Purim

17, quoted by Moses Isserles on Orah Hayyim, 696:8. Intelligent design critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence used by most courts, the Daubert Standard. 1508 at Venice) in his Responsa, No. In light of its apparent failure to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."^[58] And in October 2005 a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory."^[59]. The first among Jewish authors to mention this custom is Judah Minz (d. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,^[53] violates the principle of parsimony,^[54] is not falsifiable,^[55] is not empirically testable,^[56] and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.^[57]. From Italy, this custom spread over all countries where Jews lived, except perhaps the Orient. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

The custom of masquerading on Purim was first introduced among the Italian Jews about the close of the fifteenth century under the influence of the Roman carnival. For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. In remembrance of how God remained hidden throughout the Purim Miracle, Jews dress up on Purim and many hide their faces. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:. Although Jews believe that everything turned out in the end for the best as a direct result of divine intervention (that is, a series of miracles), the Book of Esther lacks any mention of God's name and seemingly appears to have been nothing more than a result of natural occurrences. Intelligent design proponents have often said that their position is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution, and want a redefinition of science to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design".^[52] This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. However, there is also an important concept of hester panim, or "hidden face," a reference to God's role in the Purim miracle. The scientific method is based on an approach known as methodological naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural.

Many commentaries state that Haman's daughter committed suicide after dumping the rotting contents of a trash bin on her father's head, thinking that he was Mordechai). with the theory of evolution [within] the borders of scientific theory". Mistaken identity plays an important role in The Book of Esther, as Esther publically hid her cultural origins from the public, Haman was forced to lead Mordechai on horseback through the capital city Shushan (Haman had thought that the King would order Mordechai to lead Haman around, and this led to confusion among Haman's followers. An example is Cardinal Schönborn who sees "purpose and design in the natural world" yet has "no difficulty.. Costumes and masks are worn to disguise the wearers' identities. Many religious people do not condone the teaching of what is considered unscientific or questionable material, and support theistic evolution which does not conflict with scientific theories. Children in particular enjoy dressing up as the characters found in the Scroll of Esther, including King Ahasuerus, Queen Vashti, Queen Esther, Mordechai, and the evil Haman. From a strictly empirical standpoint, one may list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, but must admit ignorance about exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids.

Dressing up in masks and costumes is one of the most entertaining customs of the Purim holiday. The inference that an intelligent designer (a god or an alien life force)^[49] created life on Earth has been compared to the a priori claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids.^[50][51] In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable, observable, or falsifiable, and it violates Occam's Razor. Some men dress in women's attire and vice versa. The traditional tunes of prayers sung in the synagogue are sometimes altered, always in deliberately humorous ways. Even though evolution theory does not explain abiogenesis, the generation of life from nonliving matter, intelligent design proponents cannot infer that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically, since they have not shown that anything supernatural has occurred. Many kinds of merry-making and mockery have been indulged in on Purim, so that among the masses it has become almost a general rule that "on Purim everything is allowed", even transgressions of certain Biblical laws. Indeed, intelligent design proponent Michael Behe concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."^[48]. The Rama effectively pushed a message of moderation, saying that one should only drink a little more that what one is used to drinking and he concludes with "Whether one drinks more or drinks less, the main thing is that his intention is for the sake of Heaven." The Rama encouraged merry-making, but total intoxication was condemned. Furthermore, intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable, which critics argue violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability.

In response, some commentators like Moses Isserles (The Rama) who worried about the abuse of this rule, developed less literal ways to understand this invitation. They allege that intelligent design has substituted public support for scientific research.^[47] Furthermore, if one were to take the proponents of "equal time for all theories" at their word, there would be no logical limit to the number of potential "theories" to be taught in the public school system, including admittedly silly ones like the Flying Spaghetti Monster "theory." There are innumerable mutually-incompatible supernatural explanations for complexity, and intelligent design does not provide a mechanism for discriminating among them. While Jews have long been noted for a lack of alcohol abuse, drunkenness was licensed on this holiday. According to critics, intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case, and is an attempt to teach religion in public schools, which the United States Constitution forbids under the Establishment Clause. 7b) that one should drink on Purim until he can no longer distinguish "Cursed be Haman" from "Blessed be Mordechai", a saying which was codified in the authoritative code of Jewish law, the Shulkhan Arukh. Some allege that this larger debate is often the subtext for arguments made over intelligent design, though others note that intelligent design serves as an effective proxy for the religious beliefs of prominent intelligent design proponents in their efforts to advance their religious point of view within society.^[44][45][46]. The jovial character of the feast was illustrated in the saying of the Talmud (Meg. Many intelligent design followers believe that "Scientism" is itself a religion that promotes secularism and materialism in an attempt to erase theism from public life, and view their work in the promotion of intelligent design as a way to return religion to a central role in education and other public spheres.

