to the religion of atheism as shown. So one of the often unstated goals of intelligent design movement is to migrate atheists away from figure 1 towards figure 2 by removing the excuse of evolution. Once figure 2 is accepted as a reasonable view of the world, it is much easier for people to move towards Christianity. Such a jump will always require faith - but less faith is required to jump to Christianity from figure 2 than from figure 1. In the end, I suspect that many atheists will never make this jump, but it is worth a try.

Finally, lets consider a popular Christain world view.

Figure 3: Old Earth Creation - A Christian Paradigm

In figure 3, Christians not only have faith that God exists but that the Bible reveals his true nature. This is the primary Christian axiom. It is assumed true so the dashed red circle is now solid - > because it cannot be disproved given the initial assumptions. Also given the initial set of assumptions, this circle must imply that Christianity is the preferred religion. The initail assumptions of Muslims and Jews would be similar but slightly different. Each religion will effectively assume that it is the preferred religion. Any religion that does not make this assumption will not have any followers. Perhaps the only exception to this rule is the church of the flying spaghetti monster - see posts about him below.

The most striking feature about figure 3 is that it almost identical to figure 2. So a person who begins with the existence axiom and then thinks about how science and evolution fit into his paradigm can reach a world view that is the same as one who starts with the observable axiom -> infers that design is required through logic, and then accepts Christ through faith. Most scientists prefer the second approach and most non-scientists prefer the first.

Figure 3 and 2 show how intelligent design differs from theistic evolution. Theistic evolution starts with the assumption that God exists and that the Bible reveals his true nature (red circle in figure 3). It then assumes that some events must be observable and that some observable events have naturalistic causes. That is God set things up to run themselves. This is of course the mark of a good design. For example, a watch that tells time without constant intervention from the watch designer is a better watch than one requires the designer to adjust the watch every second or two. So it stands to reason that God set up evolution as a method by which life can maintain and optimize itself with a minnimal anount of intervention. In essense, theistic evolution states that God used evolution as a tool to create all life. Theistic evolution is different from intelligent design in two ways. It starts with the axiom that the God of the Bible exists and because this is the most important axiom in this paradigm there is no way to disprove theistic evolution.

Theistic evolution has one great advantage over intelligent design - it requires no detailed knowledge of biochemistry, molecular biology, physics, information theory, chemistry or thermodynamics. It is a great paradigm for non-scientists who believe in God. The downside is that it is absolutley useless when it comes to trying to convince atheists that their paradigm is wrong. This is where intelligent design shines. Intelligent design shows that figure 1 is nothing more than a myth that many atheists cling to for dear life so that they may continue to reject God. While many web sites that promote theistic evolution are quite critical of intelligent design, I see the two approaches as complementary. Theistic evolution works best for those who believe that the existence axiom is self-evident. Intelligent design works best for those who believe that the observable axiom is self-evident.