Perancangan cerdas

bagian dari serial mengenai
Intelligent design "Perancangan cerdas"
Watchmaker analogy
Konsep
Kerumitan tak tersederhanakan Specified complexity Fine-tuned universe Intelligent designer Theistic science Neo-kreasionisme
Gerakan
Garis waktu Strategi Wedge Politik Kitzmiller v. Dover
Kampanye
Kampanye Discovery Institute "Teach the Controversy"
Organisasi
Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture Centre for Intelligent Design International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity Truth in Science
Reaksi
Yahudi Katolik Roma Organisasi ilmiah
Kreasionisme
Buku Kategori portal Kreasionisme
l b s

Bagian dari seri tentang
Kreasionisme
Sejarah Neo-kreasionisme
Tipe
Bumi Muda Bumi Tua Usia-hari Bercelah Progresif Perancangan cerdas
Kosmologi Alkitab
Kitab Kejadian Narasi Kreasi Interpretasi kerangka kerja sebagai Alegori Hipotesis omphalos
Ilmu penciptaan
Jenis yang diciptakan Geologi air bah Kosmologi penciptaan Perancangan cerdas
Kontroversi penciptaan–evolusi
Sejarah Pendidikan masyarakat "Pengajaran Kontroversi"
Pandangan agama
Non-penciptaan Tuhan dalam agama Buddha Jainisme dan non-kreasionisme Evolusi Evolusi teistik Penciptaan evolusioner Buddhisme Katolik Hindu Islam Yahudi
l b s

Perancangan cerdas (bahasa Inggris: intelligent design) adalah suatu pernyataan yang menyatakan bahwa "ciri-ciri tertentu pada alam semesta dan makhluk hidup merupakan hasil dari suatu sebab yang intelijen, bukan oleh proses tak termbimbing seperti seleksi alam."^[1][2] Perancangan cerdas merupakan bentuk modern dari argumen teleologis akan keberadaan Tuhan, namun menghindari pendeskripsian sifat-sifat maupun identitas sang perancang itu.^[3] Gagasan ini dikembangkan oleh sekelompok kreasionis Amerika yang memformulasikan ulang argumen mereka untuk menyiasati putusan pengadilan Amerika Serikat yang melarang pengajaran ilmu penciptaan sebagai sains.^[4][5][6] Para pendukung perancangan cerdas pada Discovery Institute^[7][8] mempercayai bahwa perancang tersebut adalah Tuhan dalam agama Kristen.^[9][10]

Para pendukung perancangan cerdas berargumen bahwa perancangan cerdas adalah teori ilmiah,^[11] dan berusaha untuk secara mendasar mendefinisikan ulang sains agar sains dapat menerima penjelasan supranatural.^[12] Konsensus tegas dari komunitas ilmiah mengenai perancangan cerdas adalah bahwa perancangan cerdas bukanlah sains.^{[13][14][15][16]} Akademi Sains Nasional Amerika Serikat telah menyatakan bahwa "ciptaanisme, perancangan cerdas, dan klaim-klaim intervensi supranatural lainnya mengenai asal usul kehidupan ataupun spesies bukanlah sains karena klaim-klaim tersebut tidak dapat diuji oleh metode ilmiah."^[17] Beberapa organisasi-organisasi pun menganggapnya sebagai ilmu semu.^[18] Yang lainnya dalam komunitas ilmiah setuju dengan pengalamatan tersebut dan beberapa bahkan menyebutnya sebagai ilmu sampah.^[19][20]

Konsep perancangan cerdas ini berawal sebagai respon terhadap putusan Mahkamah Agung Amerika Serikat tahun 1987 dalam kasus Edwards v. Aguillard yang melibatkan pemisahan gereja (agama) dari negara.^[4] Publikasi pertama mengenai perancangan cerdas yang signifikan adalah sebuah buku tahun 1989 yang berjudul Of Pandas and People. Buku ini ditujukan sebagai buku teks pelajaran dalam kelas-kelas biologi sekolah menengah atas.^[21] Beberapa buku tambahan mengenainya juga telah dipublikasikan pada tahun 1990-an. Pada pertengahan 1990-an, para pendukung perancangan cerdas mulai berkumpul di Discovery Institute dan secara publik mengadvokasi pemasukan perancangan cerdas dalam kurikulum sekolah.^[22] Dengan Discovery Institute dan badan Center for Science and Culture milik institut tersebut memainkan peran pusat dalam perencanaan dan pendanaan, "gerakan perancangan cerdas" semakin muncul ke permukaan publik pada akhir tahun 1990-an dan awal 2000-an. Hal ini mencapai puncaknya pada kasus pengadilan Dover yang menantang pengajaran perancangan cerdas dalam kelas-kelas sains sekolah.^[7]