Thus Ashkenazi Jews eat Hamantaschen and Hamanohren (in Italy, orrechi d'Aman), Kreppchen, Kindchen, etc. Teaching both, intelligent design supporters argue, allows for the possibility of religious belief, without causing the state to actually promote such beliefs. Jews developed special pastries for this holiday; cakes were shaped into special forms and were given names having some symbolic bearing on the historical events of Purim. Supporters also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, saying that teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs. Hence it was the rule to have at least one festive meal, called Seudat Purim, toward the evening of the 14th. Proponents say that evidence exists in the forms of irreducible complexity and specified complexity that cannot be explained by natural processes. The national rather than the religious character of the festival made it appear appropriate to celebrate the occasion by feasting. Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena, and that supernatural explanations provide a very simple and intuitive ^[43] explanation for the origins of life and the universe.

In some congregations, it is customary to place a charity box in the vestibule of the synagogue. Johnson, calls "theistic realism",^[42] and what critics call "methodological supernaturalism," which means belief in a transcendent, non-natural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, non-natural deity. It was obligatory upon the poorest Jew, even on one who was himself dependent on charity, to give to other poor — at least to two people. Intelligent design proponents seek to change this definition^[40] by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from science^[41] and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. No distinction was to be made among the poor; anyone who was willing to accept charity, even a non-Jew, was to be allowed to participate. Natural science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation alone (sometimes called empirical science). In the synagogue, regular collections may be made on the festival, and the money is distributed among the needy. The intelligent design controversy centers on three issues:.

Jews send gifts of food (called "Mishloach manot"), especially pastries, to one another, and Jews give charity to the poor. A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is in convincing the general public that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved, seeking to convince the public, politicians, and cultural leaders that schools should "teach the controversy."^[38] However, there is no such controversy; the scientific consensus is that life evolved.^[39]. Over time, this became one of the most prominent features of the celebration of Purim. The two leading intelligent design proponents, Phillip Johnson and William Dembski, cite the Bible's Book of John as the foundation of intelligent design.^[35][36] Barbara Forrest contends that such statements reveal that leading proponents see intelligent design as essentially religious in nature, as opposed to a scientific concept that has implications with which their personal religious beliefs happen to coincide.^[37]. The Book of Esther prescribes "the sending of portions one to another, and gifts to the poor". But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ."^[33] Dembski also stated "ID is part of God's general revelation..." "Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ."^[34]. The Bobov purimspiel is still performed annually, at midnight, inside the Bobov main synagogue in Brooklyn. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ.

The Bobov Hassidic group has never ceased performing its Purimspiel. However, in his book intelligent design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology Dembski states that "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. Because satire was deemed inappropriate for the synagogue itself, they were usually performed outdoors in its court. For example, William Dembski in his book The Design Inference^[32] lists a god or an "alien life force" as two possible options for the identity of the designer. By the 18th century in eastern Romania and some other parts of Eastern Europe, Purim plays -- Purimspiels -- had evolved into broad-ranging satires with music and dance, precursors to Yiddish theater, for which the story of Esther was little more than a pretext: indeed, by the mid-19th century, some were even based on other stories, such as Joseph sold by his brothers, Daniel, or the Sacrifice of Isaac. The conflicting claims made by leading intelligent design advocates as to whether or not intelligent design is rooted in religious conviction are the result of their strategy. Other writings (dramas, plays, etc.) intended for general edification, both in Hebrew and in other languages, have been composed as well. The preponderance of leading intelligent design proponents are evangelical Protestants.

These include a large number of hymns intended for the public service. Meyer, are Christians and have stated that in their view the designer of life is God. Purim gave rise to many religious compositions, some of which were incorporated into the liturgy. only then can 'biblical issues' be discussed."^[30] Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having intelligent design identified "as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message."^[31] The principal intelligent design advocates, including Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells (actually a member of the Unification Church, headed by Reverend Moon), and Stephen C. 8-16, the story of the attack on the Jews by Amalek, the progenitor of Haman, is also to be read. Johnson emphasizes "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion" and that "after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact .. xvii. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments which are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the designer.

30b), Ex. Phillip E. According to the Mishnah (Meg. Intelligent design arguments are carefully formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer. According to Jewish law the Megillah may be read in any language intelligible to the audience. She has written that the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious world-view that undergirds it."^[29]. It has been also customary since the time of the Geonim (early medieval era) to unroll the whole Megillah before reading it, in order to give it the appearance of an epistle. Barbara Forrest, an expert who has written extensively on the movement, describes this as being due to the Discovery Institute obfuscating its agenda as a matter of policy.

26, 29) to the Book of Esther. In statements directed at the general public they state that intelligent design is not religious, while they state that intelligent design has its foundation in the Bible,^[28] when addressing conservative Christian supporters. ix. Leading intelligent design proponents have made conflicting statements regarding intelligent design. In some places, however, it is not chanted, but is read like a letter, because of the name "iggeret" (epistle) which is applied (Esth. Johnson, considered the father of the intelligent design movement, stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept.^[26] All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture.^[27] Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement are the products of Discovery Institute which guides the movement in follows its wedge strategy while conducting its adjunct Teach the Controversy campaign. The Megillah is read with a traditional chant differing from that used in the customary reading of the Torah. Phillip E.

3, which relate the origin of Mordechai and his triumph. Intelligent design proponents allege that science shouldn't be limited to naturalism, and shouldn't demand an adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that dismisses any explanation that contains a supernatural cause out of hand. 15-16, and x. Leaders of the intelligent design movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism. 5, viii. The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized neocreationist campaign directed by the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the United States. The congregation was to recite aloud with the reader the verses ii. Answering "what designed the designer?" leads to an infinite regression from which intelligent design proponents can only escape by resorting to religious creationism or logical contradiction.

7-10) in one breath, to indicate their simultaneous death. The new question raised by the explanation is as problematic as the question which the explanation purports to answer."^[25] Critics see the claim that the designer need not be explained not as a contribution to knowledge but as a thought-terminating cliché. ix. Invoking an unexplained being to explain the origin of other beings (ourselves) is little more than question-begging. For example, the reader is to pronounce the names of the ten sons of Haman (Esth. Asserting the need for a designer of complexity also raises the question, "what designed the designer?" Intelligent design proponents say that the question is irrelevant to or outside the scope of intelligent design,^[24] but Richard Wein counters that the unanswered questions a theory creates "must be balanced against the improvements in our understanding which the explanation provides. The Talmud added other provisions. for artistic reasons, to show off, for some as-yet undetectable practical purpose, or for some unguessable reason." Coyne responds that in light of the evidence, "either life resulted not from intelligent design, but from evolution; or the intelligent designer is a cosmic prankster who designed everything to make it look as though it had evolved.".

However, the Talmud, a later work, prescribed three benedictions before the reading and one benediction after the reading. Odd designs could, for example, "have been placed there by the designer.. In the Mishnah, the recitation of a benediction on the reading of the Megillah is not yet a universally recognized obligation. For example, Jerry Coyne, of the University of Chicago, asks why a designer would "give us a pathway for making vitamin C, but then destroy it by disabling one of its enzymes" and why he or she wouldn't "stock oceanic islands with reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and freshwater fish, despite the suitability of such islands for these species." Evolutionists point to the fact that "the flora and fauna on those islands resemble that of the nearest mainland, even when the environments are very different" as evidence that species were not placed there by a designer.^[23] Behe argued in Darwin's Black Box that we are simply incapable of understanding the designer's motives, so such questions cannot be answered definitively. Further, he obliged women to attend the reading of the Megillah, inasmuch as it was a woman, Queen Esther, through whom the miraculous deliverance of the Jews was accomplished. Critics argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely. Originally this enactment was for the 14th of Adar only; later, however, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi (3d cent.) prescribed that the Megillah should be read on the eve of Purim also. Intelligent design proponents, such as Dembski, have implied that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements, but since the authoritative description of intelligent design^[21] explicitly states that the universe displays features of having been designed, Dembski concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."^[22] Furthermore, the leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions, and thus there exists a well-established link to Genesis and Creationism.

