Revision as of 22:18, 22 February 2007 view sourceK (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers22,767 edits →Intelligence as an observable quality: minor copyedit← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:42, 15 November 2024 view source Jmc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,416 edits →Irreducible complexity: rem par made superfluous by preceding editTag: Visual edit | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God}} | |||
{| class="messagebox protected" style="border: 1px solid #8888aa; padding: 0; font-size:9pt; width:auto;" | |||
{{About|a specific pseudoscientific form of creationism|generic arguments from "intelligent design"|Teleological argument|the movement|Intelligent design movement|other uses of the phrase}} | |||
| style="width:40px" | ] | |||
{{Distinguish|Theistic evolution}} | |||
|align="left"| Editing of this {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|page|article}} by unregistered or newly registered users is currently ].<br />Such users may {{#ifeq:{{TALKPAGENAME}}|{{FULLPAGENAME}}|| ],}} ], ], or <span class="plainlinks">. | |||
{{Featured article}} | |||
|}{{{category|]}}} | |||
{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}} | |||
{{otheruses}} | |||
{{ |
{{pp-move-indef}} | ||
{{Use mdy dates|date=May 2023}} | |||
'''Intelligent design''' is an ],<ref>"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." (Known as the ]) ], ], December, 2005</ref> based on the premise that "certain features of the ] and of living things are best explained by an ], not an undirected process such as ]."<ref name=DIposition>Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture. : What is the theory of intelligent design? "''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.''"<br>• Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA)<br>• Intelligent Design network.</ref> Its leading proponents, all<!--THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED EXTENSIVELY AND IS ACCURATE - PLEASE DISCUSS THIS ON THE TALK PAGE IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS--> of whom are affiliated with the ],<ref><cite>"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."</cite> ], 2005, testifying in the ] trial. <br>• "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." Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005.<br>• Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design", ].<br>• "Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. The institute, which promotes a conservative public-policy agenda, has occupied a lead role in the ID movement recently, most notably through its Center for Science and Culture, which boasts a number of leading ID proponents among its fellows and advisers." Joseph P. Kahn. The Boston Globe, July 27 2005.<br>• Science and Theology News. November 2005. (PDF file)</ref><ref name="aaas_pr"> American Association for the Advancement of Science.</ref><ref name="jci">"The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute." Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation.</ref> claim that intelligent design is a ] ] that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the ] and ].<ref>Stephen C. Meyer, 2005. Ignatius Press. . See also ]. </ref> | |||
{{Intelligent Design}} | |||
<!--NOTE: The wording of the first sentence of this article is the result of extensive discussion on the talk page, and is supported by reliable sources. If you disagree with it, please take your point to the talk page.--> | |||
The ] states unequivocally that intelligent design is not science;<ref name=unscientific>See: 1) ] 2) ]. 3) The Discovery Institute's ] petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 600 scientists" as of ], ]. A four day ] petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and . More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators . on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.</ref> many scientists and at least one major organization of science teachers have also termed it ],<ref>"for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." David Mu. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.<br>• National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "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." National Science Teachers Association Press Release ] ] <br>• Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.</ref> and some have termed it ].<ref><cite>"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."</cite> H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005. <br>• Also, ] Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. <br>• Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.</ref> The ] has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of ] intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by ], do not generate any predictions, and propose no new ] of their own.<ref> National Academy of Sciences, 1999 </ref> Intelligent design advocate ] has also testified, under oath, that there is no scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis that has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.<ref name=kitzruling_pg88> ]</ref> | |||
'''Intelligent design''' ('''ID''') is a ] argument for the ], presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based ] about life's origins".<ref name="Numbers 373">], p. 373; " captured headlines for its bold attempt to rewrite the basic rules of science and its claim to have found indisputable evidence of a God-like being. Proponents, however, insisted it was 'not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins – one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution.' Although the intellectual roots of the design argument go back centuries, its contemporary incarnation dates from the 1980s"{{cite book |last=Numbers |first=Ronald L. |authorlink=Ronald L. Numbers |year=2006 |origyear=Originally published 1992 as ''The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism''; New York: ] |title=] |edition=Expanded ed., 1st Harvard University Press pbk. |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |publisher=] |isbn=0-674-02339-0 |lccn=2006043675 |oclc=69734583 |ref=Numbers 2006}}</ref><ref name="Meyer 2005">{{cite news|last=Meyer|first=Stephen C.|url=http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=8f7f51f2-a196-4677-9399-46f4f17b5b61|title=Not by chance|date=December 1, 2005|newspaper=]|access-date=2014-02-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060501021540/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=8f7f51f2-a196-4677-9399-46f4f17b5b61|archive-date=May 1, 2006|publisher=]|location=Don Mills, Ontario|author-link=Stephen C. Meyer}}</ref><ref name="Boudry 2010">{{cite journal |last1=Boudry |first1=Maarten |author-link1=Maarten Boudry |last2=Blancke |first2=Stefaan |last3=Braeckman |first3=Johan |author-link3=Johan Braeckman |date=December 2010 |title=Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience |journal=] |volume=85 |issue=4 |pages=473–482 |doi=10.1086/656904 |pmid=21243965|url=https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/952482/file/6828579.pdf |hdl=1854/LU-952482 |s2cid=27218269 |hdl-access=free | issn=0033-5770 }} Article available from </ref><ref>]</ref><ref>] pp. 195–196, Section heading: But is it Pseudoscience?</ref> Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as ]."<ref name="DI-topquestions">{{cite web |url=https://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=CSC – Frequently Asked Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design? |website=] |publisher=] |location=Seattle |access-date=2018-07-15}} | |||
* {{cite web |url=http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/393410a2d36e9b96329c2faff7e2a4df/miscdocs/intelligentdesigntheoryinanutshell.pdf |title=Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell |year=2004 |publisher=] |location=Seattle |access-date=2012-06-16}} | |||
* {{cite web |url=http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ |title=Intelligent Design |website=] |location=Shawnee Mission, Kan. |publisher=Intelligent Design network, inc. |access-date=2012-06-16}}</ref> ID is a form of ] that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /><ref name="consensus" /><ref name="NatureMethods2007">{{cite journal |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=December 2007 |title=An intelligently designed response |journal=] |type=Editorial |volume=4 |issue=12 |page=983 |doi=10.1038/nmeth1207-983 |issn=1548-7091 |ref=Nature Methods 2007|doi-access=free }}</ref> The leading proponents of ID are associated with the ], a Christian, politically conservative ] based in the United States.<ref name="DI engine" group="n">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6pm.html |title=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 1 |website=] |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston |access-date=2012-06-16 |quote=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.}} — ], 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. | |||
* ], "...the institute's Center for Science and Culture has emerged in recent months as the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." | |||
* {{cite web |url=https://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/frequently-asked-questions-about-intelligent-design |title=Frequently Asked Questions About 'Intelligent Design' |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 16, 2005 |website=] |publisher=American Civil Liberties Union |location=New York |at=Who is behind the ID movement? |access-date=2012-06-16}} | |||
* {{cite news |last=Kahn |first=Joseph P. |date=July 27, 2005 |title=The evolution of George Gilder |url=http://archive.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/07/27/the_evolution_of_george_gilder/ |newspaper=] |access-date=2014-02-28}} | |||
* {{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=November 2005 |title=WHO's WHO: Intelligent Design Proponents |url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=602 |format=PDF |journal=] |location=Durham, N.C. |publisher=Science & Theology News, Inc. |issn=1530-6410 |access-date=2007-07-20}} | |||
* ], "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute."</ref> | |||
Although the phrase ''intelligent design'' had featured previously in ] discussions of the ],<ref name="Haught Witness Report" /> its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in '']'',<ref name="Matzke" /><ref name="kitz31"> | |||
In '']'' (2005), a ] ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the ] of the ]. ] ] ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.<ref>], ], Case No. 04cv2688. ] ] </ref> | |||
{{cite court | |||
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District | |||
|vol=04 | |||
|reporter=cv | |||
|opinion=2688 | |||
|date=December 20, 2005 | |||
}} ], pp. 31–33. | |||
</ref> a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to ''creation science'' and ''creationism'', after the 1987 ]'s '']'' decision barred the teaching of ] in ] on ].<ref name="kitz21"> | |||
==Overview== | |||
{{cite court | |||
{{Intelligent Design}} | |||
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District | |||
Intelligent design ("ID") is presented as an alternative to ] explanations for the development of life. It stands in opposition to conventional ] science, which relies on the ] to explain ] through observable processes such as ] and ]. However, intelligent design has no scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed scientific journals or similar to support it.<ref name=kitzruling_pg88> ]</ref> | |||
|vol=04 | |||
|reporter=cv | |||
|opinion=2688 | |||
|date=December 20, 2005 | |||
}} ] p. 32 ''ff'', citing {{cite court | |||
|litigants=Edwards v. Aguillard | |||
|vol=482 | |||
|reporter=U.S. | |||
|opinion=578 | |||
|year=1987 | |||
|url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/482/578.html | |||
}}</ref> From the mid-1990s, the ] (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/2190 | |||
|title=Media Backgrounder: Intelligent Design Article Sparks Controversy |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 7, 2004 |website=Center for Science and Culture |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2014-02-28}} | |||
* {{cite interview |last=Johnson |first=Phillip E. |interviewer=James M. Kushiner |title=Berkeley's Radical |url=http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=15-05-037-i |journal=] |publisher=Fellowship of St. James |location=Chicago |date=June 2002 |volume=15 |issue=5 |issn=0897-327X |access-date=2012-06-16 |ref=Johnson 2002}} Johnson interviewed in November 2000. | |||
* {{cite news |last=Wilgoren |first=Jodi |date=August 21, 2005 |title=Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html?pagewanted=all |newspaper=] |access-date=2014-02-28 |ref=Wilgoren 2005}} | |||
* ] | |||
</ref> advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper">{{cite web|url=http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf |title=Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals |last=Forrest |first=Barbara |author-link=Barbara Forrest |date=May 2007 |website=] |publisher=Center for Inquiry |location=Washington, D.C. |access-date=2007-08-06 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110519124655/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf |archive-date=May 19, 2011 }}</ref> This led to the 2005 '']'' trial, which found that intelligent design was not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore violated the ] of the ].<ref> | |||
{{cite court | |||
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District | |||
|vol=04 | |||
|reporter=cv | |||
|opinion=2688 | |||
|date=December 20, 2005 | |||
}} ] Page 69 and ] p. 136. | |||
</ref> | |||
ID presents two main arguments against evolutionary explanations: ] and ], asserting that certain biological and informational features of living things are too complex to be the result of natural selection. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible. | |||
The stated purpose of intelligent design is to investigate whether or not existing ] evidence implies that ] must have been designed by an ] agent or agents. ], one of intelligent design's leading proponents, has stated that the fundamental claim of intelligent design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."<ref>Dembski. The Design Revolution. pg. 27 2004 </ref> In a leaked Discovery Institute memo, commonly known as the ], however, the supporters of the movement were told, "We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design. Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."<ref name=wedge1>Though intelligent design proponents say publicly the purpose of ID is to search for design, they've stated a very different goal to their constituency: | |||
<cite>"We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."</cite> ], ]. 1998 (PDF file) ''That the stated purpose of intelligent design is merely a scientific pretense covering a religious agenda is widely believed:'' <cite>"members of the national ID movement insist that their attacks on evolution aren’t religiously motivated, but, rather, scientific in nature." ... "Yet the express strategic objectives of the Discovery Institute; the writings, careers, and affiliations of ID’s leading proponents; and the movement’s funding sources all betray a clear moral and religious agenda."</cite> Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, ] ] ''and'' <cite>"ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief."</cite> ] ], April 2005. (PDF file) </ref> | |||
ID seeks to challenge the ] inherent in modern science,<ref name="Meyer 2005" /><ref name="discovery">{{cite magazine|last1=Meyer|first1=Stephen C.|last2=Nelson|first2=Paul A.|author-link2=Paul Nelson (creationist)|date=May 1, 1996|title=Getting Rid of the Unfair Rules|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/1685|magazine=Origins & Design|type=Book review|location=Colorado Springs, Colo.|publisher=]|access-date=2007-05-20}} | |||
Proponents of intelligent design look for ] of what they term "signs of intelligence": ] of an object that point to a designer (''see'': ]). For example, if an archeologist finds a statue made of stone in a field, he may, ID proponents argue, justifiably conclude that the statue was designed and then reasonably seek to identify the statue's designer. He would not, however, be justified in making the same claim if he found an irregularly shaped boulder of the same size. Design proponents argue that living systems show great complexity, from which they infer that some aspects of life have been designed. | |||
* {{cite magazine|last=Johnson|first=Phillip E.|author-link=Phillip E. Johnson|date=May–June 1996|title=Third-Party Science|url=http://www.ctlibrary.com/bc/1996/mayjun/6b3030.html|magazine=]|type=Book review|volume=2|issue=3|access-date=2012-06-16|ref=Johnson 1996b|archive-date=2014-02-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140219230949/http://www.ctlibrary.com/bc/1996/mayjun/6b3030.html|url-status=dead}} The review is reprinted in full by . | |||
* {{cite book|last=Meyer|first=Stephen C.|title=Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe: Papers Presented at a Conference Sponsored by the Wethersfield Institute, New York City, September 25, 1999|publisher=]|year=2000|isbn=978-0-89870-809-7|series=Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute|volume=9|location=San Francisco|chapter=The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories|lccn=00102374|oclc=45720008|ref=Behe, Dembski & Meyer 2000|access-date=2014-12-01|chapter-url=http://www.discovery.org/a/1780}} | |||
* {{Cite court|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|reporter=cv|vol=04|opinion=2688|date=December 20, 2005}} ], p. 68. "lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology." | |||
* See also <!--relevant? ] and-->{{cite news|last=Hanna|first=John|url=https://www.theguardian.com/worldlatest/story/0,,-6413677,00.html|title=Kansas Rewriting Science Standards|date=February 13, 2007|newspaper=]|access-date=2014-02-28|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070216004715/http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0%2C%2C-6413677%2C00.html|archive-date=February 16, 2007|agency=]|location=London}}</ref> though proponents concede that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.<ref name="Giberson 2014">{{cite news|last=Giberson|first=Karl W.|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/21/my-debate-with-an-intelligent-design-theorist.html|title=My Debate With an 'Intelligent Design' Theorist|date=April 21, 2014|work=]|access-date=2014-05-14|publisher=]|location=New York}}</ref> As a positive argument against evolution, ID proposes an analogy between natural systems and ], a version of the theological argument from design for the ].<ref name="Numbers 373" /><ref name="kitzruling-IDandGod" group="n">{{cite court|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|reporter=cv|vol=04|opinion=2688|date=December 20, 2005}} ] pp. 24–25. "the argument for 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. ...<br />...his argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley... 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."</ref> ID proponents then conclude by analogy that the complex features, as defined by ID, are evidence of design.<ref name="SM 07" /><ref name="teachernet" group="n"> | |||
{{cite web|url=http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=11890|title=Guidance on the place of creationism and intelligent design in science lessons|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->|website=Teachernet|publisher=]|location=London|format=DOC|archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20071104143905/http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=11890|archive-date=November 4, 2007|access-date=2007-10-01|quote=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.<br />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 ']'. Lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation of some phenomena (a 'gap' in scientific knowledge) is claimed to be evidence of an intelligent designer.}}</ref> Critics of ID find a ] in the premise that evidence against ] constitutes evidence for design.<ref name="Kitzmiller v p. 64">{{cite court|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|vol=04|reporter=cv|opinion=2688|date=December 20, 2005}} ], p. 64.</ref><ref name="reducibly complex mousetrap, Ussery">{{cite web |url=http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html |title=A reducibly complex mousetrap |last=McDonald |first=John H. |access-date=2014-02-28 }} | |||
* {{cite web |url=http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/~dave/Behe_text.html |title=A Biochemist's Response to 'The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution' |last=Ussery |first=David |date=December 1997 |type=Book review |access-date=2014-02-28 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140304090148/http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/~dave/Behe_text.html |archive-date=March 4, 2014 }} Originally published in ''Bios'' (July 1998) 70:40–45.</ref> | |||
==History== | |||
Intelligent design proponents say that although evidence pointing to the nature of an "intelligent cause or agent" may not be directly ], its effects on nature can be detected. Dembski, in ''Signs of Intelligence'', states: "Proponents of intelligent design regard it as a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes. Note that intelligent design studies the ''effects'' of intelligent causes and not intelligent causes ''per se''." In his view, one cannot test for the identity of influences exterior to a closed system from within, so questions concerning the identity of a designer fall outside the realm of the concept. However, no rigorous test that can identify these effects has yet been proposed.<ref> "...the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims..." ], 2002.</ref><ref>], ], December 2005. page 70</ref> | |||
===Origin of the concept=== | |||
According to a 2005 Harris poll, ten percent of adults in the United States view human beings as "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them".<ref> The Harris Poll #52, July 6 2005.</ref> Although some polls commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support, these polls have been criticized as suffering from considerable flaws, such as having a low response rate (248 out of 16,000), being conducted on behalf of an organization with an expressed interest in the outcome of the poll, and containing leading questions.<ref name="Polling_for_ID">{{cite web | url = http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/polling/ | title = Polling for ID | accessdate = 2007-02-16 | last = Mooney | first = Chris | date = 2003-09-11 | work = Doubt and About | publisher = Committee for Skeptical Inquiry}}</ref> | |||
{{See also|Creation science|Teleological argument|Watchmaker analogy}} | |||
In 1910, evolution was not a topic of major religious controversy in America, but in the 1920s, the ] in ] resulted in ] opposition to teaching evolution and resulted in the origins of modern creationism.<ref name="PM 09" /> As a result, teaching of evolution was effectively suspended in U.S. public schools until the 1960s, and when evolution was then reintroduced into the curriculum, there was a series of court cases in which attempts were made to get creationism taught alongside evolution in science classes. ] (YECs) promoted "creation science" as "an alternative scientific explanation of the world in which we live". This frequently invoked the ] to explain complexity in nature as supposedly demonstrating the existence of God.<ref name="SM 07" /> | |||
The argument from design, also known as the teleological argument or "argument from intelligent design", has been presented by theologists for centuries.<ref name="Ayala 6">{{cite book |last=Ayala |first=Francisco J. |author-link=Francisco J. Ayala |year=2007 |title=Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=] |pages=6, 15–16, 138 |isbn=978-0-309-10231-5 |lccn=2007005821 |oclc=83609838 |ref=Ayala 2007}} Ayala writes that "Paley made the strongest possible case for intelligent design", and refers to "Intelligent Design: The Original Version" before discussing ID proponents reviving the argument from design under the pretense that it is scientific.</ref> ] presented ID in his ] of God's existence as a ].<ref name="kitzruling-IDandGod" group="n" /> In 1802, ]'s ''Natural Theology'' presented examples of intricate purpose in organisms. His version of the ] argued that a watch has evidently been designed by a craftsman and that it is supposedly just as evident that the complexity and ] seen in nature must have been designed. He went on to argue that the perfection and diversity of these designs supposedly shows the designer to be omnipotent and that this can supposedly only be the ].<ref>], pp. 60, 68–70, 242–245 | |||
===Origins of the concept=== | |||
* {{cite court | |||
Philosophers have long debated whether the complexity of nature indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator. The first recorded arguments for a natural designer come from ]. In the 4th century BC, ] posited a natural "]" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work '']''. ] also developed the idea of a natural creator of the cosmos, often called the "]," in his work '']''. In ''De Natura Deorum'', or "''On the Nature of the Gods''" (45 BC), ] stated that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature."<ref>], ''De Natura Deorum'', .</ref> | |||
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District | |||
|vol=04 | |||
|reporter=cv | |||
|opinion=2688 | |||
|date=December 20, 2005 | |||
}} ], pp. 24–25.</ref> Like "creation science", intelligent design centers on Paley's religious argument from design,<ref name="SM 07" /> but while Paley's natural theology was open to ] design through God-given laws, intelligent design seeks scientific confirmation of repeated supposedly miraculous interventions in the history of life.<ref name="PM 09" /> "Creation science" prefigured the intelligent design arguments of irreducible complexity, even featuring the bacterial ]. In the United States, attempts to introduce "creation science" into schools led to court rulings that it is religious in nature and thus cannot be taught in public school science classrooms. Intelligent design is also presented as science and shares other arguments with "creation science" but avoids literal ] references to such topics as the biblical ] story or using ].<ref name="SM 07" /> | |||
] writes that the intelligent design movement began in 1984 with the book ''The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories'', co-written by the creationist and chemist ] and two other authors and published by Jon A. Buell's ].<ref name="DarkSyde">{{cite interview |last=Forrest |first=Barbara C. |interviewer=Andrew Stephen |title=Know Your Creationists: Know Your Allies |url=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/03/11/193288/-Know-Your-Creationists-Know-Your-Allies |work=] |publisher=Kos Media, LLC |location=Berkeley, Calif. |date=March 11, 2006 |oclc=59226519 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> | |||
The use of this line of reasoning as applied to a supernatural designer has come to be known as the ] for the existence of ]. The most notable forms of this argument were expressed in the 13th century by ] in his '']'',<ref>], '']''. "" in ''faithnet.org.uk''. He ] as a ]: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer.</ref> design being the fifth of Aquinas' five proofs for God's existence, and by ] in his book ''Natural Theology'' (1802).<ref>], '''', 1809, London, Twelfth Edition.</ref> Paley used the ], which is still used in intelligent design arguments. In the early 19th century, such arguments led to the development of what was called ], the study of ] as a search to understand "the mind of God." This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens that ultimately led to ] theory of ]. Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in ], who consider modern science and the theory of ] to be fully compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer. | |||
In March 1986, ] published a review of this book, discussing how ] could suggest that messages transmitted by ] in the cell show "specified complexity" and must have been created by an intelligent agent.<ref name="meyermolo">{{cite magazine |last=Meyer |first=Stephen C. |date=March 1986 |title=We Are Not Alone |url=http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_notalone.htm |journal=Eternity |location=Philadelphia |publisher=Evangelical Foundation Inc. |issn=0014-1682 |access-date=2007-10-10}}</ref> He also argued that science is based upon "foundational assumptions" of naturalism that were as much a matter of faith as those of "creation theory".<ref name="Meyer Tenets 1986">{{cite journal | last=Meyer | first=Stephen C. | title=Scientific Tenets of Faith | journal=The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation |volume=38 |issue=1 | date=March 1986 | url=http://arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_scientifictenets.htm | access-date=31 May 2019}}</ref> In November of that year, Thaxton described his reasoning as a more sophisticated form of Paley's argument from design.<ref>{{cite conference |url=http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html |title=DNA, Design and the Origin of Life |last=Thaxton |first=Charles B. |author-link=Charles Thaxton |date=November 13–16, 1986 |conference=Jesus Christ: God and Man |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927203913/http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html |archive-date=September 27, 2007 |location=Dallas |access-date=2012-06-16}}</ref> At a conference that Thaxton held in 1988 ("Sources of Information Content in DNA"), he said that his intelligent cause view was compatible with both ] and ]ism.<ref name="picshb" /> | |||
Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern development of natural theology which seeks to change the basis of science and undermine evolution theory. As evolutionary theory has expanded to explain more phenomena, the examples that are held up as evidence of design have changed. But the essential argument remains the same: complex systems imply a designer. Examples offered in the past included the eye (optical system) and the feathered wing; current examples are mostly ]: protein functions, blood clotting, and bacterial ] (see ]). | |||
Intelligent design avoids identifying or naming the ]—it merely states that one (or more) must exist—but leaders of the movement have said the designer is the Christian God.<ref name="dembski_logos">{{cite magazine |last=Dembski |first=William A. |author-link=William A. Dembski |date=July–August 1999 |title=Signs of Intelligence: A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design |url=http://touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=49 |magazine=Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity |location=Chicago |publisher=Fellowship of St. James |volume=12 |issue=4 |issn=0897-327X |access-date=2014-02-28 |quote=...ntelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.}}</ref><ref name="wedge2" group="n">''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'', ], pages 26–27, "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Examples include: | |||
The earliest known version of the particular line of reasoning that would come to be called "intelligent design" began, according to ], "in the early 1980s with the publication of ''The Mystery of Life's Origin'' (MoLO 1984) by creationist chemist ] with Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen. Thaxton worked for Jon A. Buell at the ] (FTE) in Texas, a religious organization that published MoLO."<ref>Dr Barbara Forrest. </ref> | |||
* {{cite news |last=Nickson |first=Elizabeth |author-link=Elizabeth Nickson |date=February 6, 2004 |title=Let's Be Intelligent about Darwin |url=http://elizabethnickson.com/darwin.htm |newspaper=] |type=Reprint |location=Toronto |publisher=Postmedia Network |issn=1486-8008 |access-date=2014-02-28 |quote=Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools. |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131228190939/http://elizabethnickson.com/darwin.htm |archive-date=December 28, 2013 }} — ] (2003) | |||
* {{cite magazine |last=Grelen |first=Jay |date=November 30, 1996 |title=Witnesses for the prosecution |url=http://www.worldmag.com/1996/11/witnesses_for_the_prosecution |magazine=World |location=Asheville, N.C. |publisher=God's World Publications |volume=11 |issue=28 |page=18 |issn=0888-157X |access-date=2014-02-16 |quote=This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy. }} | |||
* ], "So the question is: How to win? That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the 'wedge' strategy: 'Stick with the most important thing'—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, 'Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?' and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do."</ref><ref group="n">{{cite episode |title=Doubting Darwin: The Marketing of Intelligent Design |url=http://digital.films.com/play/YTTF34 |access-date=2014-02-28 |series=] |first=Koppel |last=Ted |author-link=Ted Koppel |network=] |location=New York |date=August 10, 2005 |quote=I think the designer is God ...}} — ] | |||
* ], pp. 204–205, "By contrast, design theory demonstrates that Christians can sit in the supernaturalist's chair, even in their professional lives, seeing the cosmos through the lens of a comprehensive biblical worldview. Intelligent Design steps boldly into the scientific arena to build a case based on empirical data. It takes Christianity out of the ineffectual realm of value and stakes out a cognitive claim in the realm of objective truth. It restores Christianity to its status as genuine knowledge, equipping us to defend it in the public arena."</ref> Whether this lack of specificity about the designer's identity in public discussions is a genuine feature of the concept – or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science – has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case. | |||
===Origin of the term=== | |||
Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific ] — it merely states that one (or more) must exist. Although intelligent design itself does not name the designer, the personal view of many proponents is that the designer is the ] god.<ref name=dembski_logos>Dembski: <cite>"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,"</cite> </ref><ref name=wedge1/><ref name=wedge2>Phillip Johnson: <cite>"''Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.''"</cite> Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca. . <cite>"''This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy.''"</cite> Johnson 1996. World Magazine. . <cite>"''So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the ]: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do.''"</cite> Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. </ref> Whether this was a genuine feature of the concept or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The ] court ruling held the latter to be the case. | |||
{{See also|Timeline of intelligent design}} | |||
Since the ], discussion of the religious "argument from design" or "teleological argument" in theology, with its concept of "intelligent design", has persistently referred to the theistic Creator God. Although ID proponents chose this provocative label for their proposed alternative to evolutionary explanations, they have de-emphasized their religious antecedents and denied that ID is ], while still presenting ID as supporting the argument for the existence of God.<ref name="Haught Witness Report">{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/expert_reports/2005-04-01_Haught_expert_report_P.pdf |title=Report of John F. Haught, Ph. D |last=Haught |first=John F. |author-link=John F. Haught |date=April 1, 2005 |access-date=2013-08-29}} Haught's expert report in ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District''.</ref><ref name="Dao">{{cite news|last=Dao |first=James |date=December 25, 2005 |title=2005: In a Word; Intelligent Design |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A07E6D81530F936A15751C1A9639C8B63 |newspaper=The New York Times |access-date=2013-08-23 }} Dao states that the Discovery Institute said the phrase may have first been used by ]: his essay "Darwinism and Design", published in '']'' for June 1897, evaluated objections to "what has been called the Argument from Design" raised by ], and said "...it will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of Evolution may be guided by an intelligent design." {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029184445/http://infomotions.com/etexts/archive/ia311518.us.archive.org/1/items/humanismphiloso00schiuoft/humanismphiloso00schiuoft_djvu.htm |date=October 29, 2013 }}</ref> | |||
===Origins of the term=== | |||
Though unrelated to the current use of the term, the phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of ''Scientific American'' and in an 1850 book by ].<ref>], The theory of human progression, and natural probability of a reign of justice. London, Johnstone & Hunter, 1850. LC 08031381 "Intelligence-Intelligent Design."</ref> The term is also used in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the ] by ] botanist ]: | |||
While intelligent design proponents have pointed out past examples of the phrase ''intelligent design'' that they said were not creationist and faith-based, they have failed to show that these usages had any influence on those who introduced the label in the intelligent design movement.<ref name="Dao" /><ref name="Matzke 007">{{cite web |url=http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/the-true-origin.html |title=The true origin of 'intelligent design' |last=Matzke |first=Nick |date=August 14, 2007 |website=] |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston |type=Blog |access-date=2012-07-03}}</ref><ref>Matzke gives as examples the August 21, 1847, issue of '']'', and an 1861 letter in which ] uses "intelligent Design" to denote ]'s view that the overlapping changes of species found in geology had needed "intelligent direction": | |||
<blockquote>No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible—in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design.<ref>'The British Association', ''The Times'', Saturday, ] ]; pg. 10; col A. </ref></blockquote> | |||
* {{cite journal |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=The Utility and Pleasures of Science |url=http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=scia;cc=scia;rgn=full%20text;idno=scia0002-48;didno=scia0002-48;view=image;seq=00383;node=scia0002-48%3A1 |journal=Scientific American |date=August 21, 1847 |volume=2 |issue=48 |page= |issn=0036-8733 |access-date=2012-06-16 |doi=10.1038/scientificamerican08211847-381}} concludes that "objects" that "the great Author" has supplied in "the great store-house of nature" give "evidence of infinite skill and intelligent design in their adaptation". | |||
* {{cite web |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-3154 |title=Darwin, C. R. to Herschel, J. F. W. |last=Darwin |first=Charles |author-link=Charles Darwin |date=May 23, 1861 |website=] |publisher=] |location=Cambridge, UK |id=Letter 3154 |access-date=2014-02-28}}, discussing a footnote Herschel had added in January 1861 to his ''Physical Geology'' (see footnotes to in Francis Darwin's ''Life and Letters''.) | |||
* {{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/8931 |last=Luskin |first=Casey |date=September 8, 2008 |title=A Brief History of Intelligent Design |website=Center for Science and Culture |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2012-07-08}} Luskin quotes examples of use of the phrase by ] and ].</ref> | |||
