Spór o użyteczność teorii inteligentnego projektu dla nauki

Author: Dariusz Sagan
Institution: Uniwersytet Zielonogórski
Year of publication: 2013
Source: Show
Pages: 28-49
DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/kie.2013.03.02
PDF: kie/96/kie9602.pdf

Dispute over the Utility of the Intelligent Design Theory for Science

According to intelligent design theory, certain biological and cosmic phenomena were designed by an intelligent being, which could be just as well natural and supernatural. This design is to be scientifically detectable in basically similar fashion as in the case of the effects of the purposeful activity of man. However, critics pose an objection that unscientific character of this theory is discernible in that it is not useful for science because it does not inspire new scientific research and thus it is stopping the progress of science. It is claimed that this theory could easily explain any phenomenon, referring to the category of „intelligent design”, and in this case the word „explanation” has ironic overtone. It is indicated also that proponents of intelligent design theory do not publish the results of their research in renowned scientific journals. This objection could be answered in twofold way: methodological and sociological in character. According to the first answer, science does not depend solely on inspiring new research but also on offering a new view of the known facts, and the design conclusion could be made and justified independently of whether it enables to gain knowledge of its maker or method of its accomplishment. The second answer is that development of novel theories is in large degree hampered by the resistance of the defenders of an orthodox theory, and of established understanding of science, who basically do not display tolerance for revolutionary theories. The mechanisms such as the procedure of reviewing of articles or financing of research projects system, controlled by the defenders of status quo, are of great importance in that case. The chances to receive the grants which could facilitate and accelerate the development of a new, going against the status quo theory, as well as to publish articles inspired by this theory in recognized scientific journals are minuscule, and the change of such situation requires the change of the preference pattern in the world of science.