Dalam kasus Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, sekelompok orang tua menggugat sebuah distrik sekolah yang mempersyaratkan para guru untuk menawarkan perancangan cerdas dalam kelas-kelas biologi sekolah sebagai "penjelasan alternatif mengenai asal usul kehidupan". Hakim Distrik Amerika Serikat John E. Jones III memutuskan bahwa perancangan cerdas bukanlah sains, dan ia "tidak dapat memisahkan dirinya sendiri dari para pendahulu kreasionisnya, sehingga ianya bersifat religius", dan bahwa penggalakan pengajaran perancangan cerdas yang dilakukan oleh distrik sekolah oleh karenanya melanggar "Klausa Pendirian" (Establishment Clause) Amendemen Pertama Konstitusi Amerika Serikat.^[23]

Selain di Amerika Serikat, gerakan ini juga memiliki pengaruh politik yang sangat kuat di banyak negara-negara Islam. Pandangan anti-evolusi sangat meluas dan mendapatkan dukungan resmi dari pemerintah dan para elit-elit teolog.^[24] Secara umum, kreasionis Muslim telah bekerja sama dengan Institute for Creation Research, dan mengadaptasikan gagasan dan bahan-bahan ajaran mereka ke dalam argumen teologis mereka sendiri. Gagasan yang mirip dengan perancangan cerdas juga dianggap sebagai pilihan intelektual alternatif di kalangan umat Muslim. Di Turki, misalnya, banyak buku-buku perancangan cerdas yang diterjemahkan. Di Indonesia pula, buku-buku karya Harun Yahya yang menentang evolusi juga cukup populer.