Variations on the phrase appeared in Young Earth creationist publications: a 1967 book co-written by ] referred to "design according to which basic organisms were created". In 1970, ] published ''The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution''. The book defended Paley's design argument with computer calculations of the improbability of genetic sequences, which he said could not be explained by evolution but required "the abhorred necessity of divine intelligent activity behind nature", and that "the same problem would be expected to beset the relationship between the designer behind nature and the intelligently designed part of nature known as man."<ref name="Elsberry Dec96">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Enterprising.cfm |title=Enterprising Science Needs Naturalism |last=Elsberry |first=Wesley R. |author-link=Wesley R. Elsberry |date=December 5, 1996 |website=Talk Reason |access-date=2013-08-23}}</ref> In a 1984 article as well as in his affidavit to ''Edwards v. Aguillard'', ] defended creation science by stating that "biomolecular systems require intelligent design and engineering know-how", citing Wilder-Smith. Creationist Richard B. Bliss used the phrase "creative design" in ''Origins: Two Models: Evolution, Creation'' (1976), and in ''Origins: Creation or Evolution'' (1988) wrote that "while evolutionists are trying to find non-intelligent ways for life to occur, the creationist insists that an intelligent design must have been there in the first place."<ref name="Forrest expert report">{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/expert_reports/2005_04_01_Forrest_expert_report_P.pdf |title=Expert Witness Report |last=Forrest |first=Barbara |date=April 1, 2005 |access-date=2013-05-30}} Forrest's expert report in ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District''.</ref> | |||
The term can be found again in ''Humanism'', a 1903 book by one of the founders of classical ], ]: "It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design." A derivative of the term appears in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) in the article on the ] : "Stated most succinctly, runs: The world exhibits ] order (design, adaptation). Therefore, it was produced by an intelligent designer." The term "intelligent design" was also used in the early 1980s by Sir ] as part of his promotion of ].<ref>'Evolution according to Hoyle: Survivors of disaster in an earlier world', By Nicholas Timmins, ''The Times'', Wednesday, ] ]; pg. 22; Issue 61130; col F. </ref> | |||
====''Of Pandas and People''==== | |||
The predominant modern use of the term began after the ], in the case of ] (1987), ruled that ] is unconstitutional in public school science curricula. ], cofounder of the ] and vice president of the ], reports that the term came up in 1988 at a conference he attended in ], called ''Sources of Information Content in DNA''.<ref>William Safire. The New York Times. ] ]. </ref> He attributes the phrase to ], editor of '']''. In drafts of the book ''Of Pandas and People'', the word 'creationism' was subsequently changed, almost without exception, to ''intelligent design''. The book was published in 1989 and is considered to be the first intelligent design book.<ref>National Association of Biology Teachers. National Center for Science Education. </ref> The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar ] following his 1991 book '']'', which advocated redefining science to allow claims of supernatural creation.<ref>"Although science has made great progress by limiting itself to explaining only through natural causes, Johnson would have us allow the occasional supernatural intervention for those phenomena that cause problems for his particular theology. Though he has no objection to natural explanations for how fluids pass through a cell membrane, we need to leave room for a "whimsical creator" (p. 31) or God’s "inscrutable purpose" (p. 71) to explain the origin of life or the origin of complex body plans. Confusing unsolved with unsolveable, he wishes us to stop seeking natural causes for these phenomena. Johnson wishes to take us back to an earlier, less scientifically productive time when science had to wait for religious approval before daring to explain something that was religiously sensitive." by Eugenie C. Scott. ]</ref> Johnson, considered the "father" of the ], went on to work with Meyer, becoming the program advisor of the ] in forming and executing the ]. | |||
{{Main|Of Pandas and People}} | |||
] | |||
The most common modern use of the words "intelligent design" as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry began after the United States Supreme Court ruled in June 1987 in the case of '']'' that it is ] for a state to require the teaching of creationism in public school science curricula.<ref name="Matzke" /> | |||
A Discovery Institute report says that Charles B. Thaxton, editor of ''Pandas'', had picked the phrase up from a ] scientist.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/post_6001764.html |title=Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design |last=Witt |first=Jonathan |date=December 20, 2005 |website=Evolution News & Views |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2012-06-16}}</ref> In two successive 1987 drafts of the book, over one hundred uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "Creation Science", were changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent design",<ref name=kitz31/> while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "]"{{sic}}.<ref name="Matzke">{{cite journal |last=Matzke |first=Nick |author-link=Nick Matzke |date=January–April 2006 |title=Design on Trial: How NCSE Helped Win the ''Kitzmiller'' Case |url=http://ncse.com/rncse/26/1-2/design-trial |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |volume=26 |issue=1–2 |pages=37–44 |issn=2158-818X |access-date=2009-11-18 |ref=Matzke 2006a}} | |||
* {{cite web |url=http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?p=80 |title=Missing Link discovered! |last=Matzke |first=Nick |date=November 7, 2005 |website=Evolution Education and the Law |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, Calif. |type=Blog |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070114121029/http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?p=80 |archive-date=January 14, 2007 |access-date=2009-11-18}}</ref> In June 1988, Thaxton held a conference titled "Sources of Information Content in DNA" in ], ].<ref name=picshb>{{cite conference |url=http://www.leaderu.com/offices/thaxton/docs/inpursuit.html |title=In Pursuit of Intelligent Causes: Some Historical Background |last=Thaxton |first=Charles B. |date=June 24–26, 1988 |conference=Sources of Information Content in DNA |location=Tacoma, Wash. |oclc=31054528 |access-date=2007-10-06}} Revised July 30, 1988, and May 6, 1991.</ref> Stephen C. Meyer was at the conference, and later recalled that "The term ''intelligent design'' came up..."<ref name="Safire 05">{{cite news |last=Safire |first=William |author-link=William Safire |date=August 21, 2005 |title=Neo-Creo |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/magazine/21ONLANGUAGE.html |newspaper=The New York Times |access-date=2012-06-16}}</ref> In December 1988 Thaxton decided to use the label "intelligent design" for his new creationist movement.<ref name="DarkSyde" /> | |||
''Of Pandas and People'' was published in 1989, and in addition to including all the current arguments for ID, was the first book to make systematic use of the terms "intelligent design" and "design proponents" as well as the phrase "design theory", defining the term ''intelligent design'' in a glossary and representing it as not being creationism. It thus represents the start of the modern ].<ref name="Matzke" /><ref name="Matzke 007" /><ref name="pandafounds">{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/critique-pandas-people |title=Critique: 'Of Pandas and People' |last=Matzke |first=Nick |date=November 23, 2004 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, Calif. |type=Blog |access-date=2007-09-24}}</ref> "Intelligent design" was the most prominent of around fifteen new terms it introduced as a new lexicon of creationist terminology to oppose evolution without using religious language.<ref name="Aulie">{{cite web|url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/design/aulie_of-pandas.html |title=A Reader's Guide to Of Pandas and People |last=Aulie |first=Richard P. |author-link=Richard P. Aulie |year=1998 |publisher=] |location=McLean, Va. |access-date=2007-10-05 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140306082532/http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/design/aulie_of-pandas.html |archive-date=March 6, 2014 }}</ref> It was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its primary present use, as stated both by its publisher Jon A. Buell,<ref name="SM 07">{{cite journal |last1=Scott |first1=Eugenie C. |author-link1=Eugenie Scott |last2=Matzke |first2=Nicholas J. |author-link2=Nick Matzke |date=May 15, 2007 |title=Biological design in science classrooms |journal=] |volume=104 |issue=Suppl 1 |pages=8669–8676 |bibcode=2007PNAS..104.8669S |doi=10.1073/pnas.0701505104 |pmc=1876445 |pmid=17494747 |doi-access=free }} </ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/i_guess_id_real.html |title=I guess ID really was 'Creationism's Trojan Horse' after all |last=Matzke |first=Nick |date=October 13, 2005 |website=The Panda's Thumb |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston |type=Blog |access-date=2009-06-02 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080624124225/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/i_guess_id_real.html |archive-date=June 24, 2008 }}</ref> and by ] in his expert witness report for ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District''.<ref name="Dembski Witness Report">{{cite web |last=Dembski |first=William A. |url=http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.09.Expert_Report_Dembski.pdf |archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20050930230119/http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.09.Expert_Report_Dembski.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=September 30, 2005 |title=Expert Witness Report: The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design |date=March 29, 2005 |access-date=2009-06-02 }} Dembski's expert report in ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District''.</ref> | |||
The ] (NCSE) has criticized the book for presenting all of the basic arguments of intelligent design proponents and being actively promoted for use in public schools before any research had been done to support these arguments.<ref name=pandafounds/> Although presented as a scientific textbook, philosopher of science ] considers the contents "worthless and dishonest".<ref>], p. 41</ref> An ] lawyer described it as a political tool aimed at students who did not "know science or understand the controversy over evolution and creationism". One of the authors of the science framework used by California schools, ], condemned it for its "sub-text", "intolerance for honest science" and "incompetence".<ref name="RethinkingSchools">{{cite magazine |last=Lynn |first=Leon |date=Winter 1997–1998 |title=Creationists Push Pseudo-Science Text |url=http://www.rethinkingschools.org/restrict.asp?path=archive/12_02/panda.shtml |magazine=Rethinking Schools |location=Milwaukee |publisher=Rethinking Schools, Ltd. |volume=12 |issue=2 |issn=0895-6855 |access-date=2009-02-08 |archive-date=2016-08-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160826233505/http://www.rethinkingschools.org/restrict.asp?path=archive%2F12_02%2Fpanda.shtml |url-status=dead }}</ref> | |||
==Concepts== | ==Concepts== | ||
===Irreducible complexity=== | ===Irreducible complexity=== | ||
{{ |
{{Main|Irreducible complexity}} | ||
] was popularised by ] in his 1996 book, '']''.]] | |||
In the context of intelligent design, irreducible complexity was put forth by ], who defines it as "a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."<ref>Behe, Michael (1997): ''Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference'' </ref> | |||
The term "irreducible complexity" was introduced by biochemist ] in his 1996 book '']'', though he had already described the concept in his contributions to the 1993 revised edition of ''Of Pandas and People''.<ref name="pandafounds" /> Behe defines it as "a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.apologetics.org/MolecularMachines/tabid/99/Default.aspx |title=Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference |last=Behe |first=Michael |author-link=Michael Behe |year=1997 |website=Apologetics.org |publisher=The Apologetics Group;] |location=Trinity, Fla. |access-date=2014-02-28 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120801101947/http://www.apologetics.org/MolecularMachines/tabid/99/Default.aspx |archive-date=August 1, 2012 }} "This paper was originally presented in the Summer of 1994 at the meeting of the C.S. Lewis Society, Cambridge University."</ref> | |||
Behe uses the |
Behe uses the analogy of a mousetrap to illustrate this concept. A mousetrap consists of several interacting pieces—the base, the catch, the spring and the hammer—all of which must be in place for the mousetrap to work. Removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Intelligent design advocates assert that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selectable function is present only when all parts are assembled. Behe argued that irreducibly complex biological mechanisms include the bacterial flagellum of '']'', the ], ], and the adaptive ].<ref>Irreducible complexity of these examples is disputed; see {{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter=cv |opinion=2688 |date=December 20, 2005}} ] pp. 76–78, and ]'s January 3, 2006, lecture at ]'s Strosacker Auditorium, {{YouTube|id=Ohd5uqzlwsU|title="The Collapse of Intelligent Design: Will the Next Monkey Trial be in Ohio?"}}.</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html |title=The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of 'Irreducible Complexity' |last=Miller |first=Kenneth R. |website=Biology by Miller & Levine |publisher=Miller and Levine Biology |location=Rehoboth, Mass. |access-date=2014-02-28}} "This is a pre-publication copy of an article that appeared in 'Debating Design from Darwin to DNA,' edited by ] and William Dembski."</ref> | ||
Critics point out |
Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially.<ref name="reducibly complex mousetrap, Ussery" /> They argue that something that is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary as other components change. Furthermore, they argue, evolution often proceeds by altering preexisting parts or by removing them from a system, rather than by adding them. This is sometimes called the "scaffolding objection" by an analogy with scaffolding, which can support an "irreducibly complex" building until it is complete and able to stand on its own.<ref group="n">{{cite journal |last1=Bridgham |first1=Jamie T. |last2=Carroll |first2=Sean M. |last3=Thornton |first3=Joseph W. |author-link3=Joseph Thornton (biologist) |date=April 7, 2006 |title=Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation |url=https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1123348 |journal=] |volume=312 |issue=5770 |pages=97–101 |bibcode=2006Sci...312...97B |doi=10.1126/science.1123348 |pmid=16601189 |s2cid=9662677 |access-date=2014-02-28}} Bridgham, ''et al.'', showed that gradual evolutionary mechanisms can produce complex protein-protein interaction systems from simpler precursors.</ref> | ||
In the case of Behe's mousetrap analogy, it has been shown that a mousetrap can be created with increasingly fewer parts and that even a single part is sufficient.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=McDonald |first=John H. |date=2002 |title=A reducibly complex mousetrap |url=https://udel.edu/~mcdonald/oldmousetrap.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140222041104/http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html |archive-date=2014-02-22 |access-date=2024-11-14 |website=University of Delaware}}</ref> | |||
Behe himself has since confessed to "sloppy prose," and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."<ref>{{cite news | last = Orr | first = H. Allen | title = Devolution | publisher = ] | date = 2005-05-30 | url = http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact }} This article draws from the following exchange of letters in which Behe admits to sloppy prose and non-logical proof: {{cite web | last = Behe | first = M. | coauthors = Dembski, Wells, Nelson, Berlinski | title = Has Darwin met his match? Letters - An exchange over ID | publisher = ] | date = 2003-03-26 | url = http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&id=1406 | format = HTML | accessdate = 2006-11-30 }}</ref> Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; however, in the Dover trial, the court held that "Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."<ref></ref> | |||
Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against ] does not add up to a logical proof."<ref group="n">]. This article draws from the following exchange of letters in which Behe admits to sloppy prose and non-logical proof: | |||
*{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/1406 |title=Has Darwin Met His Match? – Letters: An Exchange Over ID |last1=Behe |first1=Michael |author-link1=Michael Behe |last2=Dembski |first2=William A. |last3=Wells |first3=Jonathan |author-link3=Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) |last4=Nelson |first4=Paul A. |author-link4=Paul Nelson (creationist) |last5=Berlinski |first5=David |author-link5=David Berlinski |date=March 26, 2003 |website=] |publisher=] |location=Seattle |type=Reprint |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the ], the court held that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in ] research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."<ref name="Kitzmiller v p. 64" /> | |||
===Specified complexity=== | ===Specified complexity=== | ||
{{ |
{{Main|Specified complexity}} | ||
In 1986, Charles B. Thaxton, a physical chemist and creationist, used the term "specified complexity" from ] when claiming that messages transmitted by DNA in the cell were specified by intelligence, and must have originated with an intelligent agent.<ref name="meyermolo" /> | |||
The intelligent design concept of "specified complexity" was developed by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian ]. Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and specified, simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes. He provides the following examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A ] ] is both complex and specified."<ref>Dembski. Intelligent Design, p. 47 </ref> He states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as ]. | |||
The intelligent design concept of "specified complexity" was developed in the 1990s by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian ].<ref name="Time-15-Aug-2005">{{cite magazine |last=Wallis |first=Claudia |date=August 7, 2005 |title=The Evolution Wars |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909-3,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070114131252/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909-3,00.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 14, 2007 |magazine=] |location=New York |publisher=] |access-date=2011-10-22}}</ref> Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and "specified", simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes. He provides the following examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A ] is both complex and specified."<ref>], p. 47</ref> He states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA. | |||
] proposed the concept of specified complexity.<ref>Photograph of William A. Dembski taken at lecture given at ], March 17, 2006.</ref>|alt=]] | |||
Dembski defines ] (CSI) as anything with a less than 1 in 10<sup>150</sup> chance of occurring by (natural) chance. Critics say that this renders the argument a ]: complex specified information cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fitelson |first1=Branden |last2=Stephens |first2=Christopher |last3=Sober |first3=Elliott |author-link3=Elliott Sober |date=September 1999 |title=How Not to Detect Design |url=http://sober.philosophy.wisc.edu/selected-papers/ID-1999-HowNotToDetectDesign_DembskiReview.pdf?attredirects=0 |format=PDF |journal=] |type=Book review |volume=66 |issue=3 |pages=472–488 |issn=0031-8248 |jstor=188598 |access-date=2014-02-28 |doi=10.1086/392699 |s2cid=11079658 |archive-date=March 17, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150317220736/http://sober.philosophy.wisc.edu/selected-papers/ID-1999-HowNotToDetectDesign_DembskiReview.pdf?attredirects=0 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref group="n">{{cite web |last=Dembski |first=William A. |author-link=William A. Dembski |year=2001 |title=Another Way to Detect Design? |url=http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_anotherwaytodetectdesign.htm |access-date=2012-06-16 |website=Metanexus |publisher=] |location=New York}} This is a "three part lecture series entitled 'Another Way to Detect Design' which contains William Dembski's response to Fitelson, Stephens, and Sober whose article 'How Not to Detect Design' ran on Metanexus:Views (2001.09.14, 2001.09.21, and 2001.09.28). These lectures were first made available online at Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science http://www.metanexus.net. This is from three keynote lectures delivered October 5–6<!--verbatim quote-->, 2001 at the Society of Christian Philosopher's meeting at the University of Colorado, Boulder."</ref><ref name="Wein">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/ |title=Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates: A critique of William Dembski's book ''No Free Lunch'' |last=Wein |first=Richard |year=2002 |website=] |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston |access-date=2012-06-16}}</ref> | |||
The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument has been discredited in the scientific and mathematical communities.<ref name="talkorigins.org, math.jmu.edu">{{cite web |last=Baldwin |first=Rich |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/dembski.html |title=Information Theory and Creationism: William Dembski |date=July 14, 2005 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston |access-date=2012-06-16}} | |||
Dembski defines complex specified information as anything with a less than 1 in 10<sup>150</sup> chance of occurring by (natural) chance. Critics say that this renders the argument a ]: Complex specified information (CSI) cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature. | |||
* {{cite journal |last=Rosenhouse |first=Jason |author-link=Jason Rosenhouse |date=Fall 2001 |title=How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics |url=http://educ.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/sewell.pdf |journal=] |volume=23 |issue=4 |pages=3–8 |doi=10.1007/bf03024593 |s2cid=189888286 |oclc=3526661 |access-date=2012-06-16}}</ref><ref name="Perakh2005a">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkreason.org/articles/newmath.cfm |title=Dembski 'displaces Darwinism' mathematically – or does he? |last=Perakh |first=Mark |author-link=Mark Perakh |date=March 18, 2005 |website=Talk Reason |access-date=2012-06-16}}</ref> Specified complexity has yet to be shown to have wide applications in other fields, as Dembski asserts. John Wilkins and ] characterize Dembski's "explanatory filter" as ''eliminative'' because it eliminates explanations sequentially: first regularity, then chance, finally defaulting to design. They argue that this procedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because the asymmetric way it treats the different possible explanations renders it prone to making false conclusions.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wilkins |first1=John S. |last2=Elsberry |first2=Wesley R. |date=November 2001 |title=The Advantages of Theft over Toil: The Design Inference and Arguing from Ignorance |url=http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/theft_over_toil |journal=] |volume=16 |issue=5 |pages=709–722 |doi=10.1023/A:1012282323054 |s2cid=170765232 |issn=0169-3867 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> | |||
], evolutionary biologist and religion critic, argues in '']'' (2006) that allowing for an intelligent designer to account for unlikely complexity only postpones the problem, as such a designer would need to be at least as complex.<ref>]</ref> Other scientists have argued that evolution through selection is better able to explain the observed complexity, as is evident from the use of selective evolution to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems that are considered problems too complex for human "intelligent designers".<ref>{{cite journal |last=Marks |first=Paul |date=July 28, 2007 |title=Evolutionary algorithms now surpass human designers |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526146.000-evolutionary-algorithms-now-surpass-human-designers.html |journal=] |issue=2614 |pages=26–27 |issn=0262-4079 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> | |||
The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument is strongly disputed by the scientific community.<ref>Nowak quoted. Claudia Wallis. Time Magazine, ] ] edition, page 32 </ref> Specified complexity has yet to be shown to have wide applications in other fields as Dembski asserts. John Wilkins and ] characterize Dembski's "explanatory filter" as ''eliminative'', because it eliminates explanations sequentially: first regularity, then chance, finally defaulting to design. They argue that this procedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because the asymmetric way it treats the different possible explanations renders it prone to making false conclusions.<ref>John S. Wilkins and Wesley R. Elsberry. Biology and Philosophy, 16: 711–724. 2001. </ref> | |||
===Fine-tuned universe=== | ===Fine-tuned universe=== | ||
{{ |
{{Main|Fine-tuned universe}} | ||
Intelligent design proponents also |
Intelligent design proponents have also occasionally appealed to broader teleological arguments outside of biology, most notably an argument based on the ] that make matter and life possible and that are argued not to be solely attributable to chance. These include the values of ], the relative strength of ]s, ], and ] between ], as well as the ratios of masses of such particles. Intelligent design proponent and Center for Science and Culture fellow ] argues that if any of these values were even slightly different, the universe would be dramatically different, making it impossible for many ]s and features of the ], such as ], to form.<ref>]</ref> Thus, proponents argue, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular outcome. | ||
Scientists have generally responded that these arguments are poorly supported by existing evidence.<ref>], p. 243</ref><ref>]</ref> ] and other critics say both intelligent design and the ] of the ] are essentially a ]; in his view, these arguments amount to the claim that life is able to exist because the Universe is able to support life.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf |title=Is The Universe Fine-Tuned For Us? |last=Stenger |first=Victor J |author-link=Victor J. Stenger |website=Victor J. Stenger |publisher=University of Colorado |location=Boulder, Colo. |access-date=2014-02-28 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120716192004/http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf |archive-date=July 16, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/ant_encyc.pdf |title=The Anthropic Principle |last=Stenger |first=Victor J |author-link=Victor J. Stenger|website=Victor J. Stenger |publisher=University of Colorado |location=Boulder, Colo. |access-date=2012-06-16 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120617015335/http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/ant_encyc.pdf |archive-date=June 17, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Silk |first=Joseph |author-link=Joseph Silk |date=September 14, 2006 |title=Our place in the Multiverse |journal=] |volume=443 |issue=7108 |pages=145–146 |bibcode=2006Natur.443..145S |doi=10.1038/443145a |issn=0028-0836 |doi-access=free }}</ref> The claim of the improbability of a life-supporting universe has also been criticized as an ] for assuming no other forms of life are possible: life as we know it might not exist if things were different, but a different sort of life might exist in its place. A number of critics also suggest that many of the stated variables appear to be interconnected and that calculations made by mathematicians and physicists suggest that the emergence of a universe similar to ours is quite probable.<ref>], "A Puddlian Fable", pp. 220–221</ref> | |||
===Intelligent designer=== |
===Intelligent designer=== | ||
{{Main|Intelligent designer}} | |||
The contemporary intelligent design movement formulates its arguments in ] terms and intentionally avoids identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) they posit. Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene. Dembski, in '']'' (1998), speculates that an ] culture could fulfill these requirements. ''Of Pandas and People'' proposes that ] illustrates an appeal to intelligent design in science. In 2000, philosopher of science ] suggested the ] ] religion as a real-life example of an extraterrestrial intelligent designer view that "make many of the same bad arguments against evolutionary theory as creationists".<ref>], pp. 229–229, 233–242</ref> The authoritative description of intelligent design,<ref name="DI-topquestions" /> however, explicitly states that the ''Universe'' displays features of having been designed. Acknowledging the ], Dembski concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/119 |title=The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendence and Immanence |last=Dembski |first=William A. |date=August 10, 1998 |website=Center for Science and Culture |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2014-02-28}} "Presented at Millstatt Forum, Strasbourg, France, 10 August 1998."</ref> The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.<ref name="dembski_logos" /> | |||
{{main|Intelligent designer}} | |||
Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science. For example, ] asks why a designer would "give us a pathway for making ], but then destroy it by disabling one of its enzymes" (see ]) and why a designer would not "stock oceanic islands with reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and freshwater fish, despite the suitability of such islands for these species". Coyne also points to the fact that "the flora and fauna on those islands resemble that of the nearest mainland, even when the environments are very different" as evidence that species were not placed there by a designer.<ref name="CoyneTNR">{{cite magazine |last=Coyne |first=Jerry |author-link=Jerry Coyne |date=August 22, 2005 |title=The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name |url=http://www.edge.org/conversation/the-case-against-intelligent-design |magazine=] |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> Previously, in ''Darwin's Black Box'', Behe had argued that we are simply incapable of understanding the designer's motives, so such questions cannot be answered definitively. Odd designs could, for example, "...have been placed there by the designer for a reason—for artistic reasons, for variety, to show off, for some as-yet-undetected practical purpose, or for some unguessable reason—or they might not."<ref name="odd_design">], p. 221</ref> Coyne responds that in light of the evidence, "either life resulted not from intelligent design, but from evolution; or the intelligent designer is a cosmic prankster who designed everything to make it look as though it had evolved."<ref name="CoyneTNR" /> | |||
Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent they posit. Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene. Though Dembski in ''The Design Inference'' speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements, the authoritative description of intelligent design<ref>"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.''" Discovery Institute. What is Intelligent Design? </ref> explicitly states that the ''universe'' displays features of having been designed. Acknowledging the ], Dembski concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."<ref>Dembski. </ref> The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the ] god, to the exclusion of all other religions.<ref name=dembski_logos/> | |||
Intelligent design proponents such as ] avoid the ] by insisting that we have simply failed to understand the perfection of the design. Behe cites Paley as his inspiration, but he differs from Paley's expectation of a perfect Creation and proposes that designers do not necessarily produce the best design they can. Behe suggests that, like a parent not wanting to spoil a child with extravagant toys, the designer can have multiple motives for not giving priority to excellence in engineering. He says that "Another problem with the argument from imperfection is that it critically depends on a psychoanalysis of the unidentified designer. Yet the reasons that a designer would or would not do anything are virtually impossible to know unless the designer tells you specifically what those reasons are."<ref name="odd_design" /> This reliance on inexplicable motives of the designer makes intelligent design scientifically untestable. Retired ] law professor, author and intelligent design advocate ] puts forward a core definition that the designer creates for a purpose, giving the example that in his view ] was created to punish immorality and ], but such motives cannot be tested by scientific methods.<ref name="Pennock 245">], pp. 245–249, 265, 296–300</ref> | |||
Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics go so far as to argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science. For example, Jerry Coyne, of the ], asks why a designer would "give us a pathway for making vitamin C, but then destroy it by disabling one of its enzymes" and why he or she would not "stock oceanic islands with reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and freshwater fish, despite the suitability of such islands for these species." Coyne also points to the fact that "the flora and fauna on those islands resemble that of the nearest mainland, even when the environments are very different" as evidence that species were not placed there by a designer.<ref>Jerry Coyne. ], ] 2005. </ref> Previously, in '']'', Behe had argued that we are simply incapable of understanding the designer's motives, so such questions cannot be answered definitively. Odd designs could, for example, "have been placed there by the designer... for artistic reasons, to show off, for some as-yet undetectable practical purpose, or for some unguessable reason." Coyne responds that in light of the evidence, "either life resulted not from intelligent design, but from evolution; or the intelligent designer is a cosmic prankster who designed everything to make it look as though it had evolved."<ref>Jerry Coyne: “The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name: | |||
The Case Against Intelligent Design” in ''The New Republic'', Aug 22 & 29, 2005 issue, p. 21-33. Available at | |||
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050822&s=coyne082205 </ref> | |||
Asserting the need for a designer of complexity also raises the question "What designed the designer?"<ref> |
Asserting the need for a designer of complexity also raises the question "What designed the designer?"<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/empty.htm |title=Intelligent Design: The Glass is Empty |last=Simanek |first=Donald E. |date=February 2006 |website=Donald Simanek's Pages |publisher=] |location=Lock Haven, PA |access-date=2012-06-16 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120714082248/http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/empty.htm |archive-date=2012-07-14 }}</ref> Intelligent design proponents say that the question is irrelevant to or outside the scope of intelligent design.<ref group="n">{{cite web |url=http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1147 |title=FAQ: Who designed the designer? |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=] |publisher=Casey Luskin; IDEA Center |location=Seattle |type=Short answer |access-date=2014-02-28 |quote=One need not fully understand the origin or identity of the designer to determine that an object was designed. Thus, this question is essentially irrelevant to intelligent design theory, which merely seeks to detect if an object was designed.... Intelligent design theory cannot address the identity or origin of the designer—it is a philosophical / religious question that lies outside the domain of scientific inquiry. Christianity postulates the religious answer to this question that the designer is God who by definition is eternally existent and has no origin. There is no logical philosophical impossibility with this being the case (akin to ]'s 'unmoved mover') as a religious answer to the origin of the designer.}}</ref> Richard Wein counters that "...scientific explanations often create new unanswered questions. But, in assessing the value of an explanation, these questions are not irrelevant. They must be balanced against the improvements in our understanding which the explanation provides. Invoking an unexplained being to explain the origin of other beings (ourselves) is little more than ]. The new question raised by the explanation is as problematic as the question which the explanation purports to answer."<ref name="Wein" /> ] sees the assertion that the designer does not need to be explained as a ].<ref name="Rosenhouse">{{cite web |url=http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/who_designed_the_designer/ |title=Who Designed the Designer? |last=Rosenhouse |first=Jason |date=November 3, 2006 |website=] |series=Intelligent Design Watch |location=Amherst, N.Y. |publisher=] |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref><ref>], p. 141</ref> In the absence of observable, measurable evidence, the question "What designed the designer?" leads to an ] from which intelligent design proponents can only escape by resorting to religious creationism or logical contradiction.<ref>See for example {{cite web |url=http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/050927voices_pseudoscience |title=Intelligent design is pseudoscience |last=Manson |first=Joseph |date=September 27, 2005 |work=UCLA Today |access-date=2014-05-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140515090423/http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/050927voices_pseudoscience |archive-date=May 15, 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref> | ||
==Movement== | ==Movement== | ||
{{ |
{{Main|Intelligent design movement}} | ||
]'' from the ]. Later it used a less religious image, then was renamed the ].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/evolving-banners-at-discovery-institute |title=Evolving Banners at the Discovery Institute |date=August 28, 2002 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, Calif. |access-date=2007-10-07}}</ref>]] | |||
The intelligent design movement arose out of an organized ] campaign directed by the ] to promote a religious agenda<ref><cite>"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the 'thin edge of the wedge,' was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."</cite> Discovery Institute, 1999. (PDF file)</ref> calling for broad social, academic and political changes employing intelligent design arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the ]. Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the ] philosophy of ]. Intelligent design proponents allege that science should not be limited to naturalism and should not demand the adoption of a naturalistic ] that dismisses out of hand any explanation which contains a supernatural cause. The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat ] ]" represented by the theory of ] in favor of "a science consonant with ] and ] convictions."<ref name="wedge_doc"> Discovery Institute, 1999.</ref> | |||
The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /> The scientific and academic communities, along with a U.S. federal court, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism;<ref name="harvard">{{cite journal |last=Mu |first=David |date=Fall 2005 |title=Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design |url=http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/wp-content/themes/hsr/pdf/fall2005/mu.pdf |journal=] |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=22–25 |access-date=2014-02-28 |ref=Mu 2005 |quote=...for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience. |archive-date=2020-01-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200112175016/http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/wp-content/themes/hsr/pdf/fall2005/mu.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="NSTA" /><ref>{{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter=cv |opinion=2688 |date=December 20, 2005}} ] p. 136.</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Wise |first=Donald U. |date=January 2001 |title=Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution |url=http://nagt.org/nagt/jge/abstracts/jan01.html |journal=Journal of Geoscience Education |volume=49 |issue=1 |pages=30–35 |issn=1089-9995 |access-date=2014-02-28|bibcode=2001JGeEd..49...30W |doi=10.5408/1089-9995-49.1.30 |s2cid=152260926 }}</ref><ref> | |||
] stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast ] as a scientific concept.<ref name=wedge2/><ref name=PJC><cite>"''I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."..."Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"..."I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves.''"</cite> Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. </ref> All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its ].<ref>Discovery Institute fellows and staff. Center for Science and Culture fellows and staff. </ref> Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement are the products of the Discovery Institute, which guides the movement and follows its ] while conducting its adjunct ] campaign. | |||
{{cite journal |last=Ross |first=Marcus R. |author-link=Marcus R. Ross |date=May 2005 |title=Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism |url=https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/bio_chem_fac_pubs/79 |journal=Journal of Geoscience Education |volume=53 |issue=3 |pages=319–323 |issn=1089-9995 |access-date=2012-06-16|bibcode=2005JGeEd..53..319R |doi=10.5408/1089-9995-53.3.319 |citeseerx=10.1.1.404.1340 |s2cid=14208021 }}</ref><ref>]</ref> and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism".<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /><ref>]</ref><ref group="n"> | |||
], "Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski", pp. 645–667, "Dembski chides me for never using the term 'intelligent design' without conjoining it to 'creationism'. He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to 'rally the troops'. (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski's movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability..."</ref><ref>]</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Scott |first=Eugenie C. |author-link=Eugenie Scott |date=July–August 1999 |title=The Creation/Evolution Continuum |url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |volume=19 |issue=4 |pages=16–17, 23–25 |access-date=2014-02-28}} | |||
* ]</ref> | |||
The movement is headquartered in the Center for Science and Culture, established in 1996 as the creationist wing of the ] to promote a religious agenda<ref name=wedge_doc group="n">{{cite web |url=http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070422235718/http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf |url-status=usurped |archive-date=April 22, 2007 |title=The Wedge |year=1999 |publisher=] |location=Seattle |quote=The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is ''scientific'' materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The beginning of this strategy, the 'thin edge of the wedge,' was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in ''Darwinism on Trial'', and continued in ''Reason in the Balance'' and ''Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds''. Michael Behe's highly successful ''Darwin's Black Box'' followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. |access-date=2014-05-31}}</ref> calling for broad social, academic and political changes. The ] have been staged primarily in the United States, although efforts have been made in other countries to promote intelligent design. Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of ]. Intelligent design proponents allege that science should not be limited to naturalism and should not demand the adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that dismisses out-of-hand any explanation that includes a ] cause. The overall goal of the movement is to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist ]" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".<ref name=wedge_doc group="n" /> | |||
Leading intelligent design proponents have made conflicting statements regarding intelligent design. In statements directed at the general public, they say intelligent design is not religious; when addressing conservative Christian supporters, they state that intelligent design has its foundation in the ].<ref name=PJC/> Recognizing the need for support, the institute affirms its Christian, evangelistic orientation: "''Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to 'popularize' our ideas in the broader culture.''"<ref name="wedge_doc"/> | |||
Phillip E. Johnson stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept.<ref name=wedge2 group="n" /><ref name=PJC group="n">{{cite web |url=http://www.coralridge.org/specialdocs/evolutiondebate.asp |title=How The Evolution Debate Can Be Won |last=Johnson |first=Phillip E |author-link=Phillip E. Johnson |website=] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071107005414/http://www.coralridge.org/specialdocs/evolutiondebate.asp |publisher=Coral Ridge Ministries |location=Fort Lauderdale, Fla. |archive-date=November 7, 2007 |access-date=2014-02-28 |quote=I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science. ... Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? ... I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves.}} — Johnson, "Reclaiming America for Christ Conference" (1999)</ref> All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.discovery.org/id/about/fellows/ |title=Fellows |website=Center for Science and Culture |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2018-07-15}}</ref> Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement are the products of the Discovery Institute, which guides the movement and follows its ] while conducting its "]" campaign and their other related programs. | |||
], an expert who has written extensively on the movement, describes this as being due to the Discovery Institute's obfuscating its agenda as a matter of policy. She has written that the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious world-view that undergirds it."<ref>Barbara Forrest. 2001. "</ref> | |||
Leading intelligent design proponents have made conflicting statements regarding intelligent design. In statements directed at the general public, they say intelligent design is not religious; when addressing conservative Christian supporters, they state that intelligent design has its foundation in the Bible.<ref name=PJC group="n" /> Recognizing the need for support, the Institute affirms its Christian, evangelistic orientation: | |||
{{Blockquote|Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.<ref name=wedge_doc group="n" />}} | |||
], an expert who has written extensively on the movement, describes this as being due to the Discovery Institute's obfuscating its agenda as a matter of policy. She has written that the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious worldview that undergirds it."<ref>], {{cite web |url=http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Wedge.cfm |title=The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140905230611/http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Wedge.cfm |archive-date=September 5, 2014 }}</ref> | |||
===Religion and leading proponents=== | ===Religion and leading proponents=== | ||
Although intelligent design |
Although arguments for intelligent design by the intelligent design movement are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer,<ref name=IDstatementOnCreator group="n">{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=565 |title=Does intelligent design postulate a "supernatural creator? |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |id=Truth Sheet # 09-05 |access-date=2007-07-19 |quote=... intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer. ... '... the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy.'}}</ref> the majority of principal intelligent design advocates are publicly religious Christians who have stated that, in their view, the designer proposed in intelligent design is the ]. Stuart Burgess, Phillip E. Johnson, William A. Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer are ]; Michael Behe is a ]; ] supports young Earth creationism; and ] is a member of the ]. Non-Christian proponents include ], who is ],<ref name="Judaism">{{cite web |url=http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Science/Creationism_and_Evolution/ID_Prn.shtml |title=Judaism & Intelligent Design |last=Kippley-Ogman |first=Emma |website=MyJewishLearning.com |publisher=MyJewishLearning, Inc. |location=New York |access-date=2010-11-13 |quote=But there are also Jewish voices in the intelligent design camp. David Klinghoffer, a Discovery Institute fellow, is an ardent advocate of intelligent design. In an article in The Forward (August 12, 2005), he claimed that Jewish thinkers have largely ignored intelligent design and contended that Jews, along with Christians, should adopt the theory because beliefs in God and in natural selection are fundamentally opposed. |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140306170150/http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Science/Creationism_and_Evolution/ID_Prn.shtml |archive-date=March 6, 2014 }}</ref> ] and ], who are ],<ref name="Agnostic1">], "Michael Denton, an agnostic, argues for intelligent design in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 326–343."</ref><ref name="Agnostic2">], , "In contrast to the other would-be pioneers of Intelligent Design, Denton describes himself as an agnostic, and his book was released by a secular publishing house."</ref><ref name="Representation">{{cite web |url=https://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/#generalQuestions |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=CSC – Frequently Asked Questions: General Questions: Is Discovery Institute a religious organization? |website=Center for Science and Culture |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2018-07-15 |quote=Discovery Institute is a secular think tank, and its Board members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, including mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic. Until recently the Chairman of Discovery's Board of Directors was former Congressman John Miller, who is Jewish. Although it is not a religious organization, the Institute has a long record of supporting religious liberty and the legitimate role of faith-based institutions in a pluralistic society. In fact, it sponsored a program for several years for college students to teach them the importance of religious liberty and the separation of church and state.}}</ref> and ], a ] ].<ref name="Muslim1">], : "Among Muslims involved with ID, the most notable is Muzaffar Iqbal, a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, a leading ID organization."</ref><ref name="Muslim2">], : "Muzaffar Iqbal, president of the Center for Islam and Science, has recently endorsed work by intelligent design theorist William Dembski."</ref> Phillip E. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments that are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic ] is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the designer. Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having intelligent design identified "as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message."<ref group="n">{{cite magazine |last=Johnson |first=Phillip E. |date=April 1999 |title=Keeping the Darwinists Honest |url=http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/citmag99.htm |magazine=Citizen |location=Colorado Springs, Colo. |publisher=] |issn=1084-6832 |access-date=2014-02-28 |quote=ID is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. ... The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed.}}</ref> Johnson emphasizes that "...the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact."<ref name="Johnson-Touchstone">{{cite magazine |last=Johnson |first=Phillip E. |date=July–August 1999 |title=The Wedge: Breaking the Modernist Monopoly on Science |url=http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-04-018-f |magazine=Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity |location=Chicago |publisher=Fellowship of St. James |volume=12 |issue=4 |issn=0897-327X |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> | ||
The ] of deliberately disguising the religious intent of intelligent design has been described by William Dembski in ''The Design Inference''.<ref |
The ] of deliberately disguising the religious intent of intelligent design has been described by William A. Dembski in ''The Design Inference''.<ref>]</ref> In this work, Dembski lists a ] or an "]" as two possible options for the identity of the designer; however, in his book '']'' (1999), Dembski states: | ||
{{Blockquote|Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ.<ref>], p. 210</ref>}} | |||
Barbara Forrest contends that such statements reveal that leading proponents see intelligent design as essentially religious in nature, not merely a scientific concept that has implications with which their personal religious beliefs happen to coincide.<ref>Barbara Forrest. Expert Testimony. '']'' trial transcript, Day 6 (]) <cite>"What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own." ... "Intelligent design, as it is understood by the proponents that we are discussing today, does involve a supernatural creator, and that is my objection. And I am objecting to it as they have defined it, as Professor Johnson has defined intelligent design, and as Dr. Dembski has defined intelligent design. And both of those are basically religious. They involve the supernatural."</cite> </ref> | |||
Dembski also stated, "ID is part of God's ] ... Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology []], which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120729035206/http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm |url-status=dead |archive-date=July 29, 2012 |title=Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris |last=Dembski |first=William |date=February 1, 2005 |website=DesignInference.com |publisher=William Dembski |location=Pella, Iowa |access-date=2014-02-28 }}</ref> Both Johnson and Dembski cite the Bible's ] as the foundation of intelligent design.<ref name=dembski_logos/><ref name=PJC group="n" /> | |||
==Controversy== | |||
A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is convincing the general public that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved, in order to convince the public, politicians and cultural leaders that schools should "]."<ref>Seattle Times. ] 2005. </ref> However, there is no such debate within the scientific community; the ] is that life evolved.<ref>National Association of Biology Teachers </ref><ref> Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the ] ] (PDF file)</ref><ref>From the ], the world's largest general scientific society: (PDF file), </ref> Intelligent design is widely viewed as a ] for its proponents' campaign against what they say is the ] foundation of science, which they argue leaves no room for the possibility of God.<ref> Mark Coultan, Sydney Morning Herald ] 2005</ref><ref> Americans United for Separation of Church and State, February 2005 </ref> | |||
Barbara Forrest contends such statements reveal that leading proponents see intelligent design as essentially religious in nature, not merely a scientific concept that has implications with which their personal religious beliefs happen to coincide.<ref group="n">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6pm2.html |title=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 2 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston |access-date=2014-02-28 |quote=What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own. ... Intelligent design, as it is understood by the proponents that we are discussing today, does involve a supernatural creator, and that is my objection. And I am objecting to it as they have defined it, as Professor Johnson has defined intelligent design, and as Dr. Dembski has defined intelligent design. And both of those are basically religious. They involve the supernatural.}} — Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.</ref> She writes that the leading proponents of intelligent design are closely allied with the ultra-conservative ] movement. She lists connections of (current and former) Discovery Institute Fellows Phillip E. Johnson, Charles B. Thaxton, Michael Behe, ], Jonathan Wells and ] to leading Christian Reconstructionist organizations, and the extent of the funding provided the Institute by ], a leading figure in the Reconstructionist movement.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /> | |||
The intelligent design controversy centers on three issues: | |||
===Reaction from other creationist groups=== | |||
# Can intelligent design be defined as science? | |||
Not all creationist organizations have embraced the intelligent design movement. According to Thomas Dixon, "Religious leaders have come out against ID too. An open letter affirming the compatibility of Christian faith and the teaching of evolution, first produced in response to controversies in Wisconsin in 2004, has now been signed by over ten thousand clergy from different Christian denominations across America."<ref name=Dixon82/> ] of ], a proponent of ], believes that the efforts of intelligent design proponents to divorce the concept from Biblical Christianity make its hypothesis too vague. In 2002, he wrote: "Winning the argument for design without identifying the designer yields, at best, a sketchy origins model. Such a model makes little if any positive impact on the community of scientists and other scholars. ... the time is right for a direct approach, a single leap into the origins fray. Introducing a biblically based, scientifically verifiable creation model represents such a leap."<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Ross |first=Hugh |author-link=Hugh Ross (creationist) |date=July 2002 |title=More Than Intelligent Design |url=http://www.reasons.org/articles/more-than-intelligent-design |magazine=Facts for Faith |location=Glendora, Calif. |publisher=] |issue=10 |oclc=52894856 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> | |||
# If so, does the evidence support it and related explanations of the history of life on Earth? | |||
# If the answer to either question is negative, is the teaching of such explanations appropriate and legal in public education, specifically in ] classes? | |||
Likewise, two of the most prominent YEC organizations in the world have attempted to distinguish their views from those of the intelligent design movement. ] of the ] (ICR) wrote, in 1999, that ID, "even if well-meaning and effectively articulated, will not work! It has often been tried in the past and has failed, and it will fail today. The reason it won't work is because it is not the Biblical method." According to Morris: "The evidence of intelligent design ... must be either followed by or accompanied by a sound presentation of true Biblical creationism if it is to be meaningful and lasting."<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Morris |first=Henry M. |author-link=Henry M. Morris |date=July 1999 |title=Design Is Not Enough! |url=http://www.icr.org/article/design-not-enough/ |magazine=Back to Genesis |location=Santee, Calif. |publisher=] |issue=127 |oclc=26390403 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> In 2002, ], then of ] (AiG), criticized design advocates who, though well-intentioned, "'left the Bible out of it'" and thereby unwittingly aided and abetted the modern rejection of the Bible. Wieland explained that "AiG's major 'strategy' is to boldly, but humbly, call the church back to its Biblical foundations ... we neither count ourselves a part of this movement nor campaign against it."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp |title=AiG's views on the Intelligent Design Movement |last=Wieland |first=Carl |author-link=Carl Wieland |date=August 30, 2002 |website=] |location=Hebron, Ky. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20021015010305/http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp |archive-date=October 15, 2002 |access-date=April 25, 2007}}</ref> | |||
] uses the ] to create '']'' knowledge based on observation alone (sometimes called ]). Intelligent design proponents seek to change this definition<ref>Barbara Forrest, 2000. "." In ''Philo,'' Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall-Winter 2000), pp. 7–29.</ref> by eliminating "] ]" from science<ref>Phillip E. Johnson. Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education (InterVarsity Press, 1995), positions himself as a "theistic realist" against "methodological naturalism."</ref> and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, ], calls "]",<ref>Phillip Johnson. <cite>"My colleagues and I speak of 'theistic realism'— or sometimes, 'mere creation' — as the defining concept of our movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology."</cite> </ref> and what critics call "methodological supernaturalism," which means belief in a transcendent, nonnatural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, nonnatural deity. Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena and that supernatural explanations provide a very simple and intuitive<ref>Phillip E. Johnson, quoted. 2001. Teresa Watanabe. Los Angeles Times (Sunday Front page) ] ]. <cite>"We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise,"</cite> Johnson said. In challenging Darwinism with a God-friendly alternative theory, the professor, who is a Presbyterian, added, <cite>"We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."</cite> </ref> explanation for the origins of life and the universe. Proponents say that evidence exists in the forms of ] and ] that cannot be explained by natural processes.<ref name=DIposition/> | |||
===Reaction from the scientific community=== | |||
Supporters also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, saying that teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs. ], they argue, allows for the possibility of religious belief, without causing the state to actually promote such beliefs. Many intelligent design followers believe that "]" is itself a religion that promotes ] and ] in an attempt to erase ] from public life, and they view their work in the promotion of intelligent design as a way to return religion to a central role in education and other public spheres. Some allege that this larger debate is often the subtext for arguments made over intelligent design, though others note that intelligent design serves as an effective proxy for the religious beliefs of prominent intelligent design proponents in their efforts to advance their religious point of view within society.<ref>Joel Belz, 1996. World Magazine. </ref><ref>Phillip E. Johnson. American Family Radio. ] 2003 <cite>"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."</cite> </ref><ref>Jon Buell & Virginia Hearn (eds), 1992. Proceedings of a Symposium entitled: " (PDF file)</ref> | |||
The unequivocal ] in the ] is that intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science curriculum.<ref name="consensus">''See:'' | |||
* ] | |||
* {{Cite court|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|vol=04|reporter=cv|opinion=2688|date=December 20, 2005}} ] p. 83 | |||
* The Discovery Institute's '']'' petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 700 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. The four-day '']'' petition gained 7,733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. | |||
* ]. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID. | |||
* More than 70,000 Australian scientists | |||
* : List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism in the sciences. | |||
* ], "Long considered a North American phenomenon, pro-ID interest groups can also be found throughout Europe. ...Concern about this trend is now so widespread in Europe that in October 2007 the ] voted on a motion calling upon member states to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline." | |||
* ], "There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth."</ref> The U.S. ] has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the ]."<ref>], </ref> The U.S. ] and the ] have termed it ].<ref name="NSTA">''See:'' | |||
* {{cite press release |last=Workosky |first=Cindy |date=August 3, 2005 |title=National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush |url=http://old.nsta.org/about/pressroom.aspx?id=50794 |location=Arlington, Va. |publisher=] |access-date=2014-01-14 |quote='We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists ... in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom,' said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director. ... 'It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom,' said NSTA President Mike Padilla. 'Nonscientific viewpoints have little value in increasing students' knowledge of the natural world.' |archive-date=2021-09-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210908170615/https://old.nsta.org/about/pressroom.aspx?id=50794 |url-status=dead }} | |||
* ]</ref> Others in the scientific community have denounced its tactics, accusing the ID movement of manufacturing false attacks against evolution, of engaging in misinformation and misrepresentation about science, and marginalizing those who teach it.<ref name="JCI">{{cite journal |last1=Attie |first1=Alan D. |last2=Sober |first2=Elliott |author-link2=Elliott Sober |last3=Numbers |first3=Ronald L. |author-link3=Ronald Numbers |last4=Amasino |first4=Richard M. |author-link4=Richard Amasino |last5=Cox |first5=Beth |last6=Berceau |first6=Terese |author-link6=Terese Berceau |last7=Powell |first7=Thomas |last8=Cox |first8=Michael M. |date=May 1, 2006 |title=Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action |url= |journal=] |volume=116 |issue=5 |pages=1134–1138 |doi=10.1172/JCI28449 |issn=0021-9738 |pmid=16670753 |pmc=1451210 |ref=Attie, et al. 2006}}</ref> More recently, in September 2012, ] warned that creationist views threaten science education and innovations in the United States.<ref name="APNews-20120924">{{cite news |last=Lovan |first=Dylan |date=September 24, 2012 |title=Bill Nye Warns: Creation Views Threaten US Science |url=http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bill-nye-warns-creation-views-threaten-us-science |agency=] |access-date=2014-02-28 |archive-date=2013-10-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131014114115/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bill-nye-warns-creation-views-threaten-us-science |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="Youtube-20120823">{{cite web |last1=Fowler |first1=Jonathan |last2=Rodd |first2=Elizabeth|title=Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU | archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211102/gHbYJfwFgOU| archive-date=2021-11-02 | url-status=live|date=August 23, 2012 |website=YouTube |publisher=] |location=New York |access-date=2014-02-28}}{{cbignore}}</ref> | |||
In 2001, the Discovery Institute published advertisements under the heading "]", with the claim that listed scientists had signed this statement expressing skepticism: | |||
According to critics, intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case and is an attempt to teach religion in public schools, which the ] forbids under the ]. They allege that intelligent design has substituted public support for scientific research.<ref>]. ], ] ] </ref> Furthermore, if one were to take the proponents of "equal time for all theories" at their word, there would be no logical limit to the number of potential "theories" to be taught in the public school system, including intelligent design parodies like the ] "theory." There are innumerable mutually incompatible supernatural explanations for complexity, and intelligent design does not provide a mechanism for discriminating among them. Furthermore, intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable, which critics argue violates the scientific requirement of ]. Indeed, intelligent design proponent ] concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."<ref>Claudia Wallis. Time Magazine, ] ]. page 32 </ref> | |||
{{Blockquote|We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/sign_the_list.php |title=Sign – Dissent from Darwin |website=dissentfromdarwin.org |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2014-02-28 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110411085856/http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/sign_the_list.php |archive-date=April 11, 2011 }}</ref>}} | |||
Though evolution theory does not seek to explain ], the generation of life from nonliving matter, intelligent design proponents cannot ''infer'' that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically, since they have not shown that anything supernatural has occurred. The inference that an intelligent designer (a god or an alien life force)<ref name="Design Inference"/> created life on Earth has been compared to the '']'' claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids.<ref>Michael J. Murray, n.d. (PDF file)</ref><ref>Dembski. </nowiki> as an alternative to neo-Darwinian evolution in Nebraska schools?]</ref> In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable, observable or falsifiable, and it violates the principle of ]. From a strictly ] standpoint, one may list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, but one must admit ignorance about exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids. <!--paraphrasing http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/22/mooney-c.html: "intelligent design advocates don't always articulate precisely what sort of intelligence they think is the designer, but God – defined in a very nebulous way – generally out-polls ''extraterrestrials'' as the leading candidate."--> | |||
The ambiguous statement did not exclude other known evolutionary mechanisms, and most signatories were not scientists in relevant fields, but starting in 2004 the Institute claimed the increasing number of signatures indicated mounting doubts about evolution among scientists.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/2114 |title=Doubts Over Evolution Mount With Over 300 Scientists Expressing Skepticism With Central Tenet of Darwin's Theory |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=April 1, 2004 |website=Center for Science and Culture |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2014-01-02}}</ref> The statement formed a key component of ] to present intelligent design as scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support,<ref name="Evans">{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/doubting-darwinism-creative-license |title=Doubting Darwinism Through Creative License |last=Evans |first=Skip |date=April 8, 2002 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, Calif. |type=Blog |access-date=2011-04-25}}</ref><ref name="Chang">{{cite news |first=Kenneth |last=Chang |date=February 21, 2006 |title=Few Biologists But Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html |newspaper=The New York Times |access-date=2008-01-04}}</ref> with Institute members continuing to cite the list through at least 2011.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/16911 |title=A Scientific Analysis of Karl Giberson and Francis Collins' ''The Language of Science and Faith'' |last=Luskin |first=Casey |date=June 1, 2011 |website=Evolution News & Views |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2014-01-02}}</ref> As part of a strategy to counter these claims, scientists organised ], which gained more signatories named Steve (or variants) than the Institute's petition, and a counter-petition, "]", which quickly gained similar numbers of signatories. | |||
Although intelligent design proponents aim to gain support by unifying the religious world — Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who believe in a creator — in challenging Darwinism with a God-friendly alternative theory,<ref>, Teresa Watanabe. Los Angeles Times (Sunday Front page) ], ]</ref> mainstream religious denominations have responded by ]. They state that their religious faith is fully compatible with science, which is limited to dealing only with the natural world;<ref>], who sees "purpose and design in the natural world", has "no difficulty... with the theory of evolution the borders of scientific theory." October 2005 </ref> a position described by the term '']''.<ref>by ], 2000</ref> As well as pointing out that intelligent design is not science, they also reject it for various philosophical and theological reasons.<ref> (pdf), The ] Committee on Public Education and Literacy, , March 2006</ref><ref>, 2002</ref> The arguments of intelligent design have been directly challenged by over 10,000 ] signing the ]. Prominent scientists who strongly express religious faith, such as the astronomer ] and the biologist ], have been at the forefront of opposition to intelligent design. While creationist organizations have welcomed intelligent design's support against ], they have also been critical of its refusal to identify the designer,<ref>, ], February 2006</ref><ref> by ]</ref><ref></ref> and have pointed to previous failures of the same argument.<ref> by Carl Wieland, August 2002</ref> | |||
===Polls=== | |||
===Defining intelligent design as science=== | |||
Several surveys were conducted prior to the December 2005 decision in ''Kitzmiller v. Dover School District'', which sought to determine the level of support for intelligent design among certain groups. According to a 2005 ], 10% of adults in the United States viewed human beings as "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581 |title=Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=July 6, 2005 |website=The Harris Poll |publisher=] |location=Rochester, N.Y. |id=#52 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051217080148/http://harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581 |archive-date=December 17, 2005 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> Although ] commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support, these polls suffer from considerable flaws, such as having a low response rate (248 out of 16,000), being conducted on behalf of an organization with an expressed interest in the outcome of the poll, and containing ]s.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nmsr.org/id-poll.htm |title=Sandia National Laboratories says that the Intelligent Design Network (IDNet-NM/Zogby) 'Lab Poll' is BOGUS! |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=New Mexicans for Science and Reason |publisher=NMSR |location=Peralta, N.M. |access-date=2007-07-13}}</ref><ref name="Polling_for_ID">{{cite web |url=http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/polling/ |title=Polling for ID |last=Mooney |first=Chris |author-link=Chris Mooney (journalist) |date=September 11, 2003 |website=Committee for Skeptical Inquiry |location=Amherst, N.Y. |type=Blog |publisher=Center for Inquiry |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080327041611/http://csicop.org/doubtandabout/polling/ |archive-date=March 27, 2008 |access-date=2007-02-16}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://blogs.salon.com/0001092/2003/07/30.html |title='Intelligent Design'-ers launch new assault on curriculum using lies and deception |last=Harris |first=David |date=July 30, 2003 |website=] |location=San Francisco |type=Blog |publisher=Salon Media Group |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030816135718/http://blogs.salon.com/0001092/2003/07/30.html |archive-date=August 16, 2003 |access-date=2007-07-13}}</ref> | |||
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating ] and acquiring new ] of the ] without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called ]. Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to ] ] and have often said that not only is their own position scientific, but it is even more scientific than evolution, and that they want a redefinition of science as a revived ] or ] to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design."<ref>Stephen C. Meyer, 2005. </ref> This presents a ], which in the ] is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific, it must be: | |||
:* ''Consistent'' (internally and externally) | |||
:* ''Parsimonious'' (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see ]) | |||
:* ''Useful'' (describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena) | |||
:* ''Empirically testable and falsifiable'' (see ]) | |||
:* ''Based on multiple observations'', often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments | |||
:* ''Correctable and dynamic'' (changes are made as new data are discovered) | |||
:* ''Progressive'' (achieves all that previous theories have and more) | |||
:* ''Provisional'' or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty) | |||
The 2017 ] creationism survey found that 38% of adults in the United States hold the view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings, which was noted as being at the lowest level in 35 years.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx|title=In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low|website=]|last=Swift|first=Art|date=22 May 2017}}</ref> Previously, a series of Gallup polls in the United States from 1982 through 2014 on "Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design" found support for "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced formed of life, but God guided the process" of between 31% and 40%, support for "God created human beings in pretty much their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" varied from 40% to 47%, and support for "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in the process" varied from 9% to 19%. The polls also noted answers to a series of more detailed questions.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx |title=In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=Gallup.Com |date=2 June 2014 |location=Omaha |publisher=Gallup, Inc. |access-date=2016-01-30}}</ref> | |||
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,<ref>Intelligent design is generally internally consistent and logical only within the framework in which it operates. Criticisms are that this framework has at its foundation an unsupported, unjustified assumption: that complexity and improbability must entail design, but the identity and characteristics of the designer are not identified or quantified, nor need they be. The framework of intelligent design, because it rests on a unquantifiable and unverifiable assertion, has no defined boundaries except that complexity and improbability require design, and the designer need not be constrained by the laws of physics.</ref> violates the principle of parsimony,<ref>Intelligent design fails to pass Occam's razor. Adding entities (an intelligent agent, a designer) to the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events.</ref> is not falsifiable,<ref>The designer is not falsifiable, since its existence is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. The designer being beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can be neither supported nor undermined by observation, making intelligent design and the argument from design analytic ''a posteriori'' arguments.</ref> is not empirically testable,<ref>That intelligent design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that it violates a basic premise of science, naturalism.</ref> and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.<ref>Intelligent design professes to offer an answer that does not need to be defined or explained, the intelligent agent, designer. By asserting a conclusion that cannot be accounted for scientifically, ''the designer'', intelligent design cannot be sustained by any further explanation, and objections raised to those who accept intelligent design make little headway. Thus intelligent design is not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that a conclusion that need not be accounted for has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data.</ref> | |||
===Allegations of discrimination against ID proponents=== | |||
In light of its apparent failure to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005, 38 ] issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."<ref>The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative. Intelligent design cannot be tested as a scientific theory <cite>"because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."</cite> (PDF file)</ref> And in October 2005 a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory."<ref> Faculty of Science, University of New South Wales. ] ]. </ref> | |||
{{Main|Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed}} | |||
There have been allegations that ID proponents have met discrimination, such as being refused tenure or being harshly criticized on the Internet. In the ] '']'', released in 2008, host ] presents five such cases. The film contends that the mainstream science establishment, in a "scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation's laboratories and classrooms", suppresses academics who believe they see evidence of intelligent design in nature or criticize evidence of evolution.<ref name="Cornelia_Dean">{{cite news |last=Dean |first=Cornelia |date=September 27, 2007 |title=Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin& |newspaper=The New York Times |access-date=2014-05-14 |ref=Dean 2007}}</ref><ref name="Premise_pressrelease">{{cite press release |last=Burbridge-Bates |first=Lesley |date=August 14, 2007 |title=What Happened to Freedom of Speech? |url=http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/55281599.html |location=Los Angeles |publisher=Motive Entertainment; Premise Media Corporation |access-date=2014-05-14}}</ref> Investigation into these allegations turned up alternative explanations for perceived persecution.<ref group=n>{{cite web |url=https://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2007/jun/statement.shtml |title=Statement from Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy |last=Geoffroy |first=Gregory |author-link=Gregory L. Geoffroy |date=June 1, 2007 |website=News Service: Iowa State University |publisher=] |location=Ames, Ohio |access-date=2007-12-16}} | |||
Critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for ] used by most courts, the ]. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four ] are: | |||
* {{cite web |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know/ |title=Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know... |last1=Rennie |first1=John |author-link1=John Rennie (editor) |last2=Mirsky |first2=Steve |author-link2=Steve Mirsky |date=April 16, 2008 |work=] |publisher=] |location=Stuttgart, Germany |issn=0036-8733 |access-date=2014-06-24}} | |||
:* The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified. | |||
* {{cite news |last=Vedantam |first=Shankar |date=February 5, 2006 |title=Eden and Evolution |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020300822_pf.html |access-date=2008-02-16 |newspaper=] |page=W08 |quote=GMU spokesman Daniel Walsch denied that the school had fired Crocker. She was a part-time faculty member, he said, and was let go at the end of her contract period for reasons unrelated to her views on intelligent design.}}</ref> | |||
:* The methods should preferably be published in a ] journal. | |||
:* There should be a known rate of ] that can be used in evaluating the results. | |||
:* The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community. | |||
The film portrays intelligent design as motivated by science, rather than religion, though it does not give a detailed definition of the phrase or attempt to explain it on a scientific level. Other than briefly addressing issues of irreducible complexity, ''Expelled'' examines it as a political issue.<ref name="Colorado_Independent" /><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rogerebert.com/scanners/ben-stein-no-argument-allowed |title=Ben Stein: No argument allowed |last=Emerson |first=Jim |date=December 17, 2008 |website=RogerEbert.com |publisher=Ebert Digital LLC |location=Chicago |type=Blog |access-date=2014-05-14 |quote=One spokesman comes close to articulating a thought about Intelligent Design: '"If you define evolution precisely, though, to mean the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection{{snd}}that's a textbook definition of neo-Darwinism{{snd}}biologists of the first rank have real questions... 'Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence.'}}</ref> The scientific theory of evolution is portrayed by the film as contributing to ], ], ], ], and ].<ref name="Colorado_Independent">{{cite news |last=Whipple |first=Dan |date=December 16, 2007 |title=Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies |url=http://www.coloradoindependent.com/3116/science-sunday-intelligent-design-goes-to-the-movies |work=] |type=Blog |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=] |access-date=2014-05-14}}</ref><ref name="Catsoulis">{{cite news |last=Catsoulis |first=Jeannette |date=April 18, 2008 |title=Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html |newspaper=The New York Times |type=Movie review |access-date=2014-05-14}}</ref> | |||
In deciding '']'' on ], ], Judge ] agreed with the plaintiffs, ] "we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." | |||
''Expelled'' has been used in private screenings to legislators as part of the ] for ].<ref name="WSJschools">{{cite news |last=Simon |first=Stephanie |date=May 2, 2008 |title=Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools |url=https://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB120967537476060561?mod=googlenews_wsj&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB120967537476060561.html%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj |newspaper=] |access-date=2014-05-14}}</ref> Review screenings were restricted to churches and Christian groups, and at a special pre-release showing, one of the interviewees, ], was refused admission. The American Association for the Advancement of Science describes the film as dishonest and divisive propaganda aimed at introducing religious ideas into public school science classrooms,<ref name="AAASPressRelease">{{cite web |last=Lempinen |first=Edward W. |date=April 18, 2008 |title=New AAAS Statement Decries 'Profound Dishonesty' of Intelligent Design Movie |url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2008/0418expelled.shtml |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080425000539/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2008/0418expelled.shtml |archive-date=April 25, 2008 |access-date =2008-04-20}}</ref> and the ] has denounced the film's allegation that evolutionary theory influenced the Holocaust.<ref>{{cite AV media |people=Frankowski, Nathan (Director) |year=2008 |title=] |medium=Motion picture |publisher=Premise Media Corporation; Rampant Films |oclc=233721412}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.livescience.com/2432-anti-evolution-film-stirs-controversy.html |title=New Anti-Evolution Film Stirs Controversy |last=Mosher |first=Dave |date=April 3, 2008 |website=] |location=New York |publisher=] |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> The film includes interviews with scientists and academics who were misled into taking part by misrepresentation of the topic and title of the film. Skeptic ] describes his experience of being repeatedly asked the same question without context as "surreal".<ref>{{cite web |author=Josh Timonen |url=http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/2400-expelled-overview |title=Expelled Overview |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150317175934/http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/2400-expelled-overview |archive-date=March 17, 2015 |work=The Richard Dawkins Center for Reason and Science |date=March 24, 2008 |access-date=March 13, 2015}}</ref> | |||
====Peer review==== | |||
The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community which withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design's being considered valid science.<ref name=kitzruling_pg87> ]</ref> To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed ].<ref name=kitzruling_pg87/><ref name="aaas_pr"/> | |||
==Criticism== | |||
Intelligent design, by appealing to a ] agent, directly conflicts with the ]s of ], which limit its inquiries to ], observable and ultimately ] ] and which require explanations to be based on empirical ]. Dembski, Behe and other intelligent design proponents say bias by the scientific community is to blame for the failure of their research to be published. Intelligent design proponents believe that their writings are rejected for not conforming to purely naturalistic, nonsupernatural mechanisms rather than because their research is not up to "journal standards" and that the merit of their articles is overlooked. Some scientists describe this claim as a ].<ref>John Hawks. </ref> The issue that the supernatural explanations do not conform to the ] became a sticking point for intelligent design proponents in the 1990s and is addressed in the ] as an aspect of science that must be challenged before intelligent design could be accepted by the broader scientific community. | |||
===Scientific criticism=== | |||
The debate over whether intelligent design produces new research, as any scientific field must, and has legitimately attempted to publish this research, is extremely heated. Both critics and advocates point to numerous examples to make their case. For instance, the ], a former funder of the Discovery Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that it asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, but none were ever submitted. Charles L. Harper Jr., foundation vice-president, said: "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review."<ref>Laurie Goodstein. The New York Times. December 4, 2005. </ref> | |||
{{Main|Intelligent design and science}} | |||
Advocates of intelligent design seek to keep God and the Bible out of the discussion, and present intelligent design in the language of science as though it were a scientific hypothesis.<ref name="IDstatementOnCreator" group="n" /><ref name="Johnson-Touchstone" /> For a theory to qualify as scientific,<ref group="n">], Chapters 5–8. Discusses principles of induction, deduction and probability related to the expectation of consistency, testability, and multiple observations. Chapter 8 discusses parsimony (Occam's razor).</ref><ref>]. Chapter 2 discusses the scientific method, including the principles of falsifiability, testability, progressive development of theory, dynamic self-correcting of hypotheses, and parsimony, or "Occam's razor".</ref><ref name="kitzruling_pg64" group="n">{{cite court | |||
The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.<ref> regarding publication of a paper by Stephen Meyer</ref> Written by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture Director ], it appeared in the peer-reviewed journal ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' in August 2004. The article was ], which means that it did not present any new research but, rather, culled quotations and claims from other papers to argue that the ] could not have happened by natural processes. The choice of venue for this article was also considered problematic, because it was so outside the normal subject matter (see ]). Dembski has written that <cite>"perhaps the best reason is that intelligent design has yet to establish itself as a thriving scientific research program."</cite><ref> Dembski. Is Intelligent Design a Form of Natural Theology? </ref> In a 2001 interview, Dembski said that he stopped submitting to peer-reviewed journals because of their slow time-to-print and that he makes more money from publishing books.<ref>Beth McMurtrie. The Chronicle Of Higher Education. 2001. "</ref> | |||
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District | |||
|volume=04 | |||
|reporter=cv | |||
|opinion=2688 | |||
|date=December 20, 2005 | |||
}} ], p. 64. The ruling discusses central aspects of expectations in the scientific community that a scientific theory be testable, dynamic, correctible, progressive, based upon multiple observations, and provisional.</ref> it is expected to be: | |||
* Consistent | |||
* Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations; see ]) | |||
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used in a predictive manner) | |||
* Empirically testable and ] (potentially confirmable or disprovable by experiment or observation) | |||
* Based on multiple observations (often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments) | |||
* Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it) | |||
* Progressive (refines previous theories) | |||
* Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty) | |||
For any theory, hypothesis, or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,<ref name="Perakh2005b">See, e.g., {{cite journal |last=Perakh |first=Mark |year=2005 |title=The Dream World of William Dembski's Creationism |url=http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Skeptic_paper.cfm |journal=] |volume=11 |issue=4 |pages=54–65 |issn=1063-9330 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> violates the principle of parsimony,<ref group="n">See, e.g., ], "How Not to Detect Design–Critical Notice: William A. Dembski ''The Design Inference''", pp. 597–616. Intelligent design fails to pass Occam's razor. Adding entities (an intelligent agent, a designer) to the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events.</ref> is not scientifically useful,<ref group="n">See, e.g., {{cite web |url=http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/schneider/evolution.htm |title=Professor Schneider's thoughts on Evolution and Intelligent Design |last=Schneider |first=Jill E. |website=Department of Biological Sciences |publisher=] |location=Bethlehem, Pa. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060902030147/http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/schneider/evolution.htm |archive-date=September 2, 2006 |access-date=2014-02-28 |quote=Q: Why couldn't intelligent design also be a scientific theory? A: The idea of intelligent design might or might not be true, but when presented as a scientific hypothesis, it is not useful because it is based on weak assumptions, lacks supporting data and terminates further thought.}}</ref> is not falsifiable,<ref group="n">See, e.g., {{cite court | |||
In the ], the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing.<ref name=kitzruling_pg88>]</ref> There, intelligent design proponents cited just one paper, on simulation modeling of evolution by Behe and Snoke, which mentioned neither irreducible complexity nor intelligent design and which Behe admitted did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms.<ref name=kitzruling_pg88/> But in sworn testimony, Behe said: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."<ref>]'', ] ], AM session </ref> As summarized by the judge, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his claims of intelligent design or irreducible complexity. In his ruling, the judge wrote: "A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory."<ref name=kitzruling_pg87/> | |||
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District | |||
|volume=04 | |||
Despite this, the Discovery Institute continues to insist that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals,<ref>Discovery Institute. </ref> including in their list the two articles mentioned above. Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, pointing out that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Instead, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lack ] and ],<ref><cite>"With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical."</cite> Mark Isaak, TalkOrigins archive 2006 </ref> consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.<ref><cite>"ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly "peer-reviewed" journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of "peer review" that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows."</cite> Matthew J. Brauer, ], and Steven G. Gey (PDF file)</ref> | |||
|reporter=cv | |||
|opinion=2688 | |||
|date=December 20, 2005 | |||
}} ], p. 22 and ], p. 77. The designer is not falsifiable, since its existence is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. The designer being beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can be neither supported nor undermined by observation, making intelligent design and the argument from design analytic ''a posteriori'' arguments.</ref> is not empirically testable,<ref group="n">See, e.g., {{cite court | |||
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District | |||
|volume=04 | |||
|reporter=cv | |||
|opinion=2688 | |||
|date=December 20, 2005 | |||
}} ], p. 22 and ], p. 66. That intelligent design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that it violates a basic premise of science, naturalism.</ref> and is not correctable, dynamic, progressive, or provisional.<ref group="n">See, e.g., the brief explanation in {{cite court | |||
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District | |||
|vol=04 | |||
|reporter=cv | |||
|opinion=2688 | |||
|date=December 20, 2005 | |||
}} ], p. 66. Intelligent design professes to offer an answer that does not need to be defined or explained, the intelligent agent, designer. By asserting a conclusion that cannot be accounted for scientifically, ''the designer'', intelligent design cannot be sustained by any further explanation, and objections raised to those who accept intelligent design make little headway. Thus intelligent design is not a provisional assessment of data, which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that a conclusion that need not be accounted for has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data.</ref><ref group="n">{{cite web |url=http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf |title=Nobel Laureates Initiative |date=September 9, 2005 |publisher=The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity |type=Letter |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051007161950/http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf |archive-date=October 7, 2005 |access-date=2014-02-28}} The September 2005 statement by 38 ] stated that: "...intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."</ref><ref group="n">{{cite web |url=http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html |title=Intelligent Design is not Science: Scientists and teachers speak out |date=October 2005 |website=Faculty of Science |publisher=] |location=Sydney |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060614003243/http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html |archive-date=June 14, 2006 |access-date=2009-01-09}} The October 2005 statement, by a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers said: "intelligent design is not science" and "urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science."</ref> | |||
Intelligent design proponents seek to change this fundamental basis of science<ref name="Forrest2000">{{cite journal |last=Forrest |first=Barbara |date=Fall–Winter 2000 |title=Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection |url=http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html |journal=] |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=7–29 |issn=1098-3570 |access-date=2007-07-27 |doi=10.5840/philo20003213}}</ref> by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from science<ref>]. <nowiki>Johnson positions himself as a "theistic realist" against "methodological naturalism".</nowiki></ref> and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, calls "]".<ref name="Johnsonconversation" group="n"> | |||
===Intelligence as an observable quality=== | |||
], "My colleagues and I speak of 'theistic realism'—or sometimes, 'mere creation'—as the defining concept of our movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology."</ref> Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena and that supernatural explanations provide a simple and intuitive explanation for the origins of life and the universe.<ref name="Watanabe" group="n">{{cite news |last=Watanabe |first=Teresa |date=March 25, 2001 |title=Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-mar-25-mn-42548-story.html |newspaper=] |quote='We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. ...'We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.' |access-date=2014-02-28}} — Phillip E. Johnson</ref> Many intelligent design followers believe that "]" is itself a religion that promotes ] and materialism in an attempt to erase ] from public life, and they view their work in the promotion of intelligent design as a way to return religion to a central role in education and other public spheres. | |||
The phrase ''intelligent'' design makes use of an assumption of the quality of an observable ], a concept that has no ] definition. William Dembski, for example, has written that "Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature." The characteristics of intelligence are assumed by intelligent design proponents to be ] without specifying what the criteria for the ] of intelligence should be. Dembski, instead, asserts that "in special sciences ranging from ] to ] to ] (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), appeal to a designing intelligence is indispensable."<ref>Dembski. Natural History magazine. April 2002. </ref> How this appeal is made and what this implies as to the definition of intelligence are topics left largely unaddressed. ], a researcher with the ], refuted Dembski's comparison of SETI and intelligent design, saying that intelligent design advocates base their inference of design on complexity — the argument being that some biological systems are too complex to have been made by natural processes — while SETI researchers are looking primarily for ].<ref>Shostak. space.com <cite>"In fact, the signals actually sought by today’s SETI searches are not complex, as the ID advocates assume. ... If SETI were to announce that we’re not alone because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of artificiality."</cite> Seth Shostak. SETI Institute, December 2005.</ref> | |||
It has been argued that methodological naturalism is not an ''assumption'' of science, but a ''result'' of science well done: the God explanation is the least parsimonious, so according to ], it cannot be a scientific explanation.<ref name="Jennings2015">{{cite book|first=Byron K.|last=Jennings|title=In Defense of Scientism: An Insider's view of Science|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=c-C-BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA60|year=2015|publisher=Byron Jennings|isbn=978-0994058928|page=60}}</ref> | |||
Critics say that the design detection methods proposed by intelligent design proponents are radically different from conventional design detection, undermining the key elements that make it possible as legitimate science. Intelligent design proponents, they say, are proposing both searching for a designer without knowing anything about that designer's abilities, parameters, or intentions (which scientists do know when searching for the results of human intelligence), as well as denying the very distinction between natural/artificial design that allows scientists to compare complex designed artifacts against the background of the sorts of complexity found in nature.<ref>"For human artifacts, we know the designer's identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer's abilities, needs, and desires. With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer's identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies." — ]</ref> | |||
The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design being accepted as valid science.<ref name="kitzruling_pg87">{{cite court | |||
As a means of criticism, certain ] have pointed to a challenge of intelligent design derived from the study of ]. The criticism is a counter to intelligent design claims about what makes a design intelligent, specifically that "no preprogrammed device can be truly intelligent, that intelligence is irreducible to natural processes."<ref>Taner Edis. Skeptical Inquirer Magazine, March/April 2001 issue. </ref> This claim is similar in type to an assumption of ] that posits a strict separation between "mind" and the material universe. However, in studies of artificial intelligence, while there is an implicit assumption that supposed "intelligence" or ] of a ] is determined by the capabilities given to it by the computer ], artificial intelligence need not be bound to an inflexible system of rules. Rather, if a computer program can access ] as a function, this effectively allows for a flexible, creative, and adaptive intelligence. ], a subfield of machine learning (itself a subfield of artificial intelligence), have been used to mathematically demonstrate that randomness and selection can be used to "evolve" complex, highly adapted structures that are not explicitly designed by a programmer. Evolutionary algorithms use the Darwinian metaphor of random mutation, selection and the survival of the fittest to solve diverse mathematical and scientific problems that are usually not solvable using conventional methods. Furthermore, forays into such areas as ] seem to indicate that real probabilistic functions may be available in the future. Intelligence derived from randomness is essentially indistinguishable from the "innate" intelligence associated with biological organisms, and poses a challenge to the intelligent design conception that intelligence itself necessarily requires a designer. ] continues to investigate the nature of intelligence to that end, but the intelligent design community for the most part relies on the assumption that intelligence is readily apparent as a fundamental and basic property of complex systems.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} | |||
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District | |||
|volume=04 | |||
|reporter=cv | |||
|opinion=2688 | |||
|date=December 20, 2005 | |||
}} ], p. 87</ref> The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article supporting ID in a scientific journal, and has failed to publish supporting peer-reviewed research or data.<ref name="kitzruling_pg87" /> The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was ] for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.<ref>{{cite journal |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |year=2004 |title=Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington |url=http://biostor.org/reference/81375 |journal=Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington |volume=117 |issue=3 |pages=241 |issn=0006-324X |oclc=1536434 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> The Discovery Institute says that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 |title=Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) |date=February 1, 2012 |website=Center for Science and Culture |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2014-02-28 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070804092839/http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 |archive-date=August 4, 2007 }} The July 1, 2007, version of page is .</ref> but critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim and state intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with peer review that lack impartiality and rigor,<ref group="n">{{cite journal|last1=Brauer |first1=Matthew J. |last2=Forrest |first2=Barbara |author-link2=Barbara Forrest |last3=Gey |first3=Steven G. |author-link3=Steven Gey |year=2005 |title=Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution |url=http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1229&context=lawreview |format=PDF |journal=Washington University Law Review |volume=83 |issue=1 |pages=79–80 |issn=2166-7993 |access-date=2014-02-28 |quote=ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly 'peer-reviewed' journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of 'peer review' that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows. |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131220073757/http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1229&context=lawreview |archive-date=December 20, 2013 }}</ref> consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.<ref group="n">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html |title=CI001.4: Intelligent Design and peer review |editor-last=Isaak |editor-first=Mark |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston |access-date=2014-02-28 |quote=With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical. | |||
}}</ref> | |||
Further criticism stems from the fact that the phrase ''intelligent'' design makes use of an assumption of the quality of an observable intelligence, a concept that has no ] definition. The characteristics of intelligence are assumed by intelligent design proponents to be observable without specifying what the criteria for the measurement of intelligence should be. Critics say that the design detection methods proposed by intelligent design proponents are radically different from conventional design detection, undermining the key elements that make it possible as legitimate science. Intelligent design proponents, they say, are proposing both searching for a designer without knowing anything about that designer's abilities, parameters, or intentions (which scientists do know when searching for the results of human intelligence), as well as denying the distinction between natural/artificial design that allows scientists to compare complex designed artifacts against the background of the sorts of complexity found in nature.<ref group="n">{{cite court | |||
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District | |||
|volume=04 | |||
|reporter=cv | |||
|opinion=2688 | |||
|date=December 20, 2005 | |||
}} ], p. 81. "For human artifacts, we know the designer's identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon ] that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer's abilities, needs, and desires. With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer's identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."</ref> | |||
Among a significant proportion of the general public in the United States, the major concern is whether conventional evolutionary biology is compatible with belief in God and in the Bible, and how this issue is taught in schools.<ref name="Time-15-Aug-2005" /> The Discovery Institute's "]" campaign promotes intelligent design while attempting to discredit evolution in United States public high school science courses.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /><ref name=meyer_seattle_times>{{cite news |last=Shaw |first=Linda |date=March 31, 2005 |title=Does Seattle group 'teach controversy' or contribute to it? |url=http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002225932_design31m.html |newspaper=] |publisher=] |access-date=2014-02-28 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131224195947/http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002225932_design31m.html |archive-date=December 24, 2013 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |date=November 9, 2005 |title=Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate |url=https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1297170&WNT=true |work=] |location=New York |publisher=] |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Mooney |first=Chris |date=December 2002 |title=Survival of the Slickest |url=http://prospect.org/article/survival-slickest |work=] |location=Washington, D.C. |volume=13 |issue=22 |access-date=2014-02-28 |quote=ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser ] heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former ''American Spectator'' owner ] (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a 'teach the controversy' approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists 'continue to investigate and critically analyze' aspects of Darwin's theory.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.metanexus.net/essay/teaching-intelligent-design-what-happened-when-response-eugenie-scott |title=Teaching Intelligent Design – What Happened When? A Response to Eugenie Scott |last=Dembski |first=William A. |date=February 27, 2001 |website=Metanexus |publisher=] |location=New York |quote=The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to 'teach the controversy.' There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity (cf. the ongoing events in Kansas), and it is a scientific controversy. |access-date=2014-02-28}} Dembski's response to Eugenie Scott's February 12, 2001, essay published by Metanexus, </ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/no_one_here_but.html |title=No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists… |last=Matzke |first=Nick |date=July 11, 2006 |website=The Panda's Thumb |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston |type=Blog |access-date=2014-02-28 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150906051325/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/no_one_here_but.html |archive-date=September 6, 2015 }} Nick Matzke's analysis shows how teaching the controversy using the ''Critical Analysis of Evolution'' model lesson plan is a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label.</ref>{{Excessive citations inline|date=September 2021}} The scientific community and science education organizations have replied that there is no scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics.<ref>], "That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned."</ref><ref name=AAAS>{{cite web |url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf |title=Statement on the Teaching of Evolution |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=February 16, 2006 |publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science |location=Washington, D.C. |quote=Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called 'flaws' in the theory of evolution or 'disagreements' within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific 'alternatives' to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to 'critically analyze' evolution or to understand 'the controversy.' But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060221125539/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf |archive-date=February 21, 2006 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> | |||
===Arguments from ignorance=== | ===Arguments from ignorance=== | ||
], along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are ]. |
], along with ] and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are ]. | ||
In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies on a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside science. Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a false dichotomy, where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. Scott and Branch also contend that the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research.<ref name="Scott and Branch">{{cite web | |||
|url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/intelligent-design-not-accepted-by-most-scientists |title='Intelligent Design' Not Accepted by Most Scientists |last1=Scott |first1=Eugenie C. |author-link=Eugenie Scott |last2=Branch |first2=Glenn |author-link2=Glenn Branch |date=August 12, 2002 | |||
|orig-year=Reprinted with permission from ''School Board News'', August 13, 2002 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, Calif. |type=Blog |access-date=2009-11-18}}</ref> | |||
In his conclusion to the Kitzmiller trial, Judge John E. Jones III wrote that "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." This same argument had been put forward to support creation science at the '']'' (1982) trial, which found it was "contrived dualism", the false premise of a "two model approach". Behe's argument of irreducible complexity puts forward negative arguments against evolution but does not make any positive scientific case for intelligent design. It fails to allow for scientific explanations continuing to be found, as has been the case with several examples previously put forward as supposed cases of irreducible complexity.<ref>{{cite court | |||
Intelligent design has also been characterized as a "]" argument, which has the following form: | |||
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District | |||
:*There is a gap in scientific knowledge. | |||
|vol=04 | |||
:*The gap is filled with acts of God (or ]) and therefore proves the existence of God (or ]). | |||
|reporter=cv | |||
|opinion=2688 | |||
|date=December 20, 2005 | |||
}} ], pp. 71–74.</ref> | |||
===Possible theological implications=== | |||
A ] argument is the ] version of an ]. A key feature of this type of argument is that it merely answers outstanding questions with explanations (often ]) that are unverifiable and ultimately themselves subject to unanswerable questions.<ref>See, e.g., Richard H. Bube, "Man Come Of Age: Bonhoeffer's Response To The God-Of-The-Gaps," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, volume 14 fall (1971), pages 203-220.</ref> | |||
Intelligent design proponents often insist that their claims do not require a religious component.<ref>], </ref> However, various philosophical and theological issues are naturally raised by the claims of intelligent design.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Murphy |first=George L. |year=2002 |title=Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem |url=http://puffin.creighton.edu/nrcse/IDTHG.html |journal=Covalence: The Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science and Technology |volume=IV |issue=2 |oclc=52753579 |access-date=2014-02-28 |archive-date=2016-04-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160411004103/http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/IDTHG.html |url-status=dead }} Reprinted with permission.</ref> | |||
Intelligent design proponents attempt to demonstrate scientifically that features such as irreducible complexity and specified complexity could not arise through natural processes, and therefore required repeated direct miraculous interventions by a Designer (often a Christian concept of God). They reject the possibility of a Designer who works merely through setting natural laws in motion at the outset,<ref name="PM 09">{{cite journal |last1=Padian |first1=Kevin |author-link1=Kevin Padian |last2=Matzke |first2=Nicholas J. |date=January 1, 2009 |title=Darwin, Dover, 'Intelligent Design' and textbooks |url=http://www.ntskeptics.org/news/4170029.pdf |journal=] |volume=417 |issue=1 |pages=29–42 |doi=10.1042/bj20081534 |issn=0264-6021 |pmid=19061485 |access-date=2015-11-10}}</ref> in contrast to ] (to which even ] was open<ref>], p. 484, "... probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed by the Creator."</ref>). Intelligent design is distinct because it asserts repeated miraculous interventions in addition to designed laws. This contrasts with other major religious traditions of a created world in which God's interactions and influences do not work in the same way as physical causes. The Roman Catholic tradition makes a careful distinction between ultimate ] explanations and secondary, natural causes.<ref name="Haught Witness Report" /> | |||
====Improbable versus impossible events==== | |||
] formulated the ], a reformulation of the creationist ''argument from improbability'',<ref> Jason Rosenhouse, (2001). '''' The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol. 23, No. 4, Fall 2001, pp. 3–8.</ref> which he argues is the smallest probability of anything occurring in the universe over all time at the maximum possible rate. This value, 1 in 10<sup>120</sup>, represents a revision of his original formula, which set the value of the universal probability bound at 1 in 10<sup>150</sup>.<ref>William A. Dembski (2004). '']''</ref> In 2005 Dembski again revised his definition to be the inverse of the product of two different quantities, 10<sup>120</sup> and the variable rank complexity of the event under consideration.<ref> The rank complexity is Dembski's φ function, which ranks patterns in order of their ]. See ].</ref> | |||