2a) to the "Men of the Great Synod", of which Mordechai is reported to have been a member. They do not state that God is the designer, but the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a God could intervene. The first religious ceremony ordained for the celebration of Purim is the reading of the Book of Esther (the "Megillah") in the synagogue, a regulation ascribed in the Talmud (Meg. Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent they posit. The siddur (Jewish prayer book) has a special prayer to be said on this festival. They also suggest that many of the stated variables appear to be interconnected, and that calculations made by mathematicians and physicists suggest that the emergence of a universe similar to ours is quite probable. The Book of Esther enjoins the annual celebration of the feast among the Jews on the 14th and 15th of Adar, commanding that they should "make them days of feasting and joy, and of sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor". The claim of the improbability of a life-supporting universe has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination for assuming no other forms of life are possible; life as we know it may not exist if things were different, but a different sort of life might exist in its place.

5a; Maimonides, "Yad", Megillah). Critics of both intelligent design and the weak form of anthropic principle argue that they are essentially a tautology; in their view, these arguments amount to the claim that life is able to exist because the universe is able to support life. i. Other scientists respond that the argument cannot be tested, is not quantifiable, and is poorly supported by existing evidence.^[20]. Purim has been held in high esteem by Judaism at all times; some have held that when all the prophetical and hagiographical works are forgotten, the Book of Esther will still be remembered, and, accordingly, the Feast of Purim will continue to be observed (Jerusalem Talmud, Meg. Intelligent design proponent and Center for Science and Culture fellow Guillermo Gonzalez argues that if any of these values were even slightly different, the universe would be dramatically different, with many chemical elements and features of the universe like galaxies being impossible to form.^[19] Thus, they argue, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular outcome. Accordingly, business transactions and even manual labor are allowed on Purim, although in certain places restrictions have been imposed on work (Shulkhan Arukh, Orach Chayim, 696). These features include the values of physical constants, the strength of nuclear forces, and many others.

Like Hanukkah, Purim's status as a holiday is on a lesser level than those ordained holy by the Torah. One of the arguments of intelligent design proponents that includes more than just biology is that we live in a fine-tuned universe, with many features that make life possible that cannot be attributed to chance. . They argue that this procedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because the asymmetric way it treats the different possible explanations renders it prone to making false conclusions of design.^[18]. (In a small number of cities that were walled in ancient times, it is instead celebrated on the 15th.) As with all Jewish holidays, Purim begins at sundown on the previous day. John Wilkins and Wesley Elsberry characterize Dembski's "explanatory filter" as eliminative, because it eliminates explanations sequentially: first regularity, then chance, finally defaulting to design. Purim is celebrated annually on the 14th of the Hebrew month of Adar. The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument is strongly disputed by the scientific community.^[17] Specified complexity has yet to be shown to have wide applications in other fields as Dembski claims.

According to that book, the feast was instituted as a national one by the book's protagonists, Mordechai and Esther. Critics say that this renders the argument a tautology: Complex specified information (CSI) cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature. Purim (פּוּרִים "Lots", Standard Hebrew Purim, Tiberian Hebrew Pûrîm: plural of פּוּר pûr "Lot", from Akkadian pūru) is a Jewish holiday that commemorates the deliverance of the Persian Jews from the plot of the evil Haman to exterminate them, as recorded in the biblical Book of Esther. Dembski defines complex specified information as anything with a less than 1 in 10¹⁵⁰ chance of occurring by (natural) chance. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified."^[16] He states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified.

He provides the following examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and specified, simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes. The intelligent design concept of specified complexity was developed by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski. Furthermore, they argue that evolution often proceeds by altering preexisting parts or by removing them from a system, instead of by adding them; this is sometimes referred to as the "scaffolding objection" by an analogy with scaffolding which can support an (irreducibly complex) building until it is complete and able to stand on its own.

Intelligent design advocates assert that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selectable function is only present when all parts are assembled. The removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. A mousetrap consists of several interacting pieces — the base, the catch, the spring, the hammer — all of which must be in place for the mousetrap to work. Behe uses the mousetrap as an illustrative example of this concept.

(Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference). ...a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. In the context of intelligent design, irreducible complexity was put forth by Michael Behe, who defines it as:. Counter-arguments against such criticisms are often proffered by intelligent design proponents, as are counter-counter-arguments by critics, etc.

