Intelligent Design and the Appeal of Teleology. Structure and diagnosis of a pseudoscientific doctrine.

We present here the neo-creationistic doctrine of “Intelligent Design” (ID) as a special case of contemporary pseudoscience. A cognitive study of ID arguments shows that they are carefully suited for our minds attracted by teleological beliefs, by the over-detecting of intentionality and finalism in the external world, by the intuitive refusal of chance and contingency in causal explanations, and by the privileged position of any unorthodox minority in a public debate. We will describe how the structure itself of ID doctrine (negative arguments about the alleged absence of evidences; “straw man” strategies against the scientists; the generalization of cases considered as critical; rhetoric tricks like “irreducible complexity”) is consciously shaped by this cognitive appeal for our minds “born to believe”, then implemented by a strong confidence with the specific rules of public debates and communication, and with the politically correct arguments of the “freedom of research” and the need of a plurality of “schools of thought”. So, the controversies around the demarcation problem in philosophy of science and the rise of an epistemological and methodological pluralism in philosophy of the special sciences could become insidious “Trojan horses” for the neo-creationistic pseudoscience. But it is also clear that we should not be urged to harden or simply disturb our technical debates because of extra-scientific religious attacks. Considering the appeal and the structure of this pseudoscientific doctrine, in order to answer its tricky arguments we should represent science - in a positive and not only defensive way - as a process of discovery, as a peculiar field of researches based on specific rules (included new, updated, pluralistic demarcation criteria), as a process of growth of knowledge through confrontations and revisions in “research programmes”.