1. ^ "Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design?". Discovery Institute. Diakses tanggal 2007-05-13. 
2. ^ "Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell" (PDF). Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center. 2004. Diakses tanggal 2007-05-13.  Parameter |publisher-link= yang tidak diketahui akan diabaikan (bantuan)
   • "Intelligent Design". Intelligent Design network. 2007. Diakses tanggal 2007-05-13. 
3. ^ Numbers, Ronald L. (2006). The Creationists, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. hlm. 373, 379–380. ISBN 0674023390. 
4. ^ ^{a b} Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Context pg. 32 ff, citing Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 ..
5. ^ "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer." "This argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley" (the teleological argument) "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Ruling, p. 24.
6. ^ Forrest, Barbara (2007). "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy. Diarsipkan dari versi asli (PDF) tanggal 2011-05-19. Diakses tanggal 2007-08-06.  Parameter |month= yang tidak diketahui akan diabaikan (bantuan).
7. ^ ^{a b} "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 1". TalkOrigins Archive. 2005. Diakses tanggal 2007-07-19. 
   • "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country". In: Wilgoren, J (August 21, 2005). "Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive" (PDF). New York Times. Diakses tanggal 2007-07-19. 
   • "Who is behind the ID movement?". Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design". American Civil Liberties Union. September 16, 2005. Diakses tanggal 2007-07-20. 
   • Kahn, JP (July 27, 2005). "The Evolution of George Gilder. The Author And Tech-Sector Guru Has A New Cause To Create Controversy With: Intelligent Design". The Boston Globe. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2009-01-16. Diakses tanggal 2007-07-19. 
   • "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents" (PDF). Science & Religion Guide. Science & Theology News. 2005. Diakses tanggal 2007-07-20.  Parameter |month= yang tidak diketahui akan diabaikan (bantuan)
   • "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute". Attie, Alan D. (2006). "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action". Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation. doi:10.1172/JCI28449. Diakses tanggal 2007-07-20.  Parameter |coauthors= yang tidak diketahui mengabaikan (|author= yang disarankan) (bantuan)
8. ^ "Science and Policy: Intelligent Design and Peer Review". American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2012-06-06. Diakses tanggal 2007-07-19. 
9. ^ "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity". Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Ruling p. 26. A selection of writings and quotes of intelligent design supporters demonstrating this identification of the Christian God with the intelligent designer are found in the pdf Horse's Mouth Diarsipkan 2008-10-28 di Wayback Machine. (PDF) by Brian Poindexter, dated 2003.
10. ^ William A. Dembski, when asked in an interview whether his research concluded that God is the Intelligent Designer, stated "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God". Devon Williams (December 14, 2007). "CitizenLink: Friday Five: William A. Dembski". Focus on the Family. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2007-12-17. Diakses tanggal 2007-12-15. 
11. ^ "Top Questions about intelligent design". Discovery Institute. Diakses tanggal 2007-05-13. 
12. ^ Stephen C. Meyer and Paul A. Nelson (May 1, 1996). "CSC – Getting Rid of the Unfair Rules], A book review, Origins & Design". Diakses tanggal 2007-05-20. 
    • Phillip E. Johnson (August 31, 1996). "Starting a Conversation about Evolution". Phillip Johnson Files. Access Research Network. Diakses tanggal 2007-05-20. 
    • Stephen C. Meyer (December 1, 2002). "The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories". Ignatius Press. 
    • Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Whether ID Is Science
    • Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also include astrology.
    • See also "Evolution of Kansas science standards continues as Darwin's theories regain prominence". International Herald Tribune. February 13, 2007. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2007-05-25. Diakses tanggal 2007-05-20. 
13. ^ See: 1) List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. 3) The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 700 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID Diarsipkan 2002-11-13 di Wayback Machine.. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism. According to The New York Times "There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth". Dean, Cordelia (September 27, 2007). "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin". New York Times. Diakses tanggal 2007-09-28. 
14. ^ "Teachernet, Document bank". Creationism teaching guidance. UK Department for Children, Schools and Families. September 18, 2007. Diakses tanggal 2007-10-01. The intelligent design movement claims there are aspects of the natural world that are so intricate and fit for purpose that they cannot have evolved but must have been created by an 'intelligent designer'. Furthermore they assert that this claim is scientifically testable and should therefore be taught in science lessons. Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science. Sometimes examples are quoted that are said to require an 'intelligent designer'. However, many of these have subsequently been shown to have a scientific explanation, for example, the immune system and blood clotting mechanisms. Attempts to establish an idea of the 'specified complexity' needed for intelligent design are surrounded by complex mathematics. Despite this, the idea seems to be essentially a modern version of the old idea of the "God-of-the-gaps". Lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation of some phenomena (a 'gap' in scientific knowledge) is claimed to be evidence of an intelligent designer. 
15. ^ Nature Methods Editorial (2007). "An intelligently designed response". Nat. Methods. 4 (12): 983. doi:10.1038/nmeth1207-983.  Lebih dari satu parameter |pages= dan |page= yang digunakan (bantuan)
16. ^ Mark Greener (2007). "Taking on creationism. Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience?". EMBO Reports. 8 (12): 1107–1109. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401131. 
17. ^ "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences" (edisi ke-Second Edition). National Academy of Sciences. 1999. Pemeliharaan CS1: Teks tambahan (link)
18. ^ National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators "National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush" (Siaran pers). National Science Teachers Association. August 3, 2005. We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. ...It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom.  "Salinan arsip". Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2017-09-19. Diakses tanggal 2009-12-18. 
    • David Mu (Fall 2005). "Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design" (PDF). Harvard Science Review. 19 (1). Diarsipkan dari versi asli (PDF) tanggal 2007-07-24. Diakses tanggal 2009-12-18. for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience. 
    • "Professional Ethics Report" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2001. Diarsipkan dari versi asli (PDF) tanggal 2011-01-03. Diakses tanggal 2009-12-18. Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory. 
19. ^ Attie, A. D. (2006). "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action". Journal of Clinical Investigation. American Society for Clinical Investigation. 116: 1134–1138. doi:10.1172/JCI28449. 
    • H. Allen Orr (2005). "Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't". Annals of Science. New Yorker. Biologists aren't alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they're alarmed because intelligent design is junk science.  Parameter |month= yang tidak diketahui akan diabaikan (bantuan)
    • Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.
    • Mark Bergin (February 25, 2006). "Junk science". World Magazine. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2012-01-07. Diakses tanggal 2009-12-18. 
20. ^ Agin, Dan (2006). Junk Science. Macmillan. hlm. 210 ff. 
21. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., pp. 31 – 33.
22. ^ "Media Backgrounder: Intelligent Design Article Sparks Controversy". Discovery Institute. September 7, 2004. 
    • James M. Kushiner (2002). "Berkeley's Radical". Touchstone Magazine.  Parameter |month= yang tidak diketahui akan diabaikan (bantuan)
    • Jodi Wilgoren (August 21, 2005). "Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive" (PDF). The New York Times. 
    • Downey, Roger (February 1, 2006). "Discovery's Creation". Seattle Weekly. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2011-12-17. Diakses tanggal 2007-07-27. 
23. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Conclusion of Ruling.
24. ^ Edis, Taner (2008). "The History of Science Society : The Society". Islamic Creationism: A Short History. History of Science Society. hlm. Newsletter. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2011-07-16. Diakses tanggal 2008-02-23.  Parameter |month= yang tidak diketahui akan diabaikan (bantuan)