  • Aliff J.V., Teaching Evolution and the Challenge of Intelligent Design: A Symposium, „Georgia Journal of Science” 2005, nr 3, t. 63.
  • Behe M.J., Czarna skrzynka Darwina. Biochemiczne wyzwanie dla ewolucjonizmu, Warszawa 2008.
  • Behe M.J., Filozoficzne zarzuty stawiane hipotezie inteligentnego projektu: odpowiedź na krytykę [w:] Spór o nieredukowalną złożoność układów biochemicznych, D. Sagan (red.), Warszawa 2008.
  • Behe M.J., Reply to My Critics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, „Biology and Philosophy” 2001.
  • Biever C., Intelligent Design: The God Lab, „New Scientist” 2006, nr 2582, http://tiny.pl/ h2514 [dostęp: 1.05.2009].
  • Borrell B., Nature Rejects Krebs’s Paper, 1937, „The Scientist” 2010, nr 3, t. 24.
  • Brockman J. (red.), Nauka a kreacjonizm. O naukowych uroszczeniach teorii inteligentnego projektu, Warszawa 2007.
  • Bylica P., Ruch Inteligentnego Projektu, „Przegląd Filozoficzny – Nowa Seria” 2004, nr 2, t. 50.
  • Bylica P., Testowalność teorii inteligentnego projektu, „Filozofia Nauki” 2003, nr 2.
  • Carlisle C., Smith W.T., The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Intelligent Design, New York 2006.
  • Darwin’s Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement, W.A. Dembski (red.), Downers Grove 2006.
  • Dawkins R., Bóg urojony, Warszawa 2007.
  • Dawkins R., Ślepy zegarmistrz, czyli jak ewolucja dowodzi, że świat nie został zaplanowany, Warszawa 1994.
  • Dembski W.A. (red.), Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, Wilmington 2004.
  • Dembski W.A., McDowell S., Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language, Eugene 2008.
  • Dembski W.A., Tematy badań w ramach teorii inteligentnego projektu, „Na Początku…” 2005, nr 3 – 4.
  • Dembski W.A., The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities, Cambridge 1998.
  • Dembski W.A., The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design, Downers Grove 2004.
  • Dembski W.A., Winning by Design: How ID Advocates Can Effectively Respond to the Growing Backlash, „Touchstone” 2004, http://tiny.pl/h25jk [dostęp: 2.04.2010].
  • Forrest B., Gross P.R., Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, New York 2004.
  • Giberson K.W., Does Intelligent Design Really Explain a Complex and Puzzling World?, The BioLogos Foundation 2010, http://biologos.org/blog/does-intelligent-design-reallyexplain-a-complex-and-puzzling-world [dostęp: 19.03.2010].
  • Giberson K.W., Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution, New York 2008.
  • Gonzalez G., Richards J.W., The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery, Washington 2004.
  • Good I.J. (red.), The Scientist Speculates: An Anthology of Partly-Baked Ideas, New York 1962.
  • Hicks J., Probing Question: How and Why Was Stonehenge Built? Physorg.com 2010, http:// tiny.pl/h25jd [dostęp: 30.03.2010].
  • Jodkowski K. (red.), Teoria inteligentnego projektu – nowe rozumienie naukowości?, Warszawa 2007.
  • Kitcher P., Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism, Cambridge1982.
  • Kitcher P., Living with Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith, New York 2007.
  • Klinghoffer D., The Branding of a Heretic: Are Religious Scientists Unwelcome at the Smithsonian?, „The Wall Street Journal” 2005, http://tiny.pl/h25jn [dostęp: 8.04.2009].
  • Kuhn T.S., Struktura rewolucji naukowych, Warszawa 2001.
  • Lipsitch M., Fighting an Evolutionary War, „Forward” 1996, t. 9.
  • Meyer S.C., Intelligent Design: Redefine the Question, „Christianity Today” 2010, http://tiny. pl/h25js [dostęp: 3.06.2010].
  • Meyer S.C., Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, New York 2009.
  • Miller K.B., Countering Public Misconceptions About the Nature of Evolutionary Science, „Georgia Journal of Science” 2005, nr 3, t. 63.
  • Miller K.R., Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul, New York 2008.
  • Monton B., Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, Canada 2009.
  • Moreland J.P., Komentarz [w:] Stworzenie a ewolucja Trzy ujęcia z perspektywy chrześcijańskie, Katowice 2008.
  • Moreland J.P., Reynolds J.M. (red.), Stworzenie a ewolucja. Trzy ujęcia z perspektywy chrześcijańskiej, Katowice 2008.
  • Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated), Discovery Institute, http://tiny.pl/h25j4 [dostęp: 31.03.2010].
  • Pennock R.T., Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism, Cambridge 1999.
  • Pigliucci M., Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism and the Nature of Science, Sunderland 2002.
  • Ratzsch D., Design: What Scientific Difference Could It Make?, „Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith” 2004, nr 1, t. 56.
  • Ratzsch D., Natural Theology, Methodological Naturalism and „Turtles All the Way Down”, „Faith and Philosophy” 2004, nr 4, t. 21.
  • Ratzsch D., Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science, New York 2001.
  • Researchers Investigate Mysterious Stone Spheres in Costa Rica, Physorg.com 2010, http:// tiny.pl/h25j1 [dostęp: 30.03.2010].
  • Sagan D., Filtr eksplanacyjny: wykrywanie inteligentnego projektu na gruncie nauk przyrodniczych, „Roczniki Filozoficzne” 2009, nr 1, t. 57.
  • Sagan D., Spór o nieredukowalną złożoność układów biochemicznych, Warszawa 2008.
  • Shermer M., Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design, New York 2006.
  • Smolin L., Kłopoty z fizyką. Powstanie i rozkwit teorii strun, upadek nauki i co dalej, Warszawa 2008.
  • Smolin L., Wszechogarniający darwinizm [w:] Nauka a kreacjonizm O naukowych uroszczeniach teorii inteligentnego projektu, Warszawa 2007.
  • Standish T.G., Cutting Both Ways: The Challenge Posed by Intelligent Design to Traditional Christian Education [w:] Darwin’s Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement, Downers Grove 2006.
  • Tipler F.J., Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy? [w:] Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, Wilmington 2004.
  • Underhill W., Stonehenge odkrywane na nowo, „Świat Nauki” 2011, nr 4, t. 236.
  • Wells J., The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Washington, DC. 2006.

academic freedom revolutionary theory financing of research projects system peer-review procedure design detection scientific research program progress of science

Message to:



© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart