An attempt by the apologists for creationism to artificially inject their metaphysical theory with scientific credibility. Intelligent design makes the "deduction" that the development of complex life on this planet was an intelligent creator, largly on the basis of argument by personal incredulity, a flawed understanding of Darwinian natural selection and fundamental misunderstandings of basic principles of thermodynamics and biology. Advocates claim natural selection/evolution (which they frequently confuse) are impossible, and often have links to other biblical-literlists that believe the earth is only 30000 years old, and other such fantasies. There is reason that the evidence would lead any impartial person to come to such conclusions; it is therefore an example of wishful thinking and by the principle of Occam's razon is a metaphysical (faith) based belief, not a scientific one. The continued deliberate obtuseness on this issue has led to fundamentalists attempting to force science teachers to present it in the classroom, and the general devaluing of science in the population of the US and other countries as a whole.
Although there is not a scrap of evidence for intelligent design, it is impossible to disprove (because god can do anything!), and hence it is a metaphysical theory.
Because natural selection is demonstrably observably occuring right now, it is a scientific theory.
Because natural selection is demonstrably observably occuring right now, it is a scientific theory.
by l42emmings August 12, 2005
by Coenie November 14, 2004
An apparently unprovable hypothesis that living creatures were created by an all-powerful, intelligent entity that itself did not have a creator. Contrast with evolution. ID proponents typically fail to understand 4 things:
1) Scientists use the word "theory" differently than the layperson
2) Science operates just fine in the absence of absolute truths. Thus, if evolutionary theory doesn't explain everything, that's not a problem - it's a "work in progress"
3) People are no better off substituting a slightly imperfect scientific theory for a completely unsupported religious hypothesis
4) The fact that ID cannot be disproven is a weakness, not a strength (e.g. There are 482,331 raisins orbiting Saturn right now... I defy you to prove me wrong).
1) Scientists use the word "theory" differently than the layperson
2) Science operates just fine in the absence of absolute truths. Thus, if evolutionary theory doesn't explain everything, that's not a problem - it's a "work in progress"
3) People are no better off substituting a slightly imperfect scientific theory for a completely unsupported religious hypothesis
4) The fact that ID cannot be disproven is a weakness, not a strength (e.g. There are 482,331 raisins orbiting Saturn right now... I defy you to prove me wrong).
If Intelligent Design is such a great alternative explanation to evolutionary theory, why aren't proponents actually USING it to advance scientific understanding? In short, they should practice what they preach... literally.
by FigurinOutLife September 23, 2005
When a person of known stupidity posts deep and thoughtfull status's or quotes on their facebook status to give themselves the appearance of intelignece or depth.
Man did you see what Kristi put up on Facebook... She is dumb as a sack of hammers but likes to post deep things so she looks smarter. Just another case of artifacial intelligence....
by mojo1269 September 26, 2011
An otherwise smart person who acts like a complete retard for unknown reasons. The intelligent retard usually lurks in universities wasting other people's time by making stupid or irrelevant comments repeatedly in order to (a) hear the sound of their own voice, (b) sound smart, or (c) make a retarded contribution to a coversation. They also have been known to repeat other peoples concise comments in a round-about twenty minute long narrative. There is no escape from the intelligent retard once they get going. Ignoring or shunning only has moderate success. Usually, you have to let their verbal diarrhea run it's course.
Teacher: Today we will be discussing ethical standards of practice
Intelligent Retard: (interrupts) I've read that according to the CPA guidelines................... (twenty minutes later)... so that's what I feel is correct.
Random Student: What an intelligent retard!
Intelligent Retard: (interrupts) I've read that according to the CPA guidelines................... (twenty minutes later)... so that's what I feel is correct.
Random Student: What an intelligent retard!
by Ann8424 July 19, 2010
by THobern September 16, 2007
1. A n00bish, pseudo-science religious theory that advocates that some phenomenon are just too complicated to be explained by science alone, and therefore God, or an intelligent designer must exist.
2. Excrement.
2. Excrement.
by rah December 5, 2004