The concept of direct miraculous intervention raises other potential theological implications. If such a Designer does not intervene to alleviate suffering even though capable of intervening for other reasons, some imply the designer is not ] (see ] and related ]).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://designinference.com/documents/2003.04.CTNS_theodicy.pdf |archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20070614103827/http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.04.CTNS_theodicy.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=2007-06-14 |title=Making the Task of Theodicy Impossible? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evil |last=Dembski |first=William A. |date=Spring 2003 |website=DesignInference.com |publisher=William Dembski |location=Pella, Iowa |access-date=2014-02-28 }}</ref> | |||
In "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences," ] states that the apparent ] of a given scenario cannot necessarily be taken as an indication that this scenario is more unlikely than any other potential one: "Rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a ] hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion . Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable." | |||
Further, repeated interventions imply that the original design was not perfect and final, and thus pose a problem for any who believe that the Creator's work had been both perfect and final.<ref name="PM 09" /> Intelligent design proponents seek to explain the ] by insisting that we have simply failed to understand the perfection of the design (for example, proposing that ] have unknown purposes), or by proposing that designers do not necessarily produce the best design they can, and may have unknowable motives for their actions.<ref name="Pennock 245" /> | |||
===International status of Intelligent Design=== | |||
====UK==== | |||
], ] includes ] as a compulsory subject, and many "faith schools" that teach the ethos of particular denominations. When it was revealed that a group called '']'' had distributed DVDs (produced in America) featuring figures linked to the DI, and claimed they were being used by 59 schools,<ref> – "PR packs spread controversial theory", James Randerson, '']'' science correspondent, ], ], retrieved ]</ref> the ] (DfES) stated that "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum" (part of the ] which does not apply to ]s or to ]).<ref></ref><ref></ref> The DfES subsequently stated that "Intelligent design is not a recognised scientific theory; therefore, it is not included in the science curriculum... Intelligent design can be explored in religious education as part of developing an understanding of different beliefs. It is up to the local SACREs (standing advisory councils on religious education) to set the syllabus for how this should be done. The department is currently working with the ] to communicate this message to schools."<ref> retrieved ]</ref> | |||
====Australia==== | |||
The status of intelligent design is somewhat similar in Australia, where religious education occurs in public schools. When the Federal Education Minister, Brendan Nelson, raised the notion of ID being taught in science classes, the public outcry caused the minister to quickly concede that the correct forum for ID, if it were to be taught, is in religious or philosophy classes.<ref></ref> | |||
In 2005, the director of the ], the ] astronomer ], set out theological reasons for accepting evolution in an August 2005 article in '']'', and said that "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/archive_db.cgi/tablet-01063 |title=God's chance creation |last=Coyne |first=George |date=2005-08-06 |publisher=The Tablet |access-date=2008-10-16 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060220104834/http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/archive_db.cgi/tablet-01063 |archive-date=February 20, 2006 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2005-11-18-vaticanastronomer_x.htm |title=Vatican official: 'Intelligent design' isn't science |work= ]|access-date=2008-10-16 | date=2005-11-18}}</ref> In 2006, he "condemned ID as a kind of 'crude creationism' which reduced God to a mere engineer."<ref name=Dixon82>{{cite book|first=Thomas|last=Dixon|title=Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=efgTDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA82|date=24 July 2008|publisher=OUP Oxford|isbn=978-0199295517|page=82}}</ref> | |||
====Other nations==== | |||
Critics state that the ]'s "ultimate goal is to create a theocratic state".<ref name="ForrestGross2007">{{cite book|first1=Barbara|last1=Forrest|first2=Paul R.|last2=Gross|title=Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7mMSDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA11|year=2007|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0195319736|page=11}}</ref> | |||
Intelligent design has received little support outside of the U.S., U.K, and Australia. Plans by Dutch Education Minister Maria van der Hoeven to "stimulate an academic debate" on the subject in 2005 caused a severe public backlash. She was replaced in 2007 by Ronald Plasterk, described as a "molecular geneticist, staunch atheist and opponent of intelligent design."<ref> Downloaded 18 February, 2007.]</ref> It also received support from the ] ], ], though others in the Catholic Church strongly oppose it.<ref>Gledhill, Ruth, , The Times, October 05, 2005.</ref><ref>Sheriff, Lucy, , The Register, 21st November 2005</ref> While ] has strong political clout in many Islamic countries, Intelligent design has not yet been adapted to Islam, with creationists there instead partnering with the ].<ref>, Taner Edis, ]</ref> | |||
===God of the gaps=== | |||
Intelligent design has also been characterized as a ] argument,<ref name="Stanford--GodoftheGaps">{{cite encyclopedia |last=Ratzsch |first=Del |editor-first=Edward N |editor-last=Zalta |editor-link=Edward N. Zalta |encyclopedia=] |title=Teleological Arguments for God's Existence |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/#IntDesIDMov |access-date=2014-02-28 |date=October 3, 2010 |publisher=The Metaphysics Research Lab |location=Stanford, Calif. |issn=1095-5054 |at=Section 4.3, The "Intelligent Design" (ID) Movement}}</ref> which has the following form: | |||
* There is a gap in scientific knowledge. | |||
* The gap is filled with acts of God (or intelligent designer) and therefore proves the existence of God (or intelligent designer).<ref name="Stanford--GodoftheGaps" /> | |||
A God-of-the-gaps argument is the theological version of an ]. A key feature of this type of argument is that it merely answers outstanding questions with explanations (often supernatural) that are unverifiable and ultimately themselves subject to unanswerable questions.<ref>See, for instance: {{cite journal |last=Bube |first=Richard H. |author-link=Richard H. Bube |date=Fall 1971 |title=Man Come Of Age: Bonhoeffer's Response To The God-Of-The-Gaps |url=http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/14/14-4/14-4-pp203-220_JETS.pdf |journal=] |volume=14 |issue=4 |pages=203–220 |issn=0360-8808 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> ] observe that the ] of the earliest ]s, although astonishing and incorporating ] far in excess of any practical value, proved to be misdirected and of little importance to the development of science because they failed to inquire more carefully into the mechanisms that drove the ] across the sky.<ref>], p. 61</ref> It was the ] that first practiced science, although not yet as a formally defined experimental science, but nevertheless an attempt to rationalize the world of natural experience without recourse to divine intervention.<ref>], p. 123</ref> In this historically motivated definition of science any appeal to an intelligent creator is explicitly excluded for the paralysing effect it may have on ]. | |||
==Legal challenges in the United States== | |||
===Kitzmiller trial=== | |||
{{Main|Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District}} | |||
''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'' was the first direct challenge brought in the ] against a public school district that required the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.<ref name="NCSE 2008-17-10">{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-dover |title=Intelligent Design on Trial: Kitzmiller v. Dover National Center for Science Education |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=October 17, 2008 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, Calif. |access-date=2014-02-28}} | |||
* ]</ref> | |||
Eleven parents of students in ], sued the ] over a statement that the school board required be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught. The plaintiffs were represented by the ] (ACLU), ] (AU) and ]. The National Center for Science Education acted as consultants for the plaintiffs. The defendants were represented by the ].<ref> | |||
{{cite court | |||
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District | |||
|vol=04 | |||
|reporter=cv | |||
|opinion=2688 | |||
|date=December 20, 2005 | |||
|court=United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania | |||
|url=http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/sites/pamd/files/opinions/04v2688a.pdf | |||
}} Memorandum and Order, July 27, 2005.</ref> The suit was tried in a ] from September 26 to November 4, 2005, before Judge ]. ], Kevin Padian, ], ], Barbara Forrest and ] served as expert witnesses for the plaintiffs. Michael Behe, ] and Scott Minnich served as expert witnesses for the defense. | |||
On December 20, 2005, Judge Jones issued his 139-page ] and decision, ruling that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional, and barring intelligent design from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms. On November 8, 2005, there had been an election in which the eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent design requirement were all defeated by challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class, and the current school board president stated that the board did not intend to appeal the ruling.<ref>{{cite news |last=Powell |first=Michael |date=December 21, 2005 |title=Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design' |url=http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=5945 |newspaper=] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070928055938/http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=5945 |archive-date=September 28, 2007 |access-date=2007-09-03}}</ref> | |||
In his finding of facts, Judge Jones made the following condemnation of the "Teach the Controversy" strategy: | |||
{{Blockquote|Moreover, ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the ''controversy'', but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a ]. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.<ref>{{cite court | |||
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District | |||
|vol=04 | |||
|reporter=cv | |||
|opinion=2688 | |||
|date=December 20, 2005 | |||
}} ], p. 89</ref>}} | |||
===Reaction to Kitzmiller ruling=== | |||
Judge Jones himself anticipated that his ruling would be criticized, saying in his decision that: | |||
{{Blockquote|Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. | |||
Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.<ref name="kitz137"> | |||
{{cite court | |||
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District | |||
|vol=04 | |||
|reporter=cv | |||
|opinion=2688 | |||
|date=December 20, 2005 | |||
}} ] pp. 137–138</ref>}} | |||
As Jones had predicted, ], Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture, said: | |||
{{Blockquote|The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work. He has conflated Discovery Institute's position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/dover_intelligent_design_decis.html |title=Dover Intelligent Design Decision Criticized as a Futile Attempt to Censor Science Education |last=Crowther |first=Robert |date=December 20, 2005 |website=Evolution News & Views |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2007-09-03}}</ref>}} | |||
Newspapers have noted that the judge is "a ] and a churchgoer".<ref>{{cite news |last=Raffaele |first=Martha |date=December 20, 2005 |title=Intelligent design policy struck down |url=http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/122105dnnatidesign.780fc9a.html |newspaper=] |agency=Associated Press |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930035635/http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/122105dnnatidesign.780fc9a.html |archive-date=September 30, 2007 |access-date=2014-02-28}} | |||
* {{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=December 20, 2005 |title=Judge rules against 'intelligent design' |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna10545387 |work=] |agency=Associated Press |others=Contributions by ] |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |last=Provonsha |first=Matthew |date=September 21, 2006 |title=Godless: The Church of Liberalism |url=http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-21/ |magazine=] |type=Book review |issn=1556-5696 |access-date=2007-09-03}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/discovery-institute-tries-to-swift-boat-judge-jones |title=Discovery Institute tries to "swift-boat" Judge Jones |last1=Padian |first1=Kevin |last2=Matzke |first2=Nick |date=January 4, 2006 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, Calif. |type=Blog |access-date=2009-11-18}}</ref> | |||
The decision has been examined in a search for flaws and conclusions, partly by intelligent design supporters aiming to avoid future defeats in court. In its Winter issue of 2007, the ''Montana Law Review'' published three articles.<ref>{{cite journal |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=Winter 2007 |title=Editor's Note: Intelligent Design Articles |url=http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2036&context=mlr |format=PDF |journal=Montana Law Review |volume=68 |issue=1 |pages=1–5 |issn=0026-9972 |access-date=2014-02-28 |archive-date=2014-03-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140309110106/http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2036&context=mlr |url-status=dead }}</ref> | |||
In the first, David K. DeWolf, John G. West and Casey Luskin, all of the Discovery Institute, argued that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, the Jones court should not have addressed the question of whether it was a scientific theory, and that the Kitzmiller decision will have no effect at all on the development and adoption of intelligent design as an alternative to standard evolutionary theory.<ref name="DeWolf">{{cite journal |last1=DeWolf |first1=David K. |last2=West |first2=John G. |author-link2=John G. West |last3=Luskin |first3=Casey |date=Winter 2007 |title=Intelligent Design Will Survive ''Kitzmiller v. Dover'' |url=http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2037&context=mlr |format=PDF |journal=Montana Law Review |volume=68 |issue=1 |pages=7–57 |issn=0026-9972 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> In the second ] responded, arguing that the decision was extremely well reasoned and spells the death knell for the intelligent design efforts to introduce creationism in public schools,<ref>{{cite journal |last=Irons |first=Peter |author-link=Peter H. Irons |date=Winter 2007 |title=Disaster In Dover: The Trials (And Tribulations) Of Intelligent Design |url=http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2038&context=mlr |format=PDF |journal=Montana Law Review |volume=68 |issue=1 |pages=59–87 |issn=0026-9972 |access-date=2014-02-28 |archive-date=2014-03-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140309105941/http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2038&context=mlr |url-status=dead }}</ref> while in the third, DeWolf, ''et al.'', answer the points made by Irons.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=DeWolf |first1=David K. |last2=West |first2=John G. |last3=Luskin |first3=Casey |date=Winter 2007 |title=Rebuttal to Irons |url=http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2039&context=mlr |format=PDF |journal=Montana Law Review |volume=68 |issue=1 |pages=89–94 |issn=0026-9972 |access-date=2014-02-28 |archive-date=2014-03-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140309110010/http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2039&context=mlr |url-status=dead }} | |||
* {{cite web |url=http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/06/07/irons-responds-to-west-luskin/#more |title=Irons Responds to West, Luskin and DeWolf |last=Brayton |first=Ed |date=June 7, 2007 |website=Dispatches from the Creation Wars |publisher=] |type=Blog |access-date=2014-02-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140301020525/http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/06/07/irons-responds-to-west-luskin/#more |archive-date=2014-03-01 |url-status=dead }}</ref> However, fear of a similar lawsuit has resulted in other school boards abandoning intelligent design "teach the controversy" proposals.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /> | |||
===Anti-evolution legislation=== | |||
{{Main|Anti-evolution legislation}} | |||
A number of ] ] have been introduced in the ] and ] since 2001, based largely upon language drafted by the ] for the ]. Their aim has been to expose more students to articles and videos produced by advocates of intelligent design that criticise evolution. They have been presented as supporting "]", on the supposition that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection. Critics of the legislation have pointed out that there are no credible scientific critiques of evolution, and an investigation in ] of allegations of intimidation and retaliation found no evidence that it had occurred. The vast majority of the bills have been unsuccessful, with the one exception being Louisiana's ], which was enacted in 2008.{{cn|reason=This paragraph needs citations.|date=January 2024}} | |||
In April 2010, the ] issued ''Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K–12 Public Schools in the United States'', which included guidance that creation science or intelligent design should not be taught in science classes, as "Creation science and intelligent design represent worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." However, these worldviews as well as others "that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature or social sciences courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of worldviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/news/2010/07/american-academy-religion-teaching-creationism-005712 |title=American Academy of Religion on teaching creationism |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=July 23, 2010 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, Calif. |access-date=2010-08-09}}</ref> | |||
==Status outside the United States== | |||
===Europe=== | |||
In June 2007, the ]'s Committee on Culture, Science and Education issued a report, ''The dangers of creationism in education'', which states "Creationism in any of its forms, such as 'intelligent design', is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes."<ref name="EDOC11297">{{cite web|url=http://www.assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11678&Language=EN |title=The dangers of creationism in education |date=June 8, 2007 |work=Committee on Culture, Science and Education |publisher=] |type=Report |id=Doc. 11297 |access-date=2014-02-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130309011447/http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11678&Language=EN |archive-date=2013-03-09 }} | |||
* {{cite web|url=http://www.assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11751&Language=EN |title=The dangers of creationism in education |date=September 17, 2007 |work=Committee on Culture, Science and Education |publisher=Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe |type=Report |id=Doc. 11375 |access-date=2014-02-28 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130307233347/http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11751&Language=en |archive-date=March 7, 2013 }} | |||
* {{cite web|url=http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?link=/documents/adoptedtext/ta07/eres1580.htm |title=The dangers of creationism in education |date=October 4, 2007 |work=Committee on Culture, Science and Education |publisher=Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe |type=Resolution |id=Resolution 1580 |access-date=2014-02-28 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140307163155/http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta07%2FERES1580.htm |archive-date=March 7, 2014 }}</ref> In describing the dangers posed to education by teaching creationism, it described intelligent design as "anti-science" and involving "blatant scientific fraud" and "intellectual deception" that "blurs the nature, objectives and limits of science" and links it and other forms of creationism to ]. On October 4, 2007, the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution stating that schools should "resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion", including "intelligent design", which it described as "the latest, more refined version of creationism", "presented in a more subtle way". The resolution emphasises that the aim of the report is not to question or to fight a belief, but to "warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/news/2007/10/council-europe-approves-resolution-against-creationism-001200 |title=Council of Europe approves resolution against creationism |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, Calif. |access-date=2009-11-18|date=2007-10-05 }} | |||
* {{cite news |last=Reilhac |first=Gilbert |date=October 4, 2007 |title=Council of Europe firmly opposes creationism in school |url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNewsMolt/idUKL0417855220071004 |work=] |access-date=2007-10-05}}</ref> | |||
In the ], public education includes ], and there are many ]s that teach the ethos of particular denominations. When it was revealed that a group called ] had distributed DVDs produced by Illustra Media<ref group="n">{{cite web |url=http://www.illustramedia.com/ID01WiredMagPage.htm |title=WIRED Magazine response |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=Illustra Media |location=La Habra, Calif. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081220122105/http://www.illustramedia.com/ID01WiredMagPage.htm |archive-date=December 20, 2008 |access-date=2007-07-13 |quote=It's also important that you read a well developed rebuttal to Wired's misleading accusations. Links to both the article and a response by the Discovery Institute (our partners in the production of '']'' and '']'') are available below.}} | |||
* {{cite magazine |last=Ratliff |first=Evan |author-link=Evan Ratliff |date=October 2004 |title=The Crusade Against Evolution |volume=12 |url=http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html |magazine=] |location=New York |publisher=Condé Nast |issue=10 |access-date=2014-02-28}} | |||
* {{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/2251 |title=Wired magazine reporter criticized for agenda driven reporting |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=October 13, 2004 |website=Center for Science and Culture |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> featuring Discovery Institute fellows making the case for design in nature,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/2116 |title=Unlocking the Mystery of Life |last1=Meyer |first1=Stephen C. |last2=Allen |first2=W. Peter |date=July 15, 2004 |website=Center for Science and Culture |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |type=Preview |access-date=2007-07-13}}</ref> and claimed they were being used by 59 schools,<ref>{{cite news |last=Randerson |first=James |date=November 26, 2006 |title=Revealed: rise of creationism in UK school |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/nov/27/controversiesinscience.religion |newspaper=] |location=London |access-date=2008-10-17}}</ref> the ] (DfES) stated that "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum" (part of the ], which does not apply to ] or to ]).<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 29, 2006 |title='Design' attack on school science |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/5392096.stm |work=] |location=London |publisher=] |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref><ref> | |||
{{cite hansard |house=House of Commons |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo061101/text/61101w0010.htm#0611021004183 |date=November 1, 2006 |column_start=455W |column_end=456W|title=Truth in Science}}</ref> The DfES subsequently stated that "Intelligent design is not a recognised scientific theory; therefore, it is not included in the science curriculum", but left the way open for it to be explored in religious education in relation to different beliefs, as part of a syllabus set by a local ].<ref>{{cite hansard |house=House of Lords |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/61218w0006.htm |date=December 18, 2006 |column_start=WA257 |column_end=WA258|title=Schools: Intelligent Design}}</ref> In 2006, the ] produced a "Religious Education" model unit in which pupils can learn about religious and nonreligious | |||
views about creationism, intelligent design and evolution by natural selection.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/news/2007/02/guidance-creationism-british-teachers-001170 |title=Guidance on creationism for British teachers |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=February 2, 2007 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, Calif. |access-date=2009-11-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite thesis|url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9554468.pdf|title=The inter-relationship of Science and Religious Education in a cultural context: Teaching the origin of life |author=Pam Hanley|type=PhD |year=2012 |publisher=University of York|page=43}}</ref> | |||
On June 25, 2007, the UK Government responded to an e-petition by saying that creationism and intelligent design should not be taught as science, though teachers would be expected to answer pupils' questions within the standard framework of established scientific theories.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page12021 |title=nocrescied – epetition response |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=June 21, 2007 |website=Number10.gov.uk |publisher=] |location=London |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081015040043/http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page12021 |archive-date=October 15, 2008 |access-date=2014-02-28}} | |||
* {{cite web |url=http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/TheUKGovernmentsPosition |title=The UK position on creationism and Intelligent Design in science classes |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=] |publisher=British Centre for Science Education |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> Detailed government "Creationism teaching guidance" for schools in England was published on September 18, 2007. It states that "Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science", has no underpinning scientific principles, or explanations, and is not accepted by the science community as a whole. Though it should not be taught as science, "Any questions about creationism and intelligent design which arise in science lessons, for example as a result of media coverage, could provide the opportunity to explain or explore why they are not considered to be scientific theories and, in the right context, why evolution is considered to be a scientific theory." However, "Teachers of subjects such as RE, history or citizenship may deal with creationism and intelligent design in their lessons."<ref name=teachernet group="n" /> | |||
The ] lobbying group has the goal of "countering creationism within the UK" and has been involved in government lobbying in the UK in this regard.<ref name="EDOC11297" /> ]'s ] says that the curriculum provides an opportunity for alternative theories to be taught. The ] (DUP){{snd}}which has links to fundamentalist Christianity{{snd}}has been campaigning to have intelligent design taught in science classes. A DUP former Member of Parliament, ], has sought assurances from the education minister that pupils will not lose marks if they give creationist or intelligent design answers to science questions.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=November 30, 2007 |title=The creation of a new Giant's Causeway row |url=http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/life/the-creation-of-a-new-giants-causeway-row-28069738.html |newspaper=] |location=Dublin |publisher=] |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Henry |first=Lesley-Anne |date=September 26, 2007 |title=Tussle of Biblical proportions over creationism in Ulster classrooms |url=http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/education/tussle-of-biblical-proportions-over-creationism-in-ulster-classrooms-28064310.html |newspaper=Belfast Telegraph |location=Dublin |publisher=Independent News & Media |access-date=2014-02-28}} | |||
* {{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 27, 2007 |title=Viewpoint: The world, according to Lisburn folk |url=http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/viewpoint-the-world-according-to-lisburn-folk-28064444.html |newspaper=Belfast Telegraph |location=Dublin |publisher=Independent News & Media |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> In 2007, ] city council voted in favor of a DUP recommendation to write to post-primary schools asking what their plans are to develop teaching material in relation to "creation, intelligent design and other theories of origin".<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=September 26, 2007 |title=Dup Call For Schools To Teach Creation Passed By Council |url=http://www.lisburntoday.co.uk/news/local-news/dup-call-for-schools-to-teach-creation-passed-by-council-1-1639298 |newspaper=] |location=Edinburgh |publisher=] |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> | |||
Plans by Dutch Education Minister ] to "stimulate an academic debate" on the subject in 2005 caused a severe public backlash.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Enserink |first=Martin |date=June 3, 2005 |title=Evolution Politics: Is Holland Becoming the Kansas of Europe? |journal=] |volume=308 |issue=5727 |page=1394 |doi=10.1126/science.308.5727.1394b |pmid=15933170|s2cid=153515231 }}</ref> After the ], she was succeeded by ], described as a "molecular geneticist, staunch atheist and opponent of intelligent design".<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=February 13, 2007 |title=Cabinet ministers announced (update 2) |url=http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2007/02/cabinet_ministers_announced_up.php |work=DutchNews.nl |location=Amsterdam |publisher=Dutch News BV |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> As a reaction on this situation in the Netherlands, the Director General of the Flemish Secretariat of Catholic Education ({{interlanguage link|VSKO|nl|Katholiek Onderwijs Vlaanderen}}) in ], {{Interlanguage link|Mieke Van Hecke|nl}}, declared that: "Catholic scientists already accepted the theory of evolution for a long time and that intelligent design and creationism doesn't belong in Flemish Catholic schools. It's not the tasks of the politics to introduce new ideas, that's task and goal of science."<ref>{{cite news |title=''Katholieke wetenschappers hebben de evolutietheorie al lang aanvaard'' |date=May 23, 2005 |newspaper=] |location=Brussels |publisher=]}}</ref> | |||
===Australia=== | |||
The status of intelligent design in Australia is somewhat similar to that in the UK (see ]). In 2005, the Australian ], ], raised the notion of intelligent design being taught in science classes. The public outcry caused the minister to quickly concede that the correct forum for intelligent design, if it were to be taught, is in religion or philosophy classes.<ref>{{cite news |last=Wroe |first=David |date=August 11, 2005 |title='Intelligent design' an option: Nelson |url=http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/08/10/1123353386917.html |newspaper=] |location=Sydney |publisher=] |access-date=2014-03-02}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Smith |first=Deborah |date=October 21, 2005 |title=Intelligent design not science: experts |url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/intelligent-design-not-science-experts/2005/10/20/1129775902661.html |newspaper=] |location=Sydney |publisher=Fairfax Media |access-date=2007-07-13}}</ref> The Australian chapter of ] distributed a DVD of the Discovery Institute's documentary '']'' (2002) to Australian secondary schools.<ref>{{cite news |last=Kruger |first=Paula |date=August 26, 2005 |title=Brendan Nelson suggests 'intelligent design' could be taught in schools |url=http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1447202.htm |work=] |type=Transcript |location=Sydney |publisher=] |access-date=2011-10-22}}</ref> ], the head of ], one of Australia's leading private schools, supported use of the DVD in the classroom at the discretion of teachers and principals.<ref>{{cite news |last=Green |first=Shane |date=October 28, 2005 |title=School backs intelligent design DVD |url=http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/school-backs-intelligent-design-dvd/2005/10/27/1130400306721.html |newspaper=The Age |location=Sydney |publisher=Fairfax Media |access-date=2011-10-22}}</ref> | |||
===Relation to Islam=== | |||
], a notable Pakistani-Canadian Muslim, signed "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", a petition from the Discovery Institute.<ref name="ccit">{{cite journal |last=Edis |first=Taner |author-link=Taner Edis|date=November–December 1999 |title=Cloning Creationism in Turkey |url=http://ncse.com/rncse/19/6/cloning-creationism-turkey |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |volume=19 |issue=6 |pages=30–35 |issn=2158-818X |access-date=2009-11-18}}</ref> Ideas similar to intelligent design have been considered respected intellectual options among Muslims, and in ] many intelligent design books have been translated. In ] in 2007, public meetings promoting intelligent design were sponsored by the local government,<ref name="icash">{{cite journal |last=Edis |first=Taner |date=January 2008 |title=Islamic Creationism: A Short History |url=http://www.hssonline.org/publications/Newsletter2008/NewsletterJanuary2008Creationism.html |journal=Newsletter |volume=37 |issue=1 |access-date=2011-04-20 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716061337/http://www.hssonline.org/publications/Newsletter2008/NewsletterJanuary2008Creationism.html |archive-date=July 16, 2011 }}</ref> and David Berlinski of the Discovery Institute was the keynote speaker at a meeting in May 2007.<ref name="SecurityWatch">{{cite web |url=http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail//?id=54183&lng=en |title=Turkey's survival of the fittest |last=Jones |first=Dorian L. |date=March 12, 2008 |work=Security Watch |publisher=] |location=Zurich |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> | |||
===Relation to ISKCON=== | |||
In 2011, the ] (ISKCON) ] published an intelligent design book titled ''Rethinking Darwin: A Vedic Study of Darwinism and Intelligent Design''. The book included contributions from intelligent design advocates William A. Dembski, Jonathan Wells and Michael Behe as well as from Hindu creationists Leif A. Jensen and ].<ref>]</ref> | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
{{div col|colwidth=22em}}<!-- Please respect alphabetical order --> | |||
{{col-begin}} | |||
* ] | |||
{{col-3}} | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
{{col-break}} | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
{{col-break}} | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* "]" | |||
{{col-end}} | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
{{div col end}} | |||
==Notes |
==Notes== | ||
{{Reflist|30em|group=n}} | |||
<div class="references-small" style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;"> | |||
<!--See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags--> | |||
<references/> | |||
</div> | |||
== |
==References== | ||
{{Reflist|30em}} | |||
<div class="references-small" style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;"> | |||
===ID perspectives=== | |||
== Bibliography == | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* (Hub of the intelligent design movement) | |||
* Discovery Institute website tracking media coverage of intelligent design. | |||
* A multiple contributor weblog by Discovery Institute fellows. | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* — article on Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site | |||
* William Dembski's blog | |||
* | |||
* {{cite book |last1=Pigliucci |first1=Massimo |authorlink=Massimo Pigliucci |year=2010 |chapter=Science in the Courtroom: The Case against Intelligent Design |chapter-url=http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Nonsenseonstilts.pdf |title=Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk |location = Chicago, IL |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-226-66786-7 |lccn=2009049778 |oclc=457149439 |pages=160–186 |ref=Pigliucci 2010}} | |||
===Non-ID perspectives=== | |||
* | |||
* special feature in the Natural History Magazine | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* Second Edition (1999) | |||
* (Archive of a UseNet discussion group) | |||
* by the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District judge | |||
*, ] | |||
* | |||
* Elliot Sober, 2004. | |||
* by ] | |||
== |
==Further reading== | ||
{{Refbegin|30em}} | |||
* An overview of the origin of the intelligent design movement. (Seattle Weekly) | |||
* {{cite book |last=Coyne |first=Jerry A. |author-link=Jerry Coyne |year=2009 |title=Why Evolution is True |location=Oxford; New York |publisher=] |isbn=978-0199230846 |lccn=2008042122 |oclc=259716035 |ref=Coyne 2009 |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780199230846 }} | |||
* What would "intelligent design" science classes look like? All we have to do is look inside some 19th-century textbooks. (Washington Post) | |||
* {{cite book |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |year=2006 |title=The God Delusion |location=Boston |publisher=] |isbn=978-0618680009 |lccn=2006015506 |oclc=68965666 |ref=Dawkins 2006|title-link=The God Delusion }} | |||
* (]) | |||
* {{cite book |last=Stenger |first=Victor J. |author-link=Victor J. Stenger |year=2011 |title=The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us |location=Amherst, N.Y. |publisher=] |isbn=978-1616144432 |lccn=2010049901 |oclc=679931691 |ref=Stenger 2011}} | |||
* (]) | |||
{{Refend}} | |||
* (]) | |||
* (]) | |||
* (]) | |||
* (]) | |||
* (]) | |||
* (Justice Talking) | |||
* (]) | |||
</div> | |||
{{Navboxes | |||
] | |||
|list= | |||
] | |||
{{Creationism topics}} | |||
] | |||
{{Pseudoscience}} | |||
] | |||
{{Philosophy of religion}} | |||
{{God arguments}} | |||
{{Design}} | |||
}} | |||
{{Portal bar|Evolutionary biology|Science}} | |||
{{Authority control}} | |||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Intelligent Design}} | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] |
Latest revision as of 20:42, 15 November 2024
Pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God This article is about a specific pseudoscientific form of creationism. For generic arguments from "intelligent design", see Teleological argument. For the movement, see Intelligent design movement. For other uses of the phrase, see Intelligent design (disambiguation). Not to be confused with Theistic evolution.
Part of a series on |
Intelligent design |
---|
Watchmaker analogy |
Concepts |
Movement |
Campaigns |
Authors |
Organisations |
Reactions |
Creationism |
Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Proponents claim 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." ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.
Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design, its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to creation science and creationism, after the 1987 Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds. From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute, advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula. This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, which found that intelligent design was not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
ID presents two main arguments against evolutionary explanations: irreducible complexity and specified complexity, asserting that certain biological and informational features of living things are too complex to be the result of natural selection. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible.
ID seeks to challenge the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, though proponents concede that they have yet to produce a scientific theory. As a positive argument against evolution, ID proposes an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts, a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God. ID proponents then conclude by analogy that the complex features, as defined by ID, are evidence of design. Critics of ID find a false dichotomy in the premise that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design.
History
Origin of the concept
See also: Creation science, Teleological argument, and Watchmaker analogyIn 1910, evolution was not a topic of major religious controversy in America, but in the 1920s, the fundamentalist–modernist controversy in theology resulted in fundamentalist Christian opposition to teaching evolution and resulted in the origins of modern creationism. As a result, teaching of evolution was effectively suspended in U.S. public schools until the 1960s, and when evolution was then reintroduced into the curriculum, there was a series of court cases in which attempts were made to get creationism taught alongside evolution in science classes. Young Earth creationists (YECs) promoted "creation science" as "an alternative scientific explanation of the world in which we live". This frequently invoked the argument from design to explain complexity in nature as supposedly demonstrating the existence of God.
The argument from design, also known as the teleological argument or "argument from intelligent design", has been presented by theologists for centuries. Thomas Aquinas presented ID in his fifth proof of God's existence as a syllogism. In 1802, William Paley's Natural Theology presented examples of intricate purpose in organisms. His version of the watchmaker analogy argued that a watch has evidently been designed by a craftsman and that it is supposedly just as evident that the complexity and adaptation seen in nature must have been designed. He went on to argue that the perfection and diversity of these designs supposedly shows the designer to be omnipotent and that this can supposedly only be the Christian god. Like "creation science", intelligent design centers on Paley's religious argument from design, but while Paley's natural theology was open to deistic design through God-given laws, intelligent design seeks scientific confirmation of repeated supposedly miraculous interventions in the history of life. "Creation science" prefigured the intelligent design arguments of irreducible complexity, even featuring the bacterial flagellum. In the United States, attempts to introduce "creation science" into schools led to court rulings that it is religious in nature and thus cannot be taught in public school science classrooms. Intelligent design is also presented as science and shares other arguments with "creation science" but avoids literal Biblical references to such topics as the biblical flood story or using Bible verses to estimate the age of the Earth.
Barbara Forrest writes that the intelligent design movement began in 1984 with the book The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, co-written by the creationist and chemist Charles B. Thaxton and two other authors and published by Jon A. Buell's Foundation for Thought and Ethics.
In March 1986, Stephen C. Meyer published a review of this book, discussing how information theory could suggest that messages transmitted by DNA in the cell show "specified complexity" and must have been created by an intelligent agent. He also argued that science is based upon "foundational assumptions" of naturalism that were as much a matter of faith as those of "creation theory". In November of that year, Thaxton described his reasoning as a more sophisticated form of Paley's argument from design. At a conference that Thaxton held in 1988 ("Sources of Information Content in DNA"), he said that his intelligent cause view was compatible with both metaphysical naturalism and supernaturalism.
Intelligent design avoids identifying or naming the intelligent designer—it merely states that one (or more) must exist—but leaders of the movement have said the designer is the Christian God. Whether this lack of specificity about the designer's identity in public discussions is a genuine feature of the concept – or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science – has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case.
Origin of the term
See also: Timeline of intelligent designSince the Middle Ages, discussion of the religious "argument from design" or "teleological argument" in theology, with its concept of "intelligent design", has persistently referred to the theistic Creator God. Although ID proponents chose this provocative label for their proposed alternative to evolutionary explanations, they have de-emphasized their religious antecedents and denied that ID is natural theology, while still presenting ID as supporting the argument for the existence of God.
While intelligent design proponents have pointed out past examples of the phrase intelligent design that they said were not creationist and faith-based, they have failed to show that these usages had any influence on those who introduced the label in the intelligent design movement.
Variations on the phrase appeared in Young Earth creationist publications: a 1967 book co-written by Percival Davis referred to "design according to which basic organisms were created". In 1970, A. E. Wilder-Smith published The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution. The book defended Paley's design argument with computer calculations of the improbability of genetic sequences, which he said could not be explained by evolution but required "the abhorred necessity of divine intelligent activity behind nature", and that "the same problem would be expected to beset the relationship between the designer behind nature and the intelligently designed part of nature known as man." In a 1984 article as well as in his affidavit to Edwards v. Aguillard, Dean H. Kenyon defended creation science by stating that "biomolecular systems require intelligent design and engineering know-how", citing Wilder-Smith. Creationist Richard B. Bliss used the phrase "creative design" in Origins: Two Models: Evolution, Creation (1976), and in Origins: Creation or Evolution (1988) wrote that "while evolutionists are trying to find non-intelligent ways for life to occur, the creationist insists that an intelligent design must have been there in the first place."
Of Pandas and People
Main article: Of Pandas and PeopleThe most common modern use of the words "intelligent design" as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry began after the United States Supreme Court ruled in June 1987 in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard that it is unconstitutional for a state to require the teaching of creationism in public school science curricula.
A Discovery Institute report says that Charles B. Thaxton, editor of Pandas, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist. In two successive 1987 drafts of the book, over one hundred uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "Creation Science", were changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent design", while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists" [sic]. In June 1988, Thaxton held a conference titled "Sources of Information Content in DNA" in Tacoma, Washington. Stephen C. Meyer was at the conference, and later recalled that "The term intelligent design came up..." In December 1988 Thaxton decided to use the label "intelligent design" for his new creationist movement.
Of Pandas and People was published in 1989, and in addition to including all the current arguments for ID, was the first book to make systematic use of the terms "intelligent design" and "design proponents" as well as the phrase "design theory", defining the term intelligent design in a glossary and representing it as not being creationism. It thus represents the start of the modern intelligent design movement. "Intelligent design" was the most prominent of around fifteen new terms it introduced as a new lexicon of creationist terminology to oppose evolution without using religious language. It was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its primary present use, as stated both by its publisher Jon A. Buell, and by William A. Dembski in his expert witness report for Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has criticized the book for presenting all of the basic arguments of intelligent design proponents and being actively promoted for use in public schools before any research had been done to support these arguments. Although presented as a scientific textbook, philosopher of science Michael Ruse considers the contents "worthless and dishonest". An American Civil Liberties Union lawyer described it as a political tool aimed at students who did not "know science or understand the controversy over evolution and creationism". One of the authors of the science framework used by California schools, Kevin Padian, condemned it for its "sub-text", "intolerance for honest science" and "incompetence".
Concepts
Irreducible complexity
Main article: Irreducible complexityThe term "irreducible complexity" was introduced by biochemist Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, though he had already described the concept in his contributions to the 1993 revised edition of Of Pandas and People. Behe defines it as "a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".
Behe uses the analogy of a mousetrap to illustrate this concept. A mousetrap consists of several interacting pieces—the base, the catch, the spring and the hammer—all of which must be in place for the mousetrap to work. Removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Intelligent design advocates assert that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selectable function is present only when all parts are assembled. Behe argued that irreducibly complex biological mechanisms include the bacterial flagellum of E. coli, the blood clotting cascade, cilia, and the adaptive immune system.
Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially. They argue that something that is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary as other components change. Furthermore, they argue, evolution often proceeds by altering preexisting parts or by removing them from a system, rather than by adding them. This is sometimes called the "scaffolding objection" by an analogy with scaffolding, which can support an "irreducibly complex" building until it is complete and able to stand on its own. In the case of Behe's mousetrap analogy, it has been shown that a mousetrap can be created with increasingly fewer parts and that even a single part is sufficient.
Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof." Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the Dover trial, the court held that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."
Specified complexity
Main article: Specified complexityIn 1986, Charles B. Thaxton, a physical chemist and creationist, used the term "specified complexity" from information theory when claiming that messages transmitted by DNA in the cell were specified by intelligence, and must have originated with an intelligent agent. The intelligent design concept of "specified complexity" was developed in the 1990s by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William A. Dembski. Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and "specified", simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes. He provides the following examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified." He states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA.
Dembski defines complex specified information (CSI) as anything with a less than 1 in 10 chance of occurring by (natural) chance. Critics say that this renders the argument a tautology: complex specified information cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature.
The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument has been discredited in the scientific and mathematical communities. Specified complexity has yet to be shown to have wide applications in other fields, as Dembski asserts. John Wilkins and Wesley R. Elsberry characterize Dembski's "explanatory filter" as eliminative because it eliminates explanations sequentially: first regularity, then chance, finally defaulting to design. They argue that this procedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because the asymmetric way it treats the different possible explanations renders it prone to making false conclusions.
Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist and religion critic, argues in The God Delusion (2006) that allowing for an intelligent designer to account for unlikely complexity only postpones the problem, as such a designer would need to be at least as complex. Other scientists have argued that evolution through selection is better able to explain the observed complexity, as is evident from the use of selective evolution to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems that are considered problems too complex for human "intelligent designers".
Fine-tuned universe
Main article: Fine-tuned universeIntelligent design proponents have also occasionally appealed to broader teleological arguments outside of biology, most notably an argument based on the fine-tuning of universal constants that make matter and life possible and that are argued not to be solely attributable to chance. These include the values of fundamental physical constants, the relative strength of nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity between fundamental particles, as well as the ratios of masses of such particles. Intelligent design proponent and Center for Science and Culture fellow Guillermo Gonzalez argues that if any of these values were even slightly different, the universe would be dramatically different, making it impossible for many chemical elements and features of the Universe, such as galaxies, to form. Thus, proponents argue, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular outcome.
Scientists have generally responded that these arguments are poorly supported by existing evidence. Victor J. Stenger and other critics say both intelligent design and the weak form of the anthropic principle are essentially a tautology; in his view, these arguments amount to the claim that life is able to exist because the Universe is able to support life. The claim of the improbability of a life-supporting universe has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination for assuming no other forms of life are possible: life as we know it might not exist if things were different, but a different sort of life might exist in its place. A number of critics also suggest that many of the stated variables appear to be interconnected and that calculations made by mathematicians and physicists suggest that the emergence of a universe similar to ours is quite probable.
Intelligent designer
Main article: Intelligent designerThe contemporary intelligent design movement formulates its arguments in secular terms and intentionally avoids identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) they posit. Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene. Dembski, in The Design Inference (1998), speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements. Of Pandas and People proposes that SETI illustrates an appeal to intelligent design in science. In 2000, philosopher of science Robert T. Pennock suggested the Raëlian UFO religion as a real-life example of an extraterrestrial intelligent designer view that "make many of the same bad arguments against evolutionary theory as creationists". The authoritative description of intelligent design, however, explicitly states that the Universe displays features of having been designed. Acknowledging the paradox, Dembski concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life." The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.
Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science. For example, Jerry Coyne asks why a designer would "give us a pathway for making vitamin C, but then destroy it by disabling one of its enzymes" (see pseudogene) and why a designer would not "stock oceanic islands with reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and freshwater fish, despite the suitability of such islands for these species". Coyne also points to the fact that "the flora and fauna on those islands resemble that of the nearest mainland, even when the environments are very different" as evidence that species were not placed there by a designer. Previously, in Darwin's Black Box, Behe had argued that we are simply incapable of understanding the designer's motives, so such questions cannot be answered definitively. Odd designs could, for example, "...have been placed there by the designer for a reason—for artistic reasons, for variety, to show off, for some as-yet-undetected practical purpose, or for some unguessable reason—or they might not." Coyne responds that in light of the evidence, "either life resulted not from intelligent design, but from evolution; or the intelligent designer is a cosmic prankster who designed everything to make it look as though it had evolved."
Intelligent design proponents such as Paul Nelson avoid the problem of poor design in nature by insisting that we have simply failed to understand the perfection of the design. Behe cites Paley as his inspiration, but he differs from Paley's expectation of a perfect Creation and proposes that designers do not necessarily produce the best design they can. Behe suggests that, like a parent not wanting to spoil a child with extravagant toys, the designer can have multiple motives for not giving priority to excellence in engineering. He says that "Another problem with the argument from imperfection is that it critically depends on a psychoanalysis of the unidentified designer. Yet the reasons that a designer would or would not do anything are virtually impossible to know unless the designer tells you specifically what those reasons are." This reliance on inexplicable motives of the designer makes intelligent design scientifically untestable. Retired UC Berkeley law professor, author and intelligent design advocate Phillip E. Johnson puts forward a core definition that the designer creates for a purpose, giving the example that in his view AIDS was created to punish immorality and is not caused by HIV, but such motives cannot be tested by scientific methods.
Asserting the need for a designer of complexity also raises the question "What designed the designer?" Intelligent design proponents say that the question is irrelevant to or outside the scope of intelligent design. Richard Wein counters that "...scientific explanations often create new unanswered questions. But, in assessing the value of an explanation, these questions are not irrelevant. They must be balanced against the improvements in our understanding which the explanation provides. Invoking an unexplained being to explain the origin of other beings (ourselves) is little more than question-begging. The new question raised by the explanation is as problematic as the question which the explanation purports to answer." Richard Dawkins sees the assertion that the designer does not need to be explained as a thought-terminating cliché. In the absence of observable, measurable evidence, the question "What designed the designer?" leads to an infinite regression from which intelligent design proponents can only escape by resorting to religious creationism or logical contradiction.
Movement
Main article: Intelligent design movementThe intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s. The scientific and academic communities, along with a U.S. federal court, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism; and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism".
The movement is headquartered in the Center for Science and Culture, established in 1996 as the creationist wing of the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes. The Discovery Institute's intelligent design campaigns have been staged primarily in the United States, although efforts have been made in other countries to promote intelligent design. Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of naturalism. Intelligent design proponents allege that science should not be limited to naturalism and should not demand the adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that dismisses out-of-hand any explanation that includes a supernatural cause. The overall goal of the movement is to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".
Phillip E. Johnson stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept. All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture. Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement are the products of the Discovery Institute, which guides the movement and follows its wedge strategy while conducting its "teach the controversy" campaign and their other related programs.
Leading intelligent design proponents have made conflicting statements regarding intelligent design. In statements directed at the general public, they say intelligent design is not religious; when addressing conservative Christian supporters, they state that intelligent design has its foundation in the Bible. Recognizing the need for support, the Institute affirms its Christian, evangelistic orientation:
Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.
Barbara Forrest, an expert who has written extensively on the movement, describes this as being due to the Discovery Institute's obfuscating its agenda as a matter of policy. She has written that the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious worldview that undergirds it."
Religion and leading proponents
Although arguments for intelligent design by the intelligent design movement are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer, the majority of principal intelligent design advocates are publicly religious Christians who have stated that, in their view, the designer proposed in intelligent design is the Christian conception of God. Stuart Burgess, Phillip E. Johnson, William A. Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer are evangelical Protestants; Michael Behe is a Roman Catholic; Paul Nelson supports young Earth creationism; and Jonathan Wells is a member of the Unification Church. Non-Christian proponents include David Klinghoffer, who is Jewish, Michael Denton and David Berlinski, who are agnostic, and Muzaffar Iqbal, a Pakistani-Canadian Muslim. Phillip E. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments that are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the designer. Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having intelligent design identified "as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message." Johnson emphasizes that "...the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact."
The strategy of deliberately disguising the religious intent of intelligent design has been described by William A. Dembski in The Design Inference. In this work, Dembski lists a god or an "alien life force" as two possible options for the identity of the designer; however, in his book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology (1999), Dembski states:
Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ.
Dembski also stated, "ID is part of God's general revelation ... Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology [materialism], which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ." Both Johnson and Dembski cite the Bible's Gospel of John as the foundation of intelligent design.
Barbara Forrest contends such statements reveal that leading proponents see intelligent design as essentially religious in nature, not merely a scientific concept that has implications with which their personal religious beliefs happen to coincide. She writes that the leading proponents of intelligent design are closely allied with the ultra-conservative Christian Reconstructionism movement. She lists connections of (current and former) Discovery Institute Fellows Phillip E. Johnson, Charles B. Thaxton, Michael Behe, Richard Weikart, Jonathan Wells and Francis J. Beckwith to leading Christian Reconstructionist organizations, and the extent of the funding provided the Institute by Howard Ahmanson, Jr., a leading figure in the Reconstructionist movement.
Reaction from other creationist groups
Not all creationist organizations have embraced the intelligent design movement. According to Thomas Dixon, "Religious leaders have come out against ID too. An open letter affirming the compatibility of Christian faith and the teaching of evolution, first produced in response to controversies in Wisconsin in 2004, has now been signed by over ten thousand clergy from different Christian denominations across America." Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, a proponent of Old Earth creationism, believes that the efforts of intelligent design proponents to divorce the concept from Biblical Christianity make its hypothesis too vague. In 2002, he wrote: "Winning the argument for design without identifying the designer yields, at best, a sketchy origins model. Such a model makes little if any positive impact on the community of scientists and other scholars. ... the time is right for a direct approach, a single leap into the origins fray. Introducing a biblically based, scientifically verifiable creation model represents such a leap."
Likewise, two of the most prominent YEC organizations in the world have attempted to distinguish their views from those of the intelligent design movement. Henry M. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) wrote, in 1999, that ID, "even if well-meaning and effectively articulated, will not work! It has often been tried in the past and has failed, and it will fail today. The reason it won't work is because it is not the Biblical method." According to Morris: "The evidence of intelligent design ... must be either followed by or accompanied by a sound presentation of true Biblical creationism if it is to be meaningful and lasting." In 2002, Carl Wieland, then of Answers in Genesis (AiG), criticized design advocates who, though well-intentioned, "'left the Bible out of it'" and thereby unwittingly aided and abetted the modern rejection of the Bible. Wieland explained that "AiG's major 'strategy' is to boldly, but humbly, call the church back to its Biblical foundations ... we neither count ourselves a part of this movement nor campaign against it."
Reaction from the scientific community
The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science curriculum. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience. Others in the scientific community have denounced its tactics, accusing the ID movement of manufacturing false attacks against evolution, of engaging in misinformation and misrepresentation about science, and marginalizing those who teach it. More recently, in September 2012, Bill Nye warned that creationist views threaten science education and innovations in the United States.
In 2001, the Discovery Institute published advertisements under the heading "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", with the claim that listed scientists had signed this statement expressing skepticism:
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
The ambiguous statement did not exclude other known evolutionary mechanisms, and most signatories were not scientists in relevant fields, but starting in 2004 the Institute claimed the increasing number of signatures indicated mounting doubts about evolution among scientists. The statement formed a key component of Discovery Institute campaigns to present intelligent design as scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support, with Institute members continuing to cite the list through at least 2011. As part of a strategy to counter these claims, scientists organised Project Steve, which gained more signatories named Steve (or variants) than the Institute's petition, and a counter-petition, "A Scientific Support for Darwinism", which quickly gained similar numbers of signatories.
Polls
Several surveys were conducted prior to the December 2005 decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover School District, which sought to determine the level of support for intelligent design among certain groups. According to a 2005 Harris poll, 10% of adults in the United States viewed human beings as "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them." Although Zogby polls commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support, these polls suffer from considerable flaws, such as having a low response rate (248 out of 16,000), being conducted on behalf of an organization with an expressed interest in the outcome of the poll, and containing leading questions.
The 2017 Gallup creationism survey found that 38% of adults in the United States hold the view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings, which was noted as being at the lowest level in 35 years. Previously, a series of Gallup polls in the United States from 1982 through 2014 on "Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design" found support for "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced formed of life, but God guided the process" of between 31% and 40%, support for "God created human beings in pretty much their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" varied from 40% to 47%, and support for "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in the process" varied from 9% to 19%. The polls also noted answers to a series of more detailed questions.
Allegations of discrimination against ID proponents
Main article: Expelled: No Intelligence AllowedThere have been allegations that ID proponents have met discrimination, such as being refused tenure or being harshly criticized on the Internet. In the documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, released in 2008, host Ben Stein presents five such cases. The film contends that the mainstream science establishment, in a "scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation's laboratories and classrooms", suppresses academics who believe they see evidence of intelligent design in nature or criticize evidence of evolution. Investigation into these allegations turned up alternative explanations for perceived persecution.
The film portrays intelligent design as motivated by science, rather than religion, though it does not give a detailed definition of the phrase or attempt to explain it on a scientific level. Other than briefly addressing issues of irreducible complexity, Expelled examines it as a political issue. The scientific theory of evolution is portrayed by the film as contributing to fascism, the Holocaust, communism, atheism, and eugenics.
Expelled has been used in private screenings to legislators as part of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaign for Academic Freedom bills. Review screenings were restricted to churches and Christian groups, and at a special pre-release showing, one of the interviewees, PZ Myers, was refused admission. The American Association for the Advancement of Science describes the film as dishonest and divisive propaganda aimed at introducing religious ideas into public school science classrooms, and the Anti-Defamation League has denounced the film's allegation that evolutionary theory influenced the Holocaust. The film includes interviews with scientists and academics who were misled into taking part by misrepresentation of the topic and title of the film. Skeptic Michael Shermer describes his experience of being repeatedly asked the same question without context as "surreal".
Criticism
Scientific criticism
Main article: Intelligent design and scienceAdvocates of intelligent design seek to keep God and the Bible out of the discussion, and present intelligent design in the language of science as though it were a scientific hypothesis. For a theory to qualify as scientific, it is expected to be:
- Consistent
- Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations; see Occam's razor)
- Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used in a predictive manner)
- Empirically testable and falsifiable (potentially confirmable or disprovable by experiment or observation)
- Based on multiple observations (often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments)
- Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
- Progressive (refines previous theories)
- Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis, or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not scientifically useful, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, progressive, or provisional.
Intelligent design proponents seek to change this fundamental basis of science by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from science and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, calls "theistic realism". Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena and that supernatural explanations provide a simple and intuitive explanation for the origins of life and the universe. Many intelligent design followers believe that "scientism" is itself a religion that promotes secularism and materialism in an attempt to erase theism from public life, and they view their work in the promotion of intelligent design as a way to return religion to a central role in education and other public spheres.
It has been argued that methodological naturalism is not an assumption of science, but a result of science well done: the God explanation is the least parsimonious, so according to Occam's razor, it cannot be a scientific explanation.
The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design being accepted as valid science. The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article supporting ID in a scientific journal, and has failed to publish supporting peer-reviewed research or data. The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards. The Discovery Institute says that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals, but critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim and state intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with peer review that lack impartiality and rigor, consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.
Further criticism stems from the fact that the phrase intelligent design makes use of an assumption of the quality of an observable intelligence, a concept that has no scientific consensus definition. The characteristics of intelligence are assumed by intelligent design proponents to be observable without specifying what the criteria for the measurement of intelligence should be. Critics say that the design detection methods proposed by intelligent design proponents are radically different from conventional design detection, undermining the key elements that make it possible as legitimate science. Intelligent design proponents, they say, are proposing both searching for a designer without knowing anything about that designer's abilities, parameters, or intentions (which scientists do know when searching for the results of human intelligence), as well as denying the distinction between natural/artificial design that allows scientists to compare complex designed artifacts against the background of the sorts of complexity found in nature.
Among a significant proportion of the general public in the United States, the major concern is whether conventional evolutionary biology is compatible with belief in God and in the Bible, and how this issue is taught in schools. The Discovery Institute's "teach the controversy" campaign promotes intelligent design while attempting to discredit evolution in United States public high school science courses. The scientific community and science education organizations have replied that there is no scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics.
Arguments from ignorance
Eugenie C. Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance. In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies on a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside science. Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a false dichotomy, where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. Scott and Branch also contend that the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research.
In his conclusion to the Kitzmiller trial, Judge John E. Jones III wrote that "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." This same argument had been put forward to support creation science at the McLean v. Arkansas (1982) trial, which found it was "contrived dualism", the false premise of a "two model approach". Behe's argument of irreducible complexity puts forward negative arguments against evolution but does not make any positive scientific case for intelligent design. It fails to allow for scientific explanations continuing to be found, as has been the case with several examples previously put forward as supposed cases of irreducible complexity.
Possible theological implications
Intelligent design proponents often insist that their claims do not require a religious component. However, various philosophical and theological issues are naturally raised by the claims of intelligent design.
Intelligent design proponents attempt to demonstrate scientifically that features such as irreducible complexity and specified complexity could not arise through natural processes, and therefore required repeated direct miraculous interventions by a Designer (often a Christian concept of God). They reject the possibility of a Designer who works merely through setting natural laws in motion at the outset, in contrast to theistic evolution (to which even Charles Darwin was open). Intelligent design is distinct because it asserts repeated miraculous interventions in addition to designed laws. This contrasts with other major religious traditions of a created world in which God's interactions and influences do not work in the same way as physical causes. The Roman Catholic tradition makes a careful distinction between ultimate metaphysical explanations and secondary, natural causes.
The concept of direct miraculous intervention raises other potential theological implications. If such a Designer does not intervene to alleviate suffering even though capable of intervening for other reasons, some imply the designer is not omnibenevolent (see problem of evil and related theodicy).
Further, repeated interventions imply that the original design was not perfect and final, and thus pose a problem for any who believe that the Creator's work had been both perfect and final. Intelligent design proponents seek to explain the problem of poor design in nature by insisting that we have simply failed to understand the perfection of the design (for example, proposing that vestigial organs have unknown purposes), or by proposing that designers do not necessarily produce the best design they can, and may have unknowable motives for their actions.
In 2005, the director of the Vatican Observatory, the Jesuit astronomer George Coyne, set out theological reasons for accepting evolution in an August 2005 article in The Tablet, and said that "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science." In 2006, he "condemned ID as a kind of 'crude creationism' which reduced God to a mere engineer."
Critics state that the wedge strategy's "ultimate goal is to create a theocratic state".
God of the gaps
Intelligent design has also been characterized as a God-of-the-gaps argument, which has the following form:
- There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
- The gap is filled with acts of God (or intelligent designer) and therefore proves the existence of God (or intelligent designer).
A God-of-the-gaps argument is the theological version of an argument from ignorance. A key feature of this type of argument is that it merely answers outstanding questions with explanations (often supernatural) that are unverifiable and ultimately themselves subject to unanswerable questions. Historians of science observe that the astronomy of the earliest civilizations, although astonishing and incorporating mathematical constructions far in excess of any practical value, proved to be misdirected and of little importance to the development of science because they failed to inquire more carefully into the mechanisms that drove the heavenly bodies across the sky. It was the Greek civilization that first practiced science, although not yet as a formally defined experimental science, but nevertheless an attempt to rationalize the world of natural experience without recourse to divine intervention. In this historically motivated definition of science any appeal to an intelligent creator is explicitly excluded for the paralysing effect it may have on scientific progress.
Legal challenges in the United States
Kitzmiller trial
Main article: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School DistrictKitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Eleven parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania, sued the Dover Area School District over a statement that the school board required be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught. The plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and Pepper Hamilton LLP. The National Center for Science Education acted as consultants for the plaintiffs. The defendants were represented by the Thomas More Law Center. The suit was tried in a bench trial from September 26 to November 4, 2005, before Judge John E. Jones III. Kenneth R. Miller, Kevin Padian, Brian Alters, Robert T. Pennock, Barbara Forrest and John F. Haught served as expert witnesses for the plaintiffs. Michael Behe, Steve Fuller and Scott Minnich served as expert witnesses for the defense.
On December 20, 2005, Judge Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision, ruling that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional, and barring intelligent design from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms. On November 8, 2005, there had been an election in which the eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent design requirement were all defeated by challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class, and the current school board president stated that the board did not intend to appeal the ruling.
In his finding of facts, Judge Jones made the following condemnation of the "Teach the Controversy" strategy:
Moreover, ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.
Reaction to Kitzmiller ruling
Judge Jones himself anticipated that his ruling would be criticized, saying in his decision that:
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
As Jones had predicted, John G. West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture, said:
The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work. He has conflated Discovery Institute's position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.
Newspapers have noted that the judge is "a Republican and a churchgoer".
The decision has been examined in a search for flaws and conclusions, partly by intelligent design supporters aiming to avoid future defeats in court. In its Winter issue of 2007, the Montana Law Review published three articles. In the first, David K. DeWolf, John G. West and Casey Luskin, all of the Discovery Institute, argued that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, the Jones court should not have addressed the question of whether it was a scientific theory, and that the Kitzmiller decision will have no effect at all on the development and adoption of intelligent design as an alternative to standard evolutionary theory. In the second Peter H. Irons responded, arguing that the decision was extremely well reasoned and spells the death knell for the intelligent design efforts to introduce creationism in public schools, while in the third, DeWolf, et al., answer the points made by Irons. However, fear of a similar lawsuit has resulted in other school boards abandoning intelligent design "teach the controversy" proposals.
Anti-evolution legislation
Main article: Anti-evolution legislationA number of anti-evolution bills have been introduced in the United States Congress and State legislatures since 2001, based largely upon language drafted by the Discovery Institute for the Santorum Amendment. Their aim has been to expose more students to articles and videos produced by advocates of intelligent design that criticise evolution. They have been presented as supporting "academic freedom", on the supposition that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection. Critics of the legislation have pointed out that there are no credible scientific critiques of evolution, and an investigation in Florida of allegations of intimidation and retaliation found no evidence that it had occurred. The vast majority of the bills have been unsuccessful, with the one exception being Louisiana's Louisiana Science Education Act, which was enacted in 2008.
In April 2010, the American Academy of Religion issued Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K–12 Public Schools in the United States, which included guidance that creation science or intelligent design should not be taught in science classes, as "Creation science and intelligent design represent worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." However, these worldviews as well as others "that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature or social sciences courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of worldviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others."
Status outside the United States
Europe
In June 2007, the Council of Europe's Committee on Culture, Science and Education issued a report, The dangers of creationism in education, which states "Creationism in any of its forms, such as 'intelligent design', is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes." In describing the dangers posed to education by teaching creationism, it described intelligent design as "anti-science" and involving "blatant scientific fraud" and "intellectual deception" that "blurs the nature, objectives and limits of science" and links it and other forms of creationism to denialism. On October 4, 2007, the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution stating that schools should "resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion", including "intelligent design", which it described as "the latest, more refined version of creationism", "presented in a more subtle way". The resolution emphasises that the aim of the report is not to question or to fight a belief, but to "warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science".
In the United Kingdom, public education includes religious education, and there are many faith schools that teach the ethos of particular denominations. When it was revealed that a group called Truth in Science had distributed DVDs produced by Illustra Media featuring Discovery Institute fellows making the case for design in nature, and claimed they were being used by 59 schools, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) stated that "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum" (part of the National Curriculum, which does not apply to private schools or to education in Scotland). The DfES subsequently stated that "Intelligent design is not a recognised scientific theory; therefore, it is not included in the science curriculum", but left the way open for it to be explored in religious education in relation to different beliefs, as part of a syllabus set by a local Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education. In 2006, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority produced a "Religious Education" model unit in which pupils can learn about religious and nonreligious views about creationism, intelligent design and evolution by natural selection.
On June 25, 2007, the UK Government responded to an e-petition by saying that creationism and intelligent design should not be taught as science, though teachers would be expected to answer pupils' questions within the standard framework of established scientific theories. Detailed government "Creationism teaching guidance" for schools in England was published on September 18, 2007. It states that "Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science", has no underpinning scientific principles, or explanations, and is not accepted by the science community as a whole. Though it should not be taught as science, "Any questions about creationism and intelligent design which arise in science lessons, for example as a result of media coverage, could provide the opportunity to explain or explore why they are not considered to be scientific theories and, in the right context, why evolution is considered to be a scientific theory." However, "Teachers of subjects such as RE, history or citizenship may deal with creationism and intelligent design in their lessons."
The British Centre for Science Education lobbying group has the goal of "countering creationism within the UK" and has been involved in government lobbying in the UK in this regard. Northern Ireland's Department for Education says that the curriculum provides an opportunity for alternative theories to be taught. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) – which has links to fundamentalist Christianity – has been campaigning to have intelligent design taught in science classes. A DUP former Member of Parliament, David Simpson, has sought assurances from the education minister that pupils will not lose marks if they give creationist or intelligent design answers to science questions. In 2007, Lisburn city council voted in favor of a DUP recommendation to write to post-primary schools asking what their plans are to develop teaching material in relation to "creation, intelligent design and other theories of origin".
Plans by Dutch Education Minister Maria van der Hoeven to "stimulate an academic debate" on the subject in 2005 caused a severe public backlash. After the 2006 elections, she was succeeded by Ronald Plasterk, described as a "molecular geneticist, staunch atheist and opponent of intelligent design". As a reaction on this situation in the Netherlands, the Director General of the Flemish Secretariat of Catholic Education (VSKO [nl]) in Belgium, Mieke Van Hecke [nl], declared that: "Catholic scientists already accepted the theory of evolution for a long time and that intelligent design and creationism doesn't belong in Flemish Catholic schools. It's not the tasks of the politics to introduce new ideas, that's task and goal of science."
Australia
The status of intelligent design in Australia is somewhat similar to that in the UK (see Education in Australia). In 2005, the Australian Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, raised the notion of intelligent design being taught in science classes. The public outcry caused the minister to quickly concede that the correct forum for intelligent design, if it were to be taught, is in religion or philosophy classes. The Australian chapter of Campus Crusade for Christ distributed a DVD of the Discovery Institute's documentary Unlocking the Mystery of Life (2002) to Australian secondary schools. Tim Hawkes, the head of The King's School, one of Australia's leading private schools, supported use of the DVD in the classroom at the discretion of teachers and principals.
Relation to Islam
Muzaffar Iqbal, a notable Pakistani-Canadian Muslim, signed "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", a petition from the Discovery Institute. Ideas similar to intelligent design have been considered respected intellectual options among Muslims, and in Turkey many intelligent design books have been translated. In Istanbul in 2007, public meetings promoting intelligent design were sponsored by the local government, and David Berlinski of the Discovery Institute was the keynote speaker at a meeting in May 2007.
Relation to ISKCON
In 2011, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) Bhaktivedanta Book Trust published an intelligent design book titled Rethinking Darwin: A Vedic Study of Darwinism and Intelligent Design. The book included contributions from intelligent design advocates William A. Dembski, Jonathan Wells and Michael Behe as well as from Hindu creationists Leif A. Jensen and Michael Cremo.
See also
- Abiogenesis
- Buddhism and evolution
- Clockwork universe
- Creation and evolution in public education
- Day-age creationism
- Evolution as fact and theory
- Gap creationism
- Genetic entropy
- Haldane's dilemma
- Hindu views on evolution
- History of evolutionary thought
- History of the creation–evolution controversy
- Intelligent design in politics
- Intelligent design and science
- Intelligent falling
- International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design
- Islamic views on evolution
- Jainism and non-creationism
- List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
- List of works on intelligent design
- Materialism
- Modern evolutionary synthesis
- Naturalism (philosophy)
- Neo-creationism
- Neo-Darwinism
- Objections to evolution
- Philosophy of science
- Progressive creationism
- Raëlian intelligent design
- Santorum Amendment
- Scientific method
- Scientific skepticism
- Social Darwinism
- Sternberg peer review controversy
- "Strengths and weaknesses of evolution"
- The eclipse of Darwinism
- Unintelligent design
Notes
- "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 1". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
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.- Wilgoren 2005, "...the institute's Center for Science and Culture has emerged in recent months as the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country."
- "Frequently Asked Questions About 'Intelligent Design'". American Civil Liberties Union. New York: American Civil Liberties Union. September 16, 2005. Who is behind the ID movement?. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
- Kahn, Joseph P. (July 27, 2005). "The evolution of George Gilder". The Boston Globe. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- "WHO's WHO: Intelligent Design Proponents" (PDF). Science & Theology News. Durham, N.C.: Science & Theology News, Inc. November 2005. ISSN 1530-6410. Retrieved July 20, 2007.
- Attie, et al. 2006, "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute."
- ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy pp. 24–25. "the argument for 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. ...
...his argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley... 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." - ^
"Guidance on the place of creationism and intelligent design in science lessons". Teachernet. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families. Archived from the original (DOC) on November 4, 2007. Retrieved October 1, 2007.
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. - ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy, pages 26–27, "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Examples include:
- Nickson, Elizabeth (February 6, 2004). "Let's Be Intelligent about Darwin". National Post (Reprint). Toronto: Postmedia Network. ISSN 1486-8008. Archived from the original on December 28, 2013. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.
— Phillip E. Johnson (2003) - Grelen, Jay (November 30, 1996). "Witnesses for the prosecution". World. Vol. 11, no. 28. Asheville, N.C.: God's World Publications. p. 18. ISSN 0888-157X. Retrieved February 16, 2014.
This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy.
- Johnson 2002, "So the question is: How to win? That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the 'wedge' strategy: 'Stick with the most important thing'—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, 'Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?' and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do."
- Nickson, Elizabeth (February 6, 2004). "Let's Be Intelligent about Darwin". National Post (Reprint). Toronto: Postmedia Network. ISSN 1486-8008. Archived from the original on December 28, 2013. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Ted, Koppel (August 10, 2005). "Doubting Darwin: The Marketing of Intelligent Design". Nightline. New York. American Broadcasting Company. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
I think the designer is God ...
— Stephen C. Meyer- Pearcey 2004, pp. 204–205, "By contrast, design theory demonstrates that Christians can sit in the supernaturalist's chair, even in their professional lives, seeing the cosmos through the lens of a comprehensive biblical worldview. Intelligent Design steps boldly into the scientific arena to build a case based on empirical data. It takes Christianity out of the ineffectual realm of value and stakes out a cognitive claim in the realm of objective truth. It restores Christianity to its status as genuine knowledge, equipping us to defend it in the public arena."
- Bridgham, Jamie T.; Carroll, Sean M.; Thornton, Joseph W. (April 7, 2006). "Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation". Science. 312 (5770): 97–101. Bibcode:2006Sci...312...97B. doi:10.1126/science.1123348. PMID 16601189. S2CID 9662677. Retrieved February 28, 2014. Bridgham, et al., showed that gradual evolutionary mechanisms can produce complex protein-protein interaction systems from simpler precursors.
- Orr 2005. This article draws from the following exchange of letters in which Behe admits to sloppy prose and non-logical proof:
- Behe, Michael; Dembski, William A.; Wells, Jonathan; Nelson, Paul A.; Berlinski, David (March 26, 2003). "Has Darwin Met His Match? – Letters: An Exchange Over ID". Center for Science and Culture (Reprint). Seattle: Discovery Institute. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Dembski, William A. (2001). "Another Way to Detect Design?". Metanexus. New York: Metanexus Institute. Retrieved June 16, 2012. This is a "three part lecture series entitled 'Another Way to Detect Design' which contains William Dembski's response to Fitelson, Stephens, and Sober whose article 'How Not to Detect Design' ran on Metanexus:Views (2001.09.14, 2001.09.21, and 2001.09.28). These lectures were first made available online at Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science http://www.metanexus.net. This is from three keynote lectures delivered October 5–6, 2001 at the Society of Christian Philosopher's meeting at the University of Colorado, Boulder."
- "FAQ: Who designed the designer?". Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (Short answer). Seattle: Casey Luskin; IDEA Center. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
One need not fully understand the origin or identity of the designer to determine that an object was designed. Thus, this question is essentially irrelevant to intelligent design theory, which merely seeks to detect if an object was designed.... Intelligent design theory cannot address the identity or origin of the designer—it is a philosophical / religious question that lies outside the domain of scientific inquiry. Christianity postulates the religious answer to this question that the designer is God who by definition is eternally existent and has no origin. There is no logical philosophical impossibility with this being the case (akin to Aristotle's 'unmoved mover') as a religious answer to the origin of the designer.
- Pennock 2001, "Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski", pp. 645–667, "Dembski chides me for never using the term 'intelligent design' without conjoining it to 'creationism'. He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to 'rally the troops'. (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski's movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability..."
- ^ "The Wedge" (PDF). Seattle: Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. 1999. Archived from the original on April 22, 2007. Retrieved May 31, 2014.
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The beginning of this strategy, the 'thin edge of the wedge,' was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link) - ^ Johnson, Phillip E. "How The Evolution Debate Can Be Won". Coral Ridge Ministries. Fort Lauderdale, Fla.: Coral Ridge Ministries. Archived from the original on November 7, 2007. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science. ... Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? ... I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves.
— Johnson, "Reclaiming America for Christ Conference" (1999) - ^ "Does intelligent design postulate a "supernatural creator?". Discovery Institute. Seattle. Truth Sheet # 09-05. Retrieved July 19, 2007.
... intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer. ... '... the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy.'
- Johnson, Phillip E. (April 1999). "Keeping the Darwinists Honest". Citizen. Colorado Springs, Colo.: Focus on the Family. ISSN 1084-6832. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
ID is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. ... The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed.
- "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 2". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own. ... Intelligent design, as it is understood by the proponents that we are discussing today, does involve a supernatural creator, and that is my objection. And I am objecting to it as they have defined it, as Professor Johnson has defined intelligent design, and as Dr. Dembski has defined intelligent design. And both of those are basically religious. They involve the supernatural.
— Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. - Geoffroy, Gregory (June 1, 2007). "Statement from Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy". News Service: Iowa State University. Ames, Ohio: Iowa State University. Retrieved December 16, 2007.
- Rennie, John; Mirsky, Steve (April 16, 2008). "Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know..." Scientific American. Stuttgart, Germany: Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group. ISSN 0036-8733. Retrieved June 24, 2014.
- Vedantam, Shankar (February 5, 2006). "Eden and Evolution". The Washington Post. p. W08. Retrieved February 16, 2008.
GMU spokesman Daniel Walsch denied that the school had fired Crocker. She was a part-time faculty member, he said, and was let go at the end of her contract period for reasons unrelated to her views on intelligent design.
- Gauch 2003, Chapters 5–8. Discusses principles of induction, deduction and probability related to the expectation of consistency, testability, and multiple observations. Chapter 8 discusses parsimony (Occam's razor).
- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science, p. 64. The ruling discusses central aspects of expectations in the scientific community that a scientific theory be testable, dynamic, correctible, progressive, based upon multiple observations, and provisional.
- See, e.g., Fitelson, Stephens & Sober 2001, "How Not to Detect Design–Critical Notice: William A. Dembski The Design Inference", pp. 597–616. Intelligent design fails to pass Occam's razor. Adding entities (an intelligent agent, a designer) to the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events.
- See, e.g., Schneider, Jill E. "Professor Schneider's thoughts on Evolution and Intelligent Design". Department of Biological Sciences. Bethlehem, Pa.: Lehigh University. Archived from the original on September 2, 2006. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
Q: Why couldn't intelligent design also be a scientific theory? A: The idea of intelligent design might or might not be true, but when presented as a scientific hypothesis, it is not useful because it is based on weak assumptions, lacks supporting data and terminates further thought.
- See, e.g., Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy, p. 22 and s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science, p. 77. The designer is not falsifiable, since its existence is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. The designer being beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can be neither supported nor undermined by observation, making intelligent design and the argument from design analytic a posteriori arguments.
- See, e.g., Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy, p. 22 and s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science, p. 66. That intelligent design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that it violates a basic premise of science, naturalism.
- See, e.g., the brief explanation in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science, p. 66. Intelligent design professes to offer an answer that does not need to be defined or explained, the intelligent agent, designer. By asserting a conclusion that cannot be accounted for scientifically, the designer, intelligent design cannot be sustained by any further explanation, and objections raised to those who accept intelligent design make little headway. Thus intelligent design is not a provisional assessment of data, which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that a conclusion that need not be accounted for has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data.
- "Nobel Laureates Initiative" (PDF) (Letter). The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity. September 9, 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 7, 2005. Retrieved February 28, 2014. The September 2005 statement by 38 Nobel laureates stated that: "...intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."
- "Intelligent Design is not Science: Scientists and teachers speak out". Faculty of Science. Sydney: University of New South Wales. October 2005. Archived from the original on June 14, 2006. Retrieved January 9, 2009. The October 2005 statement, by a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers said: "intelligent design is not science" and "urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science."
- Johnson 1996b, "My colleagues and I speak of 'theistic realism'—or sometimes, 'mere creation'—as the defining concept of our movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology."
- Watanabe, Teresa (March 25, 2001). "Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
'We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. ...'We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.'
— Phillip E. Johnson - Brauer, Matthew J.; Forrest, Barbara; Gey, Steven G. (2005). "Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution". Washington University Law Review. 83 (1): 79–80. ISSN 2166-7993. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 20, 2013. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly 'peer-reviewed' journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of 'peer review' that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows.
- Isaak, Mark (ed.). "CI001.4: Intelligent Design and peer review". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical.
- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science, p. 81. "For human artifacts, we know the designer's identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer's abilities, needs, and desires. With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer's identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."
- "WIRED Magazine response". Illustra Media. La Habra, Calif. Archived from the original on December 20, 2008. Retrieved July 13, 2007.
It's also important that you read a well developed rebuttal to Wired's misleading accusations. Links to both the article and a response by the Discovery Institute (our partners in the production of Unlocking the Mystery of Life and The Privileged Planet) are available below.
- Ratliff, Evan (October 2004). "The Crusade Against Evolution". Wired. Vol. 12, no. 10. New York: Condé Nast. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- "Wired magazine reporter criticized for agenda driven reporting". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle: Discovery Institute. October 13, 2004. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
References
- ^ Numbers 2006, p. 373; " captured headlines for its bold attempt to rewrite the basic rules of science and its claim to have found indisputable evidence of a God-like being. Proponents, however, insisted it was 'not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins – one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution.' Although the intellectual roots of the design argument go back centuries, its contemporary incarnation dates from the 1980s"Numbers, Ronald L. (2006) . The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (Expanded ed., 1st Harvard University Press pbk. ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-02339-0. LCCN 2006043675. OCLC 69734583.
- ^ Meyer, Stephen C. (December 1, 2005). "Not by chance". National Post. Don Mills, Ontario: CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc. Archived from the original on May 1, 2006. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Boudry, Maarten; Blancke, Stefaan; Braeckman, Johan (December 2010). "Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience" (PDF). The Quarterly Review of Biology. 85 (4): 473–482. doi:10.1086/656904. hdl:1854/LU-952482. ISSN 0033-5770. PMID 21243965. S2CID 27218269. Article available from Universiteit Gent
- Pigliucci 2010
- Young & Edis 2004 pp. 195–196, Section heading: But is it Pseudoscience?
- ^ "CSC – Frequently Asked Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design?". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle: Discovery Institute. Retrieved July 15, 2018.
- "Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell" (PDF). Seattle: Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center. 2004. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
- "Intelligent Design". Intelligent design network. Shawnee Mission, Kan.: Intelligent Design network, inc. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
- ^ Forrest, Barbara (May 2007). "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals" (PDF). Center for Inquiry. Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 19, 2011. Retrieved August 6, 2007.
- ^ See:
- List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting intelligent design
- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science p. 83
- 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. The four-day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7,733 signatories from scientists opposing ID.
- AAAS 2002. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID.
- More than 70,000 Australian scientists "...urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science."
- National Center for Science Education: List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism in the sciences.
- Nature Methods 2007, "Long considered a North American phenomenon, pro-ID interest groups can also be found throughout Europe. ...Concern about this trend is now so widespread in Europe that in October 2007 the Council of Europe voted on a motion calling upon member states to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline."
- Dean 2007, "There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth."
- "An intelligently designed response". Nature Methods (Editorial). 4 (12): 983. December 2007. doi:10.1038/nmeth1207-983. ISSN 1548-7091.
- ^ Haught, John F. (April 1, 2005). "Report of John F. Haught, Ph. D" (PDF). Retrieved August 29, 2013. Haught's expert report in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
- ^ Matzke, Nick (January–April 2006). "Design on Trial: How NCSE Helped Win the Kitzmiller Case". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. 26 (1–2): 37–44. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved November 18, 2009.
- Matzke, Nick (November 7, 2005). "Missing Link discovered!". Evolution Education and the Law (Blog). Berkeley, Calif.: National Center for Science Education. Archived from the original on January 14, 2007. Retrieved November 18, 2009.
- ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy, pp. 31–33.
- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy p. 32 ff, citing Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).
- "Media Backgrounder: Intelligent Design Article Sparks Controversy". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle: Discovery Institute. September 7, 2004. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Johnson, Phillip E. (June 2002). "Berkeley's Radical". Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity (Interview). 15 (5). Interviewed by James M. Kushiner. Chicago: Fellowship of St. James. ISSN 0897-327X. Retrieved June 16, 2012. Johnson interviewed in November 2000.
- Wilgoren, Jodi (August 21, 2005). "Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive". The New York Times. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Downey 2006
- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science Page 69 and s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#H. Conclusion p. 136.
- Meyer, Stephen C.; Nelson, Paul A. (May 1, 1996). "Getting Rid of the Unfair Rules". Origins & Design (Book review). Colorado Springs, Colo.: Access Research Network. Retrieved May 20, 2007.
- Johnson, Phillip E. (May–June 1996). "Third-Party Science". Books & Culture (Book review). Vol. 2, no. 3. Archived from the original on February 19, 2014. Retrieved June 16, 2012. The review is reprinted in full by Access Research Network .
- Meyer, Stephen C. (2000). "The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories". Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe: Papers Presented at a Conference Sponsored by the Wethersfield Institute, New York City, September 25, 1999. Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute. Vol. 9. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. ISBN 978-0-89870-809-7. LCCN 00102374. OCLC 45720008. Retrieved December 1, 2014.
- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science, p. 68. "lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology."
- See also Hanna, John (February 13, 2007). "Kansas Rewriting Science Standards". The Guardian. London. Associated Press. Archived from the original on February 16, 2007. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Giberson, Karl W. (April 21, 2014). "My Debate With an 'Intelligent Design' Theorist". The Daily Beast. New York: The Newsweek Daily Beast Company. Retrieved May 14, 2014.
- ^ Scott, Eugenie C.; Matzke, Nicholas J. (May 15, 2007). "Biological design in science classrooms". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 104 (Suppl 1): 8669–8676. Bibcode:2007PNAS..104.8669S. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701505104. PMC 1876445. PMID 17494747. abstract
- ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science, p. 64.
- ^ McDonald, John H. "A reducibly complex mousetrap". Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Ussery, David (December 1997). "A Biochemist's Response to 'The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution'" (Book review). Archived from the original on March 4, 2014. Retrieved February 28, 2014. Originally published in Bios (July 1998) 70:40–45.
- ^ Padian, Kevin; Matzke, Nicholas J. (January 1, 2009). "Darwin, Dover, 'Intelligent Design' and textbooks" (PDF). Biochemical Journal. 417 (1): 29–42. doi:10.1042/bj20081534. ISSN 0264-6021. PMID 19061485. Retrieved November 10, 2015.
- Ayala, Francisco J. (2007). Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press. pp. 6, 15–16, 138. ISBN 978-0-309-10231-5. LCCN 2007005821. OCLC 83609838. Ayala writes that "Paley made the strongest possible case for intelligent design", and refers to "Intelligent Design: The Original Version" before discussing ID proponents reviving the argument from design under the pretense that it is scientific.
- Pennock 1999, pp. 60, 68–70, 242–245
- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy, pp. 24–25.
- ^ Forrest, Barbara C. (March 11, 2006). "Know Your Creationists: Know Your Allies". Daily Kos (Interview). Interviewed by Andrew Stephen. Berkeley, Calif.: Kos Media, LLC. OCLC 59226519. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- ^ Meyer, Stephen C. (March 1986). "We Are Not Alone". Eternity. Philadelphia: Evangelical Foundation Inc. ISSN 0014-1682. Retrieved October 10, 2007.
- Meyer, Stephen C. (March 1986). "Scientific Tenets of Faith". The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation. 38 (1). Retrieved May 31, 2019.
- Thaxton, Charles B. (November 13–16, 1986). DNA, Design and the Origin of Life. Jesus Christ: God and Man. Dallas. Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
- ^ Thaxton, Charles B. (June 24–26, 1988). In Pursuit of Intelligent Causes: Some Historical Background. Sources of Information Content in DNA. Tacoma, Wash. OCLC 31054528. Retrieved October 6, 2007. Revised July 30, 1988, and May 6, 1991.
- ^ Dembski, William A. (July–August 1999). "Signs of Intelligence: A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design". Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. Vol. 12, no. 4. Chicago: Fellowship of St. James. ISSN 0897-327X. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
...ntelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.
- ^ Dao, James (December 25, 2005). "2005: In a Word; Intelligent Design". The New York Times. Retrieved August 23, 2013. Dao states that the Discovery Institute said the phrase may have first been used by F. C. S. Schiller: his essay "Darwinism and Design", published in The Contemporary Review for June 1897, evaluated objections to "what has been called the Argument from Design" raised by natural selection, and said "...it will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of Evolution may be guided by an intelligent design." pp. 128, 141 Archived October 29, 2013, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Matzke, Nick (August 14, 2007). "The true origin of 'intelligent design'". The Panda's Thumb (Blog). Houston: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved July 3, 2012.
- Matzke gives as examples the August 21, 1847, issue of Scientific American, and an 1861 letter in which Charles Darwin uses "intelligent Design" to denote John Herschel's view that the overlapping changes of species found in geology had needed "intelligent direction":
- "The Utility and Pleasures of Science". Scientific American. 2 (48): 381. August 21, 1847. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican08211847-381. ISSN 0036-8733. Retrieved June 16, 2012. concludes that "objects" that "the great Author" has supplied in "the great store-house of nature" give "evidence of infinite skill and intelligent design in their adaptation".
- Darwin, Charles (May 23, 1861). "Darwin, C. R. to Herschel, J. F. W." Darwin Correspondence Project. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Library. Letter 3154. Retrieved February 28, 2014., discussing a footnote Herschel had added in January 1861 to his Physical Geology (see footnotes to pp. 190–191 in Francis Darwin's Life and Letters.)
- Luskin, Casey (September 8, 2008). "A Brief History of Intelligent Design". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle: Discovery Institute. Retrieved July 8, 2012. Luskin quotes examples of use of the phrase by F. C. S. Schiller and Fred Hoyle.
- Elsberry, Wesley R. (December 5, 1996). "Enterprising Science Needs Naturalism". Talk Reason. Retrieved August 23, 2013.
- Forrest, Barbara (April 1, 2005). "Expert Witness Report" (PDF). Retrieved May 30, 2013. Forrest's expert report in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
- Witt, Jonathan (December 20, 2005). "Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design". Evolution News & Views. Seattle: Discovery Institute. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
- Safire, William (August 21, 2005). "Neo-Creo". The New York Times. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
- ^ Matzke, Nick (November 23, 2004). "Critique: 'Of Pandas and People'". National Center for Science Education (Blog). Berkeley, Calif. Retrieved September 24, 2007.
- Aulie, Richard P. (1998). "A Reader's Guide to Of Pandas and People". McLean, Va.: National Association of Biology Teachers. Archived from the original on March 6, 2014. Retrieved October 5, 2007.
- Matzke, Nick (October 13, 2005). "I guess ID really was 'Creationism's Trojan Horse' after all". The Panda's Thumb (Blog). Houston: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Archived from the original on June 24, 2008. Retrieved June 2, 2009.
- Dembski, William A. (March 29, 2005). "Expert Witness Report: The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 30, 2005. Retrieved June 2, 2009. Dembski's expert report in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
- Ruse 1992, p. 41
- Lynn, Leon (Winter 1997–1998). "Creationists Push Pseudo-Science Text". Rethinking Schools. Vol. 12, no. 2. Milwaukee: Rethinking Schools, Ltd. ISSN 0895-6855. Archived from the original on August 26, 2016. Retrieved February 8, 2009.
- Behe, Michael (1997). "Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference". Apologetics.org. Trinity, Fla.: The Apologetics Group;Trinity College of Florida. Archived from the original on August 1, 2012. Retrieved February 28, 2014. "This paper was originally presented in the Summer of 1994 at the meeting of the C.S. Lewis Society, Cambridge University."
- Irreducible complexity of these examples is disputed; see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science pp. 76–78, and Kenneth R. Miller's January 3, 2006, lecture at Case Western Reserve University's Strosacker Auditorium, "The Collapse of Intelligent Design: Will the Next Monkey Trial be in Ohio?" on YouTube.
- Miller, Kenneth R. "The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of 'Irreducible Complexity'". Biology by Miller & Levine. Rehoboth, Mass.: Miller and Levine Biology. Retrieved February 28, 2014. "This is a pre-publication copy of an article that appeared in 'Debating Design from Darwin to DNA,' edited by Michael Ruse and William Dembski."
- McDonald, John H. (2002). "A reducibly complex mousetrap". University of Delaware. Archived from the original on February 22, 2014. Retrieved November 14, 2024.
- ^ Wallis, Claudia (August 7, 2005). "The Evolution Wars". Time. New York: Time Inc. Archived from the original on January 14, 2007. Retrieved October 22, 2011.
- Dembski 1999, p. 47
- Photograph of William A. Dembski taken at lecture given at University of California, Berkeley, March 17, 2006.
- Fitelson, Branden; Stephens, Christopher; Sober, Elliott (September 1999). "How Not to Detect Design" (PDF). Philosophy of Science (Book review). 66 (3): 472–488. doi:10.1086/392699. ISSN 0031-8248. JSTOR 188598. S2CID 11079658. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 17, 2015. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- ^ Wein, Richard (2002). "Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates: A critique of William Dembski's book No Free Lunch". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
- Baldwin, Rich (July 14, 2005). "Information Theory and Creationism: William Dembski". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
- Rosenhouse, Jason (Fall 2001). "How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics" (PDF). The Mathematical Intelligencer. 23 (4): 3–8. doi:10.1007/bf03024593. OCLC 3526661. S2CID 189888286. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
- Perakh, Mark (March 18, 2005). "Dembski 'displaces Darwinism' mathematically – or does he?". Talk Reason. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
- Wilkins, John S.; Elsberry, Wesley R. (November 2001). "The Advantages of Theft over Toil: The Design Inference and Arguing from Ignorance". Biology and Philosophy. 16 (5): 709–722. doi:10.1023/A:1012282323054. ISSN 0169-3867. S2CID 170765232. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Dawkins 2006
- Marks, Paul (July 28, 2007). "Evolutionary algorithms now surpass human designers". New Scientist (2614): 26–27. ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Gonzalez 2004
- Stenger 2011, p. 243
- Susskind 2005
- Stenger, Victor J. "Is The Universe Fine-Tuned For Us?" (PDF). Victor J. Stenger. Boulder, Colo.: University of Colorado. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 16, 2012. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Stenger, Victor J. "The Anthropic Principle" (PDF). Victor J. Stenger. Boulder, Colo.: University of Colorado. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 17, 2012. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
- Silk, Joseph (September 14, 2006). "Our place in the Multiverse". Nature. 443 (7108): 145–146. Bibcode:2006Natur.443..145S. doi:10.1038/443145a. ISSN 0028-0836.
- Feinberg & Shapiro 1993, "A Puddlian Fable", pp. 220–221
- Pennock 1999, pp. 229–229, 233–242
- Dembski, William A. (August 10, 1998). "The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendence and Immanence". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle: Discovery Institute. Retrieved February 28, 2014. "Presented at Millstatt Forum, Strasbourg, France, 10 August 1998."
- ^ Coyne, Jerry (August 22, 2005). "The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name". The New Republic. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- ^ Behe 1996, p. 221
- ^ Pennock 1999, pp. 245–249, 265, 296–300
- Simanek, Donald E. (February 2006). "Intelligent Design: The Glass is Empty". Donald Simanek's Pages. Lock Haven, PA: Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania. Archived from the original on July 14, 2012. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
- Rosenhouse, Jason (November 3, 2006). "Who Designed the Designer?". Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Intelligent Design Watch. Amherst, N.Y.: Center for Inquiry. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Dawkins 1986, p. 141
- See for example Manson, Joseph (September 27, 2005). "Intelligent design is pseudoscience". UCLA Today. Archived from the original on May 15, 2014. Retrieved May 14, 2014.
- "Evolving Banners at the Discovery Institute". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, Calif. August 28, 2002. Retrieved October 7, 2007.
- Mu, David (Fall 2005). "Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design" (PDF). Harvard Science Review. 19 (1): 22–25. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 12, 2020. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
...for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience.
- ^ See:
- Workosky, Cindy (August 3, 2005). "National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush" (Press release). Arlington, Va.: National Science Teachers Association. Archived from the original on September 8, 2021. Retrieved January 14, 2014.
'We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists ... in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom,' said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director. ... 'It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom,' said NSTA President Mike Padilla. 'Nonscientific viewpoints have little value in increasing students' knowledge of the natural world.'
- Mu 2005
- Workosky, Cindy (August 3, 2005). "National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush" (Press release). Arlington, Va.: National Science Teachers Association. Archived from the original on September 8, 2021. Retrieved January 14, 2014.
- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#H. Conclusion p. 136.
- Wise, Donald U. (January 2001). "Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution". Journal of Geoscience Education. 49 (1): 30–35. Bibcode:2001JGeEd..49...30W. doi:10.5408/1089-9995-49.1.30. ISSN 1089-9995. S2CID 152260926. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Ross, Marcus R. (May 2005). "Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism". Journal of Geoscience Education. 53 (3): 319–323. Bibcode:2005JGeEd..53..319R. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.404.1340. doi:10.5408/1089-9995-53.3.319. ISSN 1089-9995. S2CID 14208021. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
- Numbers 2006
- Forrest & Gross 2004
- Pennock 1999
- Scott, Eugenie C. (July–August 1999). "The Creation/Evolution Continuum". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. 19 (4): 16–17, 23–25. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- "Fellows". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle: Discovery Institute. Retrieved July 15, 2018.
- Forrest 2001, "The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream". Archived from the original on September 5, 2014.
- Kippley-Ogman, Emma. "Judaism & Intelligent Design". MyJewishLearning.com. New York: MyJewishLearning, Inc. Archived from the original on March 6, 2014. Retrieved November 13, 2010.
But there are also Jewish voices in the intelligent design camp. David Klinghoffer, a Discovery Institute fellow, is an ardent advocate of intelligent design. In an article in The Forward (August 12, 2005), he claimed that Jewish thinkers have largely ignored intelligent design and contended that Jews, along with Christians, should adopt the theory because beliefs in God and in natural selection are fundamentally opposed.
- Meyer 2009, "Michael Denton, an agnostic, argues for intelligent design in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 326–343."
- Frame 2009, p. 291, "In contrast to the other would-be pioneers of Intelligent Design, Denton describes himself as an agnostic, and his book was released by a secular publishing house."
- "CSC – Frequently Asked Questions: General Questions: Is Discovery Institute a religious organization?". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle: Discovery Institute. Retrieved July 15, 2018.
Discovery Institute is a secular think tank, and its Board members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, including mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic. Until recently the Chairman of Discovery's Board of Directors was former Congressman John Miller, who is Jewish. Although it is not a religious organization, the Institute has a long record of supporting religious liberty and the legitimate role of faith-based institutions in a pluralistic society. In fact, it sponsored a program for several years for college students to teach them the importance of religious liberty and the separation of church and state.
- Edis 2004, "Grand Themes, Narrow Constituency", p. 12: "Among Muslims involved with ID, the most notable is Muzaffar Iqbal, a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, a leading ID organization."
- Shanks 2004, p. 11: "Muzaffar Iqbal, president of the Center for Islam and Science, has recently endorsed work by intelligent design theorist William Dembski."
- ^ Johnson, Phillip E. (July–August 1999). "The Wedge: Breaking the Modernist Monopoly on Science". Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. Vol. 12, no. 4. Chicago: Fellowship of St. James. ISSN 0897-327X. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Dembski 1998
- Dembski 1999, p. 210
- Dembski, William (February 1, 2005). "Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris". DesignInference.com. Pella, Iowa: William Dembski. Archived from the original on July 29, 2012. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- ^ Dixon, Thomas (July 24, 2008). Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction. OUP Oxford. p. 82. ISBN 978-0199295517.
- Ross, Hugh (July 2002). "More Than Intelligent Design". Facts for Faith. No. 10. Glendora, Calif.: Reasons to Believe. OCLC 52894856. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Morris, Henry M. (July 1999). "Design Is Not Enough!". Back to Genesis. No. 127. Santee, Calif.: Institute for Creation Research. OCLC 26390403. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Wieland, Carl (August 30, 2002). "AiG's views on the Intelligent Design Movement". Answers in Genesis. Hebron, Ky. Archived from the original on October 15, 2002. Retrieved April 25, 2007.
- National Academy of Sciences 1999, p. 25
- Attie, Alan D.; Sober, Elliott; Numbers, Ronald L.; Amasino, Richard M.; Cox, Beth; Berceau, Terese; Powell, Thomas; Cox, Michael M. (May 1, 2006). "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action". Journal of Clinical Investigation. 116 (5): 1134–1138. doi:10.1172/JCI28449. ISSN 0021-9738. PMC 1451210. PMID 16670753.
- Lovan, Dylan (September 24, 2012). "Bill Nye Warns: Creation Views Threaten US Science". Associated Press. Archived from the original on October 14, 2013. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Fowler, Jonathan; Rodd, Elizabeth (August 23, 2012). "Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children". YouTube. New York: Big Think. Archived from the original on November 2, 2021. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- "Sign – Dissent from Darwin". dissentfromdarwin.org. Seattle: Discovery Institute. Archived from the original on April 11, 2011. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- "Doubts Over Evolution Mount With Over 300 Scientists Expressing Skepticism With Central Tenet of Darwin's Theory". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle: Discovery Institute. April 1, 2004. Retrieved January 2, 2014.
- Evans, Skip (April 8, 2002). "Doubting Darwinism Through Creative License". National Center for Science Education (Blog). Berkeley, Calif. Retrieved April 25, 2011.
- Chang, Kenneth (February 21, 2006). "Few Biologists But Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition". The New York Times. Retrieved January 4, 2008.
- Luskin, Casey (June 1, 2011). "A Scientific Analysis of Karl Giberson and Francis Collins' The Language of Science and Faith". Evolution News & Views. Seattle: Discovery Institute. Retrieved January 2, 2014.
- "Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God". The Harris Poll. Rochester, N.Y.: Harris Interactive. July 6, 2005. #52. Archived from the original on December 17, 2005. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- "Sandia National Laboratories says that the Intelligent Design Network (IDNet-NM/Zogby) 'Lab Poll' is BOGUS!". New Mexicans for Science and Reason. Peralta, N.M.: NMSR. Retrieved July 13, 2007.
- Mooney, Chris (September 11, 2003). "Polling for ID". Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (Blog). Amherst, N.Y.: Center for Inquiry. Archived from the original on March 27, 2008. Retrieved February 16, 2007.
- Harris, David (July 30, 2003). "'Intelligent Design'-ers launch new assault on curriculum using lies and deception". Salon (Blog). San Francisco: Salon Media Group. Archived from the original on August 16, 2003. Retrieved July 13, 2007.
- Swift, Art (May 22, 2017). "In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low". Gallup, Inc.
- "In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins". Gallup.Com. Omaha: Gallup, Inc. June 2, 2014. Retrieved January 30, 2016.
- Dean, Cornelia (September 27, 2007). "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin". The New York Times. Retrieved May 14, 2014.
- Burbridge-Bates, Lesley (August 14, 2007). "What Happened to Freedom of Speech?" (Press release). Los Angeles: Motive Entertainment; Premise Media Corporation. Retrieved May 14, 2014.
- ^ Whipple, Dan (December 16, 2007). "Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies". The Colorado Independent (Blog). Washington, D.C.: American Independent News Network. Retrieved May 14, 2014.
- Emerson, Jim (December 17, 2008). "Ben Stein: No argument allowed". RogerEbert.com (Blog). Chicago: Ebert Digital LLC. Retrieved May 14, 2014.
One spokesman comes close to articulating a thought about Intelligent Design: '"If you define evolution precisely, though, to mean the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection – that's a textbook definition of neo-Darwinism – biologists of the first rank have real questions... 'Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence.'
- Catsoulis, Jeannette (April 18, 2008). "Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary". The New York Times (Movie review). Retrieved May 14, 2014.
- Simon, Stephanie (May 2, 2008). "Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 14, 2014.
- Lempinen, Edward W. (April 18, 2008). "New AAAS Statement Decries 'Profound Dishonesty' of Intelligent Design Movie". Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Archived from the original on April 25, 2008. Retrieved April 20, 2008.
- Frankowski, Nathan (Director) (2008). Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Motion picture). Premise Media Corporation; Rampant Films. OCLC 233721412.
- Mosher, Dave (April 3, 2008). "New Anti-Evolution Film Stirs Controversy". LiveScience. New York: Space Holdings Corp. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Josh Timonen (March 24, 2008). "Expelled Overview". The Richard Dawkins Center for Reason and Science. Archived from the original on March 17, 2015. Retrieved March 13, 2015.
- Elmes, Kantowitz & Roediger 2006. Chapter 2 discusses the scientific method, including the principles of falsifiability, testability, progressive development of theory, dynamic self-correcting of hypotheses, and parsimony, or "Occam's razor".
- See, e.g., Perakh, Mark (2005). "The Dream World of William Dembski's Creationism". Skeptic. 11 (4): 54–65. ISSN 1063-9330. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Forrest, Barbara (Fall–Winter 2000). "Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection". Philo. 3 (2): 7–29. doi:10.5840/philo20003213. ISSN 1098-3570. Retrieved July 27, 2007.
- Johnson 1995. Johnson positions himself as a "theistic realist" against "methodological naturalism".
- Jennings, Byron K. (2015). In Defense of Scientism: An Insider's view of Science. Byron Jennings. p. 60. ISBN 978-0994058928.
- ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science, p. 87
- "Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington". Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 117 (3): 241. 2004. ISSN 0006-324X. OCLC 1536434. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle: Discovery Institute. February 1, 2012. Archived from the original on August 4, 2007. Retrieved February 28, 2014. The July 1, 2007, version of page is .
- Shaw, Linda (March 31, 2005). "Does Seattle group 'teach controversy' or contribute to it?". The Seattle Times. The Seattle Times Company. Archived from the original on December 24, 2013. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- "Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate". World News Tonight. New York: American Broadcasting Company. November 9, 2005. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Mooney, Chris (December 2002). "Survival of the Slickest". The American Prospect. Vol. 13, no. 22. Washington, D.C. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a 'teach the controversy' approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists 'continue to investigate and critically analyze' aspects of Darwin's theory.
- Dembski, William A. (February 27, 2001). "Teaching Intelligent Design – What Happened When? A Response to Eugenie Scott". Metanexus. New York: Metanexus Institute. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to 'teach the controversy.' There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity (cf. the ongoing events in Kansas), and it is a scientific controversy.
Dembski's response to Eugenie Scott's February 12, 2001, essay published by Metanexus, "The Big Tent and the Camel's Nose." - Matzke, Nick (July 11, 2006). "No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists…". The Panda's Thumb (Blog). Houston: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Archived from the original on September 6, 2015. Retrieved February 28, 2014. Nick Matzke's analysis shows how teaching the controversy using the Critical Analysis of Evolution model lesson plan is a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label.
- Annas 2006, "That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned."
- "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 21, 2006. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called 'flaws' in the theory of evolution or 'disagreements' within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific 'alternatives' to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to 'critically analyze' evolution or to understand 'the controversy.' But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one.
- Scott, Eugenie C.; Branch, Glenn (August 12, 2002) . "'Intelligent Design' Not Accepted by Most Scientists". National Center for Science Education (Blog). Berkeley, Calif. Retrieved November 18, 2009.
- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science, pp. 71–74.
- Merriman 2007, p. 26
- Murphy, George L. (2002). "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem". Covalence: The Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science and Technology. IV (2). OCLC 52753579. Archived from the original on April 11, 2016. Retrieved February 28, 2014. Reprinted with permission.
- Darwin 1860, p. 484, "... probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed by the Creator."
- Dembski, William A. (Spring 2003). "Making the Task of Theodicy Impossible? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evil" (PDF). DesignInference.com. Pella, Iowa: William Dembski. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 14, 2007. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Coyne, George (August 6, 2005). "God's chance creation". The Tablet. Archived from the original on February 20, 2006. Retrieved October 16, 2008.
- "Vatican official: 'Intelligent design' isn't science". USA Today. November 18, 2005. Retrieved October 16, 2008.
- Forrest, Barbara; Gross, Paul R. (2007). Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford University Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-0195319736.
- ^ Ratzsch, Del (October 3, 2010). "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence". In Zalta, Edward N (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, Calif.: The Metaphysics Research Lab. Section 4.3, The "Intelligent Design" (ID) Movement. ISSN 1095-5054. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- See, for instance: Bube, Richard H. (Fall 1971). "Man Come Of Age: Bonhoeffer's Response To The God-Of-The-Gaps" (PDF). Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 14 (4): 203–220. ISSN 0360-8808. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Ronan, p. 61
- Ronan, p. 123
- "Intelligent Design on Trial: Kitzmiller v. Dover National Center for Science Education". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, Calif. October 17, 2008. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania December 20, 2005). Memorandum and Order, July 27, 2005.
- Powell, Michael (December 21, 2005). "Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design'". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 28, 2007. Retrieved September 3, 2007.
- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science, p. 89
- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#H. Conclusion pp. 137–138
- Crowther, Robert (December 20, 2005). "Dover Intelligent Design Decision Criticized as a Futile Attempt to Censor Science Education". Evolution News & Views. Seattle: Discovery Institute. Retrieved September 3, 2007.
- Raffaele, Martha (December 20, 2005). "Intelligent design policy struck down". Dallas Morning News. Associated Press. Archived from the original on September 30, 2007. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- "Judge rules against 'intelligent design'". NBCNews.com. Contributions by Alan Boyle. Associated Press. December 20, 2005. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: others (link)
- "Judge rules against 'intelligent design'". NBCNews.com. Contributions by Alan Boyle. Associated Press. December 20, 2005. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Provonsha, Matthew (September 21, 2006). "Godless: The Church of Liberalism". eSkeptic (Book review). ISSN 1556-5696. Retrieved September 3, 2007.
- Padian, Kevin; Matzke, Nick (January 4, 2006). "Discovery Institute tries to "swift-boat" Judge Jones". National Center for Science Education (Blog). Berkeley, Calif. Retrieved November 18, 2009.
- "Editor's Note: Intelligent Design Articles". Montana Law Review. 68 (1): 1–5. Winter 2007. ISSN 0026-9972. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 9, 2014. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- DeWolf, David K.; West, John G.; Luskin, Casey (Winter 2007). "Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover" (PDF). Montana Law Review. 68 (1): 7–57. ISSN 0026-9972. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Irons, Peter (Winter 2007). "Disaster In Dover: The Trials (And Tribulations) Of Intelligent Design". Montana Law Review. 68 (1): 59–87. ISSN 0026-9972. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 9, 2014. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- DeWolf, David K.; West, John G.; Luskin, Casey (Winter 2007). "Rebuttal to Irons". Montana Law Review. 68 (1): 89–94. ISSN 0026-9972. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 9, 2014. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Brayton, Ed (June 7, 2007). "Irons Responds to West, Luskin and DeWolf". Dispatches from the Creation Wars (Blog). ScienceBlogs LLC. Archived from the original on March 1, 2014. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- "American Academy of Religion on teaching creationism". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, Calif. July 23, 2010. Retrieved August 9, 2010.
- ^ "The dangers of creationism in education". Committee on Culture, Science and Education (Report). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. June 8, 2007. Doc. 11297. Archived from the original on March 9, 2013. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- "The dangers of creationism in education". Committee on Culture, Science and Education (Report). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. September 17, 2007. Doc. 11375. Archived from the original on March 7, 2013. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- "The dangers of creationism in education". Committee on Culture, Science and Education (Resolution). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. October 4, 2007. Resolution 1580. Archived from the original on March 7, 2014. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- "Council of Europe approves resolution against creationism". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, Calif. October 5, 2007. Retrieved November 18, 2009.
- Reilhac, Gilbert (October 4, 2007). "Council of Europe firmly opposes creationism in school". Reuters. Retrieved October 5, 2007.
- Meyer, Stephen C.; Allen, W. Peter (July 15, 2004). "Unlocking the Mystery of Life". Center for Science and Culture (Preview). Seattle: Discovery Institute. Retrieved July 13, 2007.
- Randerson, James (November 26, 2006). "Revealed: rise of creationism in UK school". The Guardian. London. Retrieved October 17, 2008.
- "'Design' attack on school science". BBC News. London: BBC. September 29, 2006. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- "Truth in Science". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons. November 1, 2006. col. 455W–456W.
- "Schools: Intelligent Design". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Lords. December 18, 2006. col. WA257–WA258.
- "Guidance on creationism for British teachers". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, Calif. February 2, 2007. Retrieved November 18, 2009.
- Pam Hanley (2012). The inter-relationship of Science and Religious Education in a cultural context: Teaching the origin of life (PDF) (PhD). University of York. p. 43.
- "nocrescied – epetition response". Number10.gov.uk. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. June 21, 2007. Archived from the original on October 15, 2008. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- "The UK [government's] position on creationism and Intelligent Design in science classes". British Centre for Science Education. British Centre for Science Education. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- "The creation of a new Giant's Causeway row". Belfast Telegraph. Dublin: Independent News & Media. November 30, 2007. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Henry, Lesley-Anne (September 26, 2007). "Tussle of Biblical proportions over creationism in Ulster classrooms". Belfast Telegraph. Dublin: Independent News & Media. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- "Viewpoint: The world, according to Lisburn folk". Belfast Telegraph. Dublin: Independent News & Media. September 27, 2007. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- "Dup Call For Schools To Teach Creation Passed By Council". Ulster Star. Edinburgh: Johnston Publishing Ltd. September 26, 2007. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Enserink, Martin (June 3, 2005). "Evolution Politics: Is Holland Becoming the Kansas of Europe?". Science. 308 (5727): 1394. doi:10.1126/science.308.5727.1394b. PMID 15933170. S2CID 153515231.
- "Cabinet ministers announced (update 2)". DutchNews.nl. Amsterdam: Dutch News BV. February 13, 2007. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- "Katholieke wetenschappers hebben de evolutietheorie al lang aanvaard". De Morgen. Brussels: De Persgroep Nederland. May 23, 2005.
- Wroe, David (August 11, 2005). "'Intelligent design' an option: Nelson". The Age. Sydney: Fairfax Media. Retrieved March 2, 2014.
- Smith, Deborah (October 21, 2005). "Intelligent design not science: experts". The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: Fairfax Media. Retrieved July 13, 2007.
- Kruger, Paula (August 26, 2005). "Brendan Nelson suggests 'intelligent design' could be taught in schools". PM (Transcript). Sydney: ABC Radio National. Retrieved October 22, 2011.
- Green, Shane (October 28, 2005). "School backs intelligent design DVD". The Age. Sydney: Fairfax Media. Retrieved October 22, 2011.
- Edis, Taner (November–December 1999). "Cloning Creationism in Turkey". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. 19 (6): 30–35. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved November 18, 2009.
- Edis, Taner (January 2008). "Islamic Creationism: A Short History". Newsletter. 37 (1). Archived from the original on July 16, 2011. Retrieved April 20, 2011.
- Jones, Dorian L. (March 12, 2008). "Turkey's survival of the fittest". Security Watch. Zurich: International Relations and Security Network. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
- Jensen 2011
Bibliography
- Pigliucci, Massimo (2010). "Science in the Courtroom: The Case against Intelligent Design" (PDF). Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. pp. 160–186. ISBN 978-0-226-66786-7. LCCN 2009049778. OCLC 457149439.
Further reading
- Coyne, Jerry A. (2009). Why Evolution is True. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199230846. LCCN 2008042122. OCLC 259716035.
- Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 978-0618680009. LCCN 2006015506. OCLC 68965666.
- Stenger, Victor J. (2011). The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1616144432. LCCN 2010049901. OCLC 679931691.