A while back, Barry Arrington challenged critics of intelligent design to define intelligent design, claiming that
I have never seen a fair summary of ID theory come from one of our opponents.
Several ID critics(including me) weighed in with our definitions, but Arrington called all of them “superficial and contemptuous” (my answer was apparently so superficial and contemptuous that it got me banned from commenting at Uncommon Descent). I pointed out at the time that some of these answers were virtually identical to the definitions given by prominent ID proponents.
Stephen Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt, founding member of the Discovery Institute, and occasional contributor to Evolution News and Views, has cleared things up for us. Here’s his definition of intelligent design (around 1:58 in this recording):
The theory of intelligent design is the idea that there are certain features of life and the universe that are best explained by a purposive intelligence, rather than an undirected material process such as, in the realm of biology, natural selection acting on random mutations.
For purposes of comparison, here are some of the “superficial and contemptuous” definitions provided by intelligent design critics in response to Arrington’s challenge:
The theory of intelligent design holds 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. — DaveS
Intelligent design advocates argue that some features of the natural world are best explained by the action of some intelligence, rather than natural and/or undirected forces. In biology this goal is usually pursued by demonstrating that biological systems (including particular proteins, other gene products and interactions among these molecules) could not have have been generated by the biological processes known to generate and filter genetic diversity. — wd400
Intelligent design is the proposition that some features of the natural world, especially of living things, are best explained by the influence of an intelligent agent (in some accounts, the agent in question is supernatural). — me. This is part of the answer that got me banned from Uncommon Descent.
Let’s break that down a bit, shall we? Here’s a piece-by-piece comparison between Dr. Meyer’s definition and those quoted above (in parentheses):
The theory of intelligent design is the idea that (holds that/advocates argue that/is the proposition that)
there are certain features of life and the universe (certain features of the universe and of living things/some features of the natural world/some features of the natural world, especially of living things)
that are best explained by a purposive intelligence (best explained by an intelligent cause/best explained by the action of some intelligence/best explained by the influence of an intelligent agent)
rather than an undirected material process such as, in the realm of biology, natural selection acting on random mutations (not an undirected process such as natural selection/rather than natural and/or undirected forces/my answer didn’t include this).
These are all the same definition. The wording varies a bit, but they are all fairly described as paraphrases of one another.
What does it say about your theory when an honest description, substantially identical to that given by one of its founders, sounds to you like a “superficial and contemptuous” straw man?