The following are summaries of key concepts of intelligent design, followed by summaries of criticisms. Johnson went on to work with Meyers, becoming the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture, and is considered the "father" of the intelligent design movement, as a part of its wedge strategy. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial which advocated redefining science to allow claims of supernatural creation. The book was published in 1989 and is considered to be the first intelligent design book.^[14] The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E.

In drafts of the book Of Pandas and People, the word 'creationism' was subsequently changed, almost without exception to intelligent design. Meyer, cofounder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture, reports that the term came up in 1988 at a conference he attended in Tacoma, Washington, called Sources of Information Content in DNA.^[13] He attributes the phrase to Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People. Stephen C. Aguillard, ruled out creationism in public school science curricula in 1987.

The term was again resurrected when the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Edwards v. The phrase was coined again in Humanism, a 1903 book by Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller: "It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design," and was resurrected in the early 1980s by Sir Fred Hoyle as part of his promotion of panspermia.^[12]. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design.^[11]. No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible—in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution.

Though unrelated to the current use of the term, the phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American, in an 1868 book, and in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science by Paleyite botanist George James Allman:. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case. The Kitzmiller v. Whether this was a genuine feature of the concept or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from science-teaching has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design.

While intelligent design itself does not name the designer, the personal view of many proponents is that the designer is the Christian god. Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation – it merely states that one (or more) must exist. In the past, examples that have been offered included the eye (optical system) and the feathered wing; current examples are mostly biochemical: protein functions, blood clotting, and bacteria flagellum (see irreducible complexity). As evolutionary theory has expanded to explain more phenomena, so the examples held up as evidence of design have changed, but the essential argument remains the same: complex systems imply a designer.

Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern reframing of natural theology. This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens that ultimately led to Darwin's theory of the origin of species. In the early 19th century such arguments led to the development of what was called Natural theology, the study of biology as a search to understand the "mind of God". The most notable forms of this argument were expressed by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae^[10] (thirteenth century), design being the fifth of Aquinas' five proofs for God's existence, and William Paley in his book Natural Theology (1802), where he uses the watchmaker analogy, which is still used in intelligent design arguments.

The use of this line of reasoning as applied to a supernatural designer has come to be known as the teleological argument for the existence of God. 43 BCE) stated, "The divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature."^[9]. 106–c. In his de Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) Cicero (c.

384–322 BCE) also developed the idea of a natural creator of the cosmos, often referred to as the "Prime Mover" in his work Metaphysics. Aristotle (c. 347 BCE) posited a natural "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. 427–c.

535–c.475 BCE), a Pre-Socratic philosopher, and is briefly explained in his extant fragments.^[8] Plato (c. The philosophical concept of the "Logos" is typically credited to Heraclitus (c. The first recorded arguments for a natural designer come from Greek philosophy. For millennia, philosophers have argued that the complexity of nature indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator.

Note that intelligent design studies the effects of intelligent causes and not intelligent causes per se." In his view, one cannot test for the identity of influences exterior to a closed system from within, so questions concerning the identity of a designer fall outside the realm of the concept. Dembski, in Signs of Intelligence, states "Proponents of intelligent design regard it as a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes. Intelligent design proponents say that while evidence pointing to the nature of an "intelligent cause or agent" may not be directly observable, its effects on nature can be detected. This stands in opposition to mainstream biological science, which relies on experiment and collection of uncontested data to explain the natural world exclusively through observed impersonal physical processes such as mutations and natural selection.

Design proponents argue that living systems show one or more of these, from which they infer that some aspects of life have been designed. The most commonly cited signs include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity. Proponents of intelligent design look for evidence of what they term "signs of intelligence" — physical properties of an object that they assert necessitate design. William Dembski, one of intelligent design's leading proponents, has stated that the fundamental claim of intelligent design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."^[7].

The stated^[6] purpose is to investigate whether or not existing empirical evidence implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents. Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to purely naturalistic forms of the theory of evolution. . Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.

An overwhelming majority^[3] of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience or junk science.^[4] The U.S. Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."^[1] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.^[2]. The gap is filled with acts of God and therefore proves God. There is a gap in scientific knowledge.

Whether the teaching of such theories is appropriate and legal in public education. Whether the evidence supports such theories. Whether the definition of science is broad enough to allow for theories of origins which incorporate the acts of an intelligent designer.