Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD

Abstract

This essay examines the philosophical conflict between the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) and the scientific principle of methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a foundational rule in science that restricts inquiry to natural causes and testable explanations. Proponents of Intelligent Design – notably Michael Behe and William Dembski – challenge this rule by positing that certain features of life are best explained by an intelligent (potentially supernatural) cause, thereby violating the naturalistic methodology of science. The paper reviews the core arguments of IDM, including Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity and Dembski’s idea of specified complexity, and analyzes the landmark case Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) which legally examined whether Intelligent Design qualifies as science. The case exposed how ID proponents seek to change science’s ground rules to admit non-natural explanations, highlighting tensions with established scientific methodology. The essay further discusses why the scientific community overwhelmingly rejects Intelligent Design as pseudoscience, citing philosophical and practical reasons such as lack of empirical support, the “God-of-the-gaps” nature of ID arguments, and the risk of halting scientific inquiry. In a closing epilogue, the broader implications of allowing supernatural explanations into scientific discourse are considered, underscoring how such a shift would undermine the empiricism and predictive power that characterize modern science.

Read further in Microsoft Word file: