Misplaced Pages

Intelligent design: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:22, 13 July 2010 view source95.132.28.59 (talk) →Media articles← 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}}
{{Otheruses}}
{{About|a specific pseudoscientific form of creationism|generic arguments from "intelligent design"|Teleological argument|the movement|Intelligent design movement|other uses of the phrase}}
{{pp-pending}}
{{Distinguish|Theistic evolution}}
{{featured article}}
{{Featured article}}

{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
{{pp-move-indef}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=May 2023}}
{{Intelligent Design}} {{Intelligent Design}}
<!--The references in the introduction are particularly lengthy and numerous - HTML comments (like this one) have been used to make this a little easier to navigate


<!--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.-->
--><!--TEXT-->
'''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}}
'''Intelligent design''' is the assertion that "certain features of the ] and of ] are best explained by an ] ], not an undirected process such as ]."<!--This quotation is from the principal advocates of intelligent design. Please do not change its content, though if you've read through the talk page archives you are free to be WP:BOLD and propose a better leading sentence.
* {{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">
REFERENCE
{{cite court
--><ref name="DIposition">
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
{{cite web
|vol=04
|url=http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign
|reporter=cv
|title=Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design?
|opinion=2688
|publisher=]
|date=December 20, 2005
|accessdate=2007-05-13
}} ], pp. 31–33.
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/393410a2d36e9b96329c2faff7e2a4df/miscdocs/intelligentdesigntheoryinanutshell.pdf
|title=Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell
|publisher-link=http://www.ideacenter.org/
|publisher=Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
|year=2004
|accessdate=2007-05-13
|format=PDF
}}
*{{cite web
|url=http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
|title=Intelligent Design
|publisher=Intelligent Design network
|year=2007
|accessdate=2007-05-13
}}</ref><!--

TEXT--> It is a modern form of the traditional ] for the ], but one which purposefully avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.<ref>
{{cite book
|last=Numbers
|first=Ronald L.
|authorlink=Ronald L. Numbers
|title=], Expanded Edition
|publisher=Harvard University Press
|year=2006
|pages=373, 379–380
|isbn=0674023390
}}</ref><!--

TEXT--> The idea was developed by a group of ] ] who reformulated their argument in the ] to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.<!--


</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">
REFERENCE
--><ref name="kitz21">
{{cite court {{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Line 56: Line 34:
|opinion=2688 |opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005 |date=December 20, 2005
}}, ], citing {{cite court }} ] p. 32 ''ff'', citing {{cite court
|litigants=Edwards v. Aguillard |litigants=Edwards v. Aguillard
|vol=482 |vol=482
Line 62: Line 40:
|opinion=578 |opinion=578
|year=1987 |year=1987
|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=482&page=578 |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
}}.</ref><ref name="kitzruling-IDandGod">"ID is not a new scientific ], but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer." "This argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley" (the ]) "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." {{cite court
|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}}
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
* {{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.
|vol=04
* {{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}}
|reporter=cv
* ]
|opinion=2688
</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>
|date=December 20, 2005
}}, ].</ref><ref name=ForrestMayPaper>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf
|format=PDF
|title=Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals.
|first=Barbara
|last=Forrest
|author-link=Barbara Forrest
|month=May
|year=2007
|publisher=], Office of Public Policy
|location=]
|accessdate=2007-08-06
}}.</ref><!--

TEXT--> Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the ], a politically conservative ]<!--

REFERENCE
--><ref name="DI engine">''"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 ] trial. {{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.
|publisher=]
|year=2005
|accessdate=2007-07-19
}}
*"The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country". In: {{cite news
|url=http://www.msu.edu/course/te/407/FS05Sec3/te408/files/Politicized%20Scholars%20Put%20Evolution%20on%20the%20Defensive%20-%20New%20York%20Times.pdf
|title=Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive
|author=Wilgoren, J
|publisher=New York Times
|date=August 21, 2005
|accessdate=2007-07-19
|format=PDF
}}
*{{cite web
|title=Who is behind the ID movement?
|work=Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design"
|publisher=]
|date=September 16, 2005
|url=http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16371res20050916.html
|accessdate=2007-07-20
}}
*{{cite news
|url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&id=2745
|title=The Evolution of George Gilder. The Author And Tech-Sector Guru Has A New Cause To Create Controversy With: Intelligent Design
|author=Kahn, JP
|publisher=The ]
|date=July 27, 2005
|accessdate=2007-07-19
}}
*{{cite web
|title=Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents
|work=Science & Religion Guide
|publisher=]
|month=November
|year=2005
|url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=602
|accessdate=2007-07-20
|format=PDF
}}
*"The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute". {{cite web
|last=Attie
|first=Alan D.
|coauthors=Elliot Sober, ], Richard M. Amasino, Beth Cox4, Terese Berceau, Thomas Powell and Michael M. Cox
|title=Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action
|work=Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138
|doi=10.1172/JCI28449
|publisher=A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation.
|year=2006
|url=http://www.jci.org/articles/view/28449
|accessdate=2007-07-20
}}</ref><ref name="aaas_pr">
{{cite web
|url=http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/issues/peerreview.shtml
|title=Science and Policy: Intelligent Design and Peer Review
|publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science
|year=2007
|accessdate=2007-07-19
}}</ref><!--

TEXT--> – believe the designer to be the ].<!--

REFERENCE
--><ref name="KvD26">"the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity". {{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
}}, ]. A selection of writings and quotes of intelligent design supporters demonstrating this identification of the Christian God with the intelligent designer are found in the pdf (PDF) by Brian Poindexter, dated 2003.</ref><ref name="CitizenLink">], when asked in an interview whether his research concluded that God is the Intelligent Designer, stated "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God". {{cite web
|url=http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006139.cfm
|title=CitizenLink: Friday Five: William A. Dembski
|accessdate=2007-12-15
|author=Devon Williams
|date=December 14, 2007
|publisher=]
}}</ref>

<!--TEXT-->Advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally redefine ] to accept ] explanations,<!--

REFERENCE
--><ref name="Meyer-Nelson">
{{cite web
|author=Stephen C. Meyer and Paul A. Nelson
|date=May 1, 1996
|url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1685
|title=CSC – Getting Rid of the Unfair Rules], A book review, Origins & Design
|accessdate=2007-05-20
}}
*{{cite web
|author=Phillip E. Johnson
|date=August 31, 1996
|url=http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/ratzsch.htm
|title=Starting a Conversation about Evolution
|publisher=Access Research Network
|work=Phillip Johnson Files
|accessdate=2007-05-20
}}
*{{cite web
|author=Stephen C. Meyer
|date=December 1, 2002
|publisher=Ignatius Press
|url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1780
|title=The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories
}}
*{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
}}, ]
*{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
}}, ].
*See also<!--relevant? ] and--> {{cite news
|url=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/13/america/NA-GEN-US-Kansas-Evolution-History.php
|title=Evolution of Kansas science standards continues as Darwin's theories regain prominence
|newspaper=]
|date=February 13, 2007
|accessdate=2007-05-20
}}</ref><!--

TEXT--> arguing that intelligent design is a ] under this new definition of science.<!--

REFERENCE
--><ref name="DI_topQuestions">
{{cite web
|url=http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
|title=Top Questions about intelligent design
|publisher=]
|accessdate=2007-05-13
}}</ref><!--

TEXT--> The unequivocal ] in the ] is that intelligent design is not science.<!-- PLEASE NOTE that the scientific community never "states" anything, it only makes considerations through scientific consensus --><!--

REFERENCE
--><ref name="unscientific">See: 1) ] 2) ]. 3) The Discovery Institute's ] petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 700 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. 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. According to '']'' "There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth". {{cite news
|first=Cordelia
|last=Dean
|title=Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin
|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
|publisher=New York Times
|date=September 27, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-28
}}</ref><ref name=teachernet/><ref name="doi:10.1038/nmeth1207-983">
{{cite journal
|author=Nature Methods Editorial
|title=An intelligently designed response
|journal=Nat. Methods
|volume=4
|issue=12
|page=983
|year=2007
|doi=10.1038/nmeth1207-983
|pages=983
}}</ref><ref name="doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401131">
{{cite journal
|author=Mark Greener
|title=Taking on creationism. Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience?
|journal=EMBO Reports
|volume=8
|issue=12
|pages=1107–1109
|year=2007
|doi=10.1038/sj.embor.7401131
|pmid=18059309
|pmc=2267227
}}</ref><!--

TEXT--> The ] 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 ]."<!--

REFERENCE
--><ref name="NAS_1999">
{{cite web
|publisher=National Academy of Sciences
|year=1999
|url=http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25
|title=Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences
|edition=Second Edition
}}
<!-- End of quotation --></ref><!--
TEXT---> The U.S. ] and the ] have termed it ].<!--

REFERENCE
--><ref name="NSTA_2005">National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators {{cite press release
|quote=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.
|url=http://www.nsta.org/about/pressroom.aspx?id=50794
|title=National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush
|publisher=National Science Teachers Association
|date=August 3, 2005
}}
*{{cite journal
|quote=for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience.
|url=http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/fall2005/mu.pdf
|format=PDF
|title=Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design
|author=David Mu
|journal=Harvard Science Review
|volume=19
|issue=1
|date=Fall 2005
}}
*{{cite web
|quote=Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory.
|url=http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/per/per26.pdf
|format=PDF
|title=Professional Ethics Report
|publisher=]
|year=2001
}}</ref><!--

TEXT--> Others in the scientific community have concurred,<!--

REFERENCE
--><ref name="Nature_416">
{{cite journal
|quote=But many scientists regard ‘intelligent design’ as pseudoscience, and say that it is being used as a Trojan Horse to introduce the teaching of creationism into schools
|last1= Gura
|first1= T
|title= Evolution critics seek role for unseen hand in education
|journal= Nature
|year= 2002
|month= 21 March
|volume= 416
|pages= 250
|doi= 10.1038/416250a
|pmid=11907537
|issue=6878
}}</ref><!--

TEXT--> and some have called it ].<!--

REFERENCE
--><ref name="JCI_defending_science">
{{cite journal
|url=http://www.jci.org/articles/view/28449
|title=Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action
|journal=Journal of Clinical Investigation
|volume=116
|pages=1134–1138
|publisher=American Society for Clinical Investigation
|year=2006
|doi=10.1172/JCI28449
|author=Attie, A. D.
|pmid=16670753
|last2=Sober
|first2=E
|last3=Numbers
|first3=RL
|last4=Amasino
|first4=RM
|last5=Cox
|first5=B
|last6=Berceau
|first6=T
|last7=Powell
|first7=T
|last8=Cox
|first8=MM
|issue=5
|pmc=1451210
}}
*{{cite web
|quote=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.
|author=H. Allen Orr
|work=Annals of Science
|publisher=New Yorker
|month=May
|year=2005
|url=http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/05/30/050530fa_fact
|title=Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't
}}
*] Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.
*{{cite web
|url=http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11553
|title=Junk science
|author=Mark Bergin
|publisher=World Magazine
|volume=21
|issue=8
|date=February 25, 2006
}}
<!-- End of quotation --></ref><ref>
{{cite book
|url=http://books.google.com/?id=kHeQhdNQvrUC&pg=PA210&lpg=PA210&dq=intelligent+design+junk-science
|first=Dan
|last=Agin
|year=2006
|title=Junk Science
|pages=210 ff
|publisher=Macmillan
|isbn=9780312352417
}}</ref>
<!--TEXT-->

Intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 ] '']'' ruling involving ].<!--

REFERENCE
--><ref name="kitz21"/><!--

TEXT--> Its first significant published use was in '']'', a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.<!--

REFERENCE--><ref name="kitz31">
{{cite court {{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Line 403: Line 53:
|opinion=2688 |opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005 |date=December 20, 2005
}}, ].</ref><!-- }} ] 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.
TEXT--> Several additional books on the subject were published in the 1990s. By the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents had begun clustering around the Discovery Institute and more publicly advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in ] curricula.<!--


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}}
REFERENCE
* {{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 .
--><ref name="disco">
* {{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 web
* {{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."
|url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2190
* 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">
|title=Media Backgrounder: Intelligent Design Article Sparks Controversy
{{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 }}
|publisher=Discovery Institute
* {{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>
|date=September 7, 2004
}}
*{{cite web
|url=http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=15-05-037-i
|title=Berkeley's Radical
|author=James M. Kushiner
|work=Touchstone Magazine
|month=June
|year=2002
}}
*{{cite news
|url=http://www.msu.edu/course/te/407/FS05Sec3/te408/files/Politicized%20Scholars%20Put%20Evolution%20on%20the%20Defensive%20-%20New%20York%20Times.pdf
|format=PDF
|title=Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive
|author=Jodi Wilgoren
|newspaper=The New York Times
|date=August 21, 2005
}}
*{{cite news
|last=Downey
|first=Roger
|title=Discovery's Creation
|publisher=Seattle Weekly
|date=February 1, 2006
|url=http://seattleweekly.com/2006-02-01/news/discovery-s-creation.php
|accessdate=2007-07-27
}}</ref><!--


==History==
TEXT--> With the Discovery Institute and its ] serving a central role in planning and funding, the "]" grew increasingly visible in the late 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the 2005 ''Dover'' trial which challenged the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes.<ref name="DI engine"/>


===Origin of the concept===
In '']'', a group of parents of high-school students challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". ] ] ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the ] of the ].<!--
{{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
REFERENCE
* {{cite court
--><ref name="Kitzmiller_v_Dover">
{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04 |vol=04
Line 453: Line 79:
|opinion=2688 |opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005 |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" />
}}, ].</ref><!--


] 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>
TEXT-->


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" />
==Overview==
The term "intelligent design" came into use after the ] ruled in the 1987 case of '']'' that to require the teaching of "]" alongside evolution was a violation of the ], which prohibits state endorsement of a religion. In the Edwards case, the Supreme Court had also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction".<ref name=Edwards2>
{{cite court
|litigants=Edwards v. Aguillard
|vol=482
|reporter=U.S.
|opinion=578
|year=1987
|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=482&page=578
}}</ref> In drafts of the creation science textbook '']'', almost all derivatives of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were replaced with the words "intelligent design".<ref name=kitz31/> The book was published in 1989, followed by a "]" campaign promoting the use of the book to teach intelligent design in high-school biology classes.<ref name=bookwatch>
{{cite web
|url=http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/bookwatch-reviews-pandas-people
|accessdate=2009-11-18
|author=Eugenie C. Scott
|authorlink=Eugenie C. Scott
|coauthors=Gordon E. Uno
|date=November 11, 1989
|title=NCSE Resource: Introduction to NCSE Bookwatch Reviews for ''Of Pandas and People''
|publisher=]
}}</ref>


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 same Supreme Court ruling prompted the retired legal scholar ], in his 1991 book '']'', to advocate redefining science to allow claims of supernatural creation.<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 web
* {{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. }}
|quote=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.
* ], "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&nbsp;...}} — ]
|url=http://ncse.com/cej/13/2/darwin-prosecuted-review-johnsons-darwin-trial
* ], 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.
|title=Darwin On Trial: A Review
|author=Eugenie C. Scott
|publisher=]
}}</ref> A group including ], ] and ] joined Johnson in aiming to overturn the ] of the ] (which he describes as "]") and replace it with "]" through what they later called the "]".<ref name=thewedge>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/le_wedge.htm
|title=The Wedge: Phillip Johnson
|accessdate=2007-09-24
|author=Phillip E. Johnson
|authorlink=Phillip E. Johnson
|year=1999
|publisher=Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity
}}</ref> In the 1993 revised edition of ''Of Pandas and People'', Behe described what he later named "]".<ref name=pandafounds>
{{cite web
|url=http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/critique-pandas-people
|title=NCSE Resource
|accessdate=2007-09-24
|author=Nick Matzke
|authorlink=Nick Matzke
|year=2004
|work=Introduction: Of Pandas and People, the foundational work of the 'Intelligent Design' movement
|publisher=]
}}</ref> In 1994 Meyer made contact with the ], and in the following year they obtained funding to set up the ] to promote the ] seeking public and political support for teaching "intelligent design" as a ] alternative to evolution, particularly in the United States.<ref name=disco/>


===Origin of the term===
Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to ] for the origin and diversity of life. It stands in opposition to conventional ] science, which relies on the ] to explain ] through observable processes such as ] and ].<ref>
{{See also|Timeline of intelligent design}}
*{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
|quote=ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community
}}, ]
*{{cite book
|quote=Broom shows conclusively that intelligent design's opposition to Darwinism rests primarily on scientific grounds.
|author2=William Dembski
|chapter=Foreword
|url=http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/php/book_show_item.php?id=50
|title=How Blind is the Watchmaker? Nature's Design and the Limits of Naturalistic Science
|author1=Neil Broom
|year=2001
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
|quote=If I ever became the president of a university (per impossibile), I would dissolve the biology department and divide the faculty with tenure that I couldn't get rid of into two new departments: those who know engineering and how it applies to biological systems would be assigned to the new 'Department of Biological Engineering'; the rest, and that includes the evolutionists, would be consigned to the new 'Department of Nature Appreciation' (didn't Darwin think of himself as a naturalist?)
|url=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/programmable-matter/
|title=Truly Programmable Matter
|author=William Dembski
|date=January 10, 2007
|publisher=]
|accessdate=May 24, 2007
}}
*"Demonstrative charts introduced through Dr. Forrest show parallel arguments relating to the ''rejection of naturalism'', evolution's threat to culture and society, 'abrupt appearance' implying divine creation, the exploitation of the same alleged gaps in the fossil record, the alleged inability of science to explain complex biological information like DNA, as well as the theme that proponents of each version of creationism merely aim to teach a scientific alternative to evolution to show its 'strengths and weaknesses,' and to alert students to a supposed 'controversy' in the scientific community". Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Decision, p. 34 (emphasis added)
*"Additionally, Dembski agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper". Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Decision, p. 30.
*"Intelligent Design supposes that the origins of living things require supernatural interventions to create the intricate, design-like, living forms that we see all around us". {{cite news
|url=http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-19936439_ITM
|title=Natural selection vs. intelligent design
|periodical=USA Today (Magazine)
|date=January 1, 2004
|author=Ruse, Michael
}}</ref> 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 said 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>
{{Cite journal
|author=William A. Dembski
|title=The Design Revolution
|page=27
|year=2004
}}</ref> In the leaked Discovery Institute ] known as the ], however, the supporters of the movement were told: {{quotation|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>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
|title=Wedge Document
|publisher=Discovery Institute
|year=1999
}}
*{{cite web
|quote=embers 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.
|url=http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=10084
|title=Inferior Design
|author=Chris Mooney
|work=The American Prospect
|date=August 10, 2005
}}</ref><ref name=Forrest2005>
{{cite web
|quote=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.
|url=http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/expert_reports/2005_04_01_Forrest_expert_report_P.pdf
|title=Expert Witness Report
|format=PDF
|author=]
|work=]
|month=April
|year=2005
}}</ref>
}}


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>
Proponents of intelligent design look for ] of what they term "signs of intelligence": ] of an object that point to a designer (''see'': ]). For example, intelligent design proponents argue that an ] who finds a statue made of stone in a field may justifiably conclude that the statue was designed, and may reasonably seek to identify its designer. The archaeologist would not, however, be justified in making the same claim based on an irregularly shaped boulder of the same size. Design proponents argue that ] show great complexity, from which they infer that some aspects of life have been designed.


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":
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 ... 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. In the 20 years since intelligent design was first formulated, no rigorous test that can identify these effects has yet been proposed.<ref>
* {{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
* {{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''.)
|url=http://ncse.com/media/voices/american-association-advancement-science-2002
* {{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>
|title=AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory
|publisher=]
|year=2002
|quote=...the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims...
}}</ref><ref name=kitzruling_pg70>
{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
}}, ].</ref> No peer-reviewed articles supporting intelligent design have been published in scientific journals, and intelligent design has not been the subject of scientific research or testing.<ref name=kitzruling_pg88>
{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
}} ]</ref> Oxford philosopher ] dismisses it as "a little driblet of childish ignorance; a mark of mankind's infancy".<ref name="2008NewHumanistWeb">{{cite news | url=http://newhumanist.org.uk/1881 | title=Bolus of nonsense| publisher=] |date=Web exclusive September/October 2008 | first=A.C. | last= Grayling | accessdate =2009-09-19 }}</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>
==Origins of the concept==
Whether the complexity of nature indicates purposeful design is a subject of recorded ] discourse dating back to ]. In the 4th century BC, ] posited a good and wise "]" as the creator and first cause of the cosmos in his ''].''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/|title=Plato's Timaeus|accessdate=2007-07-22|date=October 25, 2005|work=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|publisher=The Metaphysics Research Lab, ]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html|title=Timaeus|accessdate=2007-07-22|last=Plato|authorlink=Plato|work=Internet Classics Archive|publisher=classics.mit.edu}}</ref> In his '']'', ] developed the idea of an "]" .<ref>Aristotle, ''Metaphysics'' Bk. 12</ref> In '']'' (''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>Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski (2006). ''The Philosophy of Religion: An Historical Introduction'', 31.</ref><ref>], ''De Natura Deorum'', Book I, 36–37, .</ref> This line of reasoning 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 ] and in the 19th century by ]. Aquinas, in his '']'', used the concept of design in his "fifth proof" for God's existence.<ref>], '']'' " ()" in ''faithnet.org.uk''.</ref> Paley, in '']'' (1802), used the ].<ref>], '''', 1809, ], Twelfth Edition.</ref>


====''Of Pandas and People''====
In the 17th century the English physician Sir ] wrote a Discourse arguing the case for intelligent design. His 1658 ] is one of the earliest examples of 'proof' of the wisdom of God and gives examples of intelligent design in botany. In the early 19th century, such arguments led to the development of what was called ], the study of ] as a means to understand "the mind of God". This movement fueled the passion for collecting ]s and other biological specimens, which 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.
{{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}}
Intelligent design in the late 20th and early 21st century is a development of natural theology that seeks to change the basis of science and undermine evolutionary theory.<ref>See, e.g., the publisher's editorial description of the 2006 paperback printing of ] (1803) ''Natural Theology" : "William Paley's classic brings depth to the history of intelligent design arguments. The contrivance of the eye, the ear, and numerous other anatomical features throughout the natural world are presented as arguments for God's presence and concern. While there are distinctive differences between Paley's argument and those used today by intelligent design theorists and creationists, it remains a fascinating glimpse of the nineteenth-century's debate over the roles of religion and science".</ref><ref>David C. Steinmetz (2005) "The Debate on Intelligent Design" in ''The Christian Century'', (December 27, 2005, pp. 27–31.)</ref><ref>Leading intelligent design proponent ] (2001) argues the opposing view in </ref> As evolutionary theory has expanded to explain more phenomena, the examples that are held up as evidence of design have changed, though the essential argument remains the same: complex systems imply a designer. Past examples have included the ] and the feathered ]; current examples are typically ]: protein functions, ], and bacterial ]. (See ].)
* {{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>
] describes the ] as beginning in 1984 when Jon A. Buell's religious organization the ] (FTE) published ''The Mystery of Life's Origin'' by creationist and chemist ],<ref>Dr ], </ref> arguing for "] by a Creator beyond the Cosmos" which holds "that the ''source that produced life'' was intelligent".<ref name=Forrestexpreport>{{cite web|url=http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/FORREST_EXPERT_REPORT.pdf|title=Expert Witness Report|author=Barbara Forrest|authorlink=Barbara Forrest|date=April 1, 2007|format=PDF|workKitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005=|publisher=United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania|accessdate=2008-10-19}}</ref> In March 1986 ]'s review described it as using information theory to suggest that messages transmitted by DNA in the cell show "specified complexity" specified by intelligence, and must have originated with an intelligent agent.<ref name=meyermolo>{{cite web|url=http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_notalone.htm|title=We Are Not Alone|accessdate=2007-10-10|author=Stephen C. Meyer|authorlink=Stephen C. Meyer|month=March|year=1986|work=Eternity|publisher=Access Research Network}}</ref> In November of that year Thaxton described his reasoning as a more sophisticated form of Paley's argument from design.<ref name=dnadol>{{cite web|url=http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html|title=DNA, Design and the Origin of Life|accessdate=2007-10-10|author=Charles B. Thaxton, Ph.D.|authorlink=Charles Thaxton|date=November 13–16, 1986|publisher=Christian Leadership Ministries}}</ref> At the ''Sources of Information Content in DNA'' conference in 1988 he said that his intelligent cause view was compatible with both ] and supernaturalism,<ref name=picshb/> and the term ''intelligent design'' came up.<ref name=safire/>


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>
Intelligent design deliberately avoids identifying or naming the ]—it merely states that one (or more) must exist. Although intelligent design itself does not name the designer, the leaders of the intelligent design movement have said that the designer is the ] ].<ref name=KvD26/><ref name=wedge1/><ref name=dembski_logos>Dembski: ''"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,"'' </ref><ref name=wedge2>Phillip Johnson: ''"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."'' Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca. . ''"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."'' Johnson 1996. World Magazine. . ''"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."'' Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. {{Waybackdate|site=http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.5docs/15-5pg40.html|date=20070609033219|title=Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson}}</ref><ref>]: "I think the designer is God&nbsp;..." ( . ] ], with ], August 10, 2005);
]: "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". (, Crossway Books, June 29, 2004, ISBN 1581344589, pp. 204-205)</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 '']'' court ruling held the latter to be the case.


==Concepts==
==Origins of the term==
{{seealso|Timeline of intelligent design}}
]'' was the first intelligent design book. ''Rethinking Schools'' magazine characterizes it as a "creationist treatise dressed up to look like a legitimate discussion of science".<ref name=RethinkingSchools>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/12_02/panda.shtml
|title=Vol 12 No 2 - Rethinking Schools Online
|author=Leon Lynn
|date=Winter 1997/98
|work=Creationists Push Pseudo-Science Text
|quote=
|accessdate=2009-02-08
}}</ref>]]
Before the publication of the book '']'' in 1989, the words "intelligent design" had been used on several occasions as a descriptive phrase, distinct from the modern use as a label for "creationism". The phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of '']'',<ref>{{cite web |url=http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/the-true-origin.html |title=The true origin of "intelligent design" |author= Nick Matzke |authorlink=Nick Matzke |date= August 14, 2007 |publisher=] |accessdate=2010-01-21}}<br>{{cite web |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 |title=Journals: Scientific American (1846 - 1869) |format= |work= |accessdate=2010-01-21}}</ref> 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> and even in an 1861 letter of ].<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-3154.html
|title=Letter 3154—Darwin, C. R. to Herschel, J. F. W., 23 May 1861
|author=]
|work=Darwin Correspondence Project
|date=May 23, 1861
}}</ref> The phrase was used in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the ] by ] botanist ]:
{{quotation|No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the ], 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>
{{cite news
|title=The British Association
|pages=10; col A.
|publisher=The Times
|date=September 20, 1873
}}</ref>}}

The phrase 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 phrase appears in the Macmillan ''Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (1967) in the article titled, "Teleological argument for the existence of God": "Stated most succinctly, the argument runs: The world exhibits ] order (design, adaptation). Therefore, it was produced by an intelligent designer".<ref>
{{cite book
|article=Teleological Argument for the Existence of God
|author=]
|title=]
|publisher=], ], ]
|location=], ]
|editor=]
|year=1967
|isbn=0028949900
}}</ref>
] (1974) wrote: "Consider now complicated patterns which one would have thought would arise only through intelligent design".<ref>
{{cite book
|author=]
|title=]
|publisher=]
|location=]
|year=1974
|page=19
|isbn=0465097200
}}</ref>
The phrases "intelligent design" and "intelligently designed" were used in a 1979 philosophy book ''Chance or Design?'' by James Horigan<ref>
{{cite book
|author=James E. Horigan
|title=Chance or Design?
|publisher=Philosophical Library
|year=1979
|isbn=
}}</ref> and the phrase "intelligent design" was used in a 1982 speech by Sir ] in his promotion of ].<ref>
{{cite news
|title=Evolution according to Hoyle: Survivors of disaster in an earlier world
|author=Nicholas Timmins
|newspaper=The Times
|date=January 13, 1982
|pages=22
|issue=61130
|quote=F. Hoyle stated in a 1982 speech: '...one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design.'
|url=http://telicthoughts.com/sir-fred-hoyle-and-the-origins-of-id/
}}</ref>

The modern use of the words "intelligent design", as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry, began after the ], in the case of '']'' (1987), ruled that ] is unconstitutional in public school science curricula. A Discovery Institute report says that ], editor of '']'', had picked the phrase up from a ] scientist, and thought "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term".<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/post_6.html
|title=Evolution News & Views: Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design
|accessdate=2007-10-05
|author=Jonathan Witt
|date=December 20, 2005
|publisher=]
}}</ref> In 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 web
|url=http://ncse.com/rncse/26/1-2/design-trial
|title=NCSE Resource -- 9.0. Matzke (2006): The Story of the Pandas Drafts
|accessdate=2009-11-18
|author=Nick Matzke
|authorlink=Nick Matzke
|year=2006
|publisher=]
}} *{{cite web
|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20070114121029/http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?p=80
|title=Missing Link discovered!
|accessdate=2009-11-18
|author=Nick Matzke
|authorlink=Nick Matzke
|year=2006
|publisher=]
}}</ref> In June 1988 Thaxton held a conference titled "Sources of Information Content in DNA" in ], ],<ref name=picshb>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.leaderu.com/offices/thaxton/docs/inpursuit.html
|title=In Pursuit of Intelligent Causes: Some Historical Background
|accessdate=2007-10-06
|author=Charles B. Thaxton
|authorlink=Charles Thaxton
|date=June 23–26, 1988, revised July 1988 and May 1991
}}</ref> and in December decided to use the label "intelligent design" for his new creationist movement.<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/11/8448/52824
|title=Daily Kos: Know Your Creationists: Know Your Allies
|accessdate=2007-10-05
|author=DarkSyde
|date=March 11, 2006
|work=interview with ]
}}</ref> ] was at the conference, and later recalled that "the term came up".<ref name=safire>
{{cite news
|author=William Safire
|newspaper=New York Times
|date=August 21, 2005
|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/magazine/21ONLANGUAGE.html?position=&ei=5090&en=f2de0d764cc7e0e8&ex=1282276800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1132902202-gyP0H4EZfG7IeNHPMWlcBw
|title=On Language: Neo-Creo
}}</ref>

]

''Of Pandas and People'' was published in 1989, and was the first book to make frequent use of the phrases "intelligent design," "design proponents," and "design theory", thus representing the beginning of the modern "intelligent design" movement.<ref name=pandafounds/> "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>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/design/aulie_of-pandas.html
|title=A Reader's Guide to Of Pandas and People
|accessdate=2007-10-05|author=Richard P. Aulie
|year=1998
|publisher=National Association of Biology Teachers
}}</ref> It was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its present use, as stated both by its publisher Jon Buell,<ref name=BiologicaldesignPNAS>{{cite journal
|author=Eugenie C. Scott|authorlink=Eugenie C. Scott|coauthors=Nicholas J. Matzke
|title=Biological design in science classrooms
|journal=]
|volume=104
|issue=Suppl 1
|pages=8669–8676
|publisher=]
|date=May 15, 2007
|url=http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8669.full
|doi=10.1073/pnas.0701505104
|accessdate=2009-06-02
|pmid=17494747
|pmc=1876445}}</ref><ref name=trojan>{{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
|accessdate=2009-06-02
|author=Nick Matzke
|coauthors=Jon Buell
|date=October 13, 2005
|publisher=The Panda's Thumb
}}.</ref> and by ] in his expert witness report.<ref name=dembskiwitness>{{cite paper
|author=William A. Dembski
|authorlink=William A. Dembski
|title=Expert Witness Report: The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design
|publisher=] trial document
|date=March 29, 2005
|url=http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.09.Expert_Report_Dembski.pdf
|format=pdf
|accessdate=2009-06-02}}</ref> The book presented all of the basic arguments of intelligent design proponents before any research had been done to support these arguments, and was actively promoted by creationists for public school use.<ref name=pandafounds/> Rethinking Schools magazine has criticized the book, saying it was a "creationist treatise" packaged to look like a high quality science textbook, with a "glossy cover, full-color illustrations, and chapter titles such as 'Homology' and 'Genetics and Macroevolution'", with numerous "professionally prepared charts and illustrations appear to show how concrete scientific evidence supports the existence of the unnamed 'designer'". Philosopher of science ] believes the contents were "worthless and dishonest", and it was described by an ] lawyer as a political tool aimed at students who did not "know science or understand the controversy over evolution and creationism".<ref name=RethinkingSchools>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/12_02/panda.shtml
|volume=12
|issue=2
|title=Rethinking Schools Online
|author=Leon Lynn
|date=Winter 1997/98
|work=Creationists Push Pseudo-Science Text
|quote=
|accessdate=2009-02-08
}}</ref>


==Integral concepts==
===Irreducible complexity=== ===Irreducible complexity===
{{see|Irreducible complexity}} {{Main|Irreducible complexity}}
] was popularised by ], in his 1996 book, '']''.]] ] was popularised by ] in his 1996 book, '']''.]]
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 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>
The term "irreducible complexity" was introduced by ] ] in his 1996 book '']'', though he had already described the concept in his contributions to the 1993 revised edition of '']''.<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>Behe, Michael (1997): ''Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference'' </ref>


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>
Behe uses the ] 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 ] of '']'', the ] cascade, ], and the adaptive ].<ref>Irreducible complexity of these examples is disputed; see Kitzmiller, pp. 76–78, and </ref><ref>The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" Kenneth R. Miller Brown University </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 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:
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>John H. McDonald's ""</ref><ref>David Ussery, ""</ref> They argue that something which 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 ], which can support an "irreducibly complex" building until it is complete and able to stand on its own.<ref>For example, showed that gradual evolutionary mechanisms can produce complex protein-protein interaction systems from simpler precursors. {{cite journal|author=Bridgham ''et al.''|year=2006|title=Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation|journal=Science|volume=312|issue=5770|pages=97–101|doi=10.1126/science.1123348|pmid=16601189|last2=Carroll|first2=SM|last3=Thornton|first3=JW}}</ref>
Behe has acknowledged using "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=May 30, 2005|url=http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/05/30/050530fa_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=March 26, 2003|url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&amp;id=1406|accessdate=2006-11-30}}</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 peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large".<ref>{{cite court|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|vol=04|reporter=cv|opinion=2688|date=December 20, 2005}}, ].</ref> *{{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===
{{see|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 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=]]
In 1986 the creationist chemist ] 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/>
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 intelligent design concept of "specified complexity" was developed in the 1990s 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 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}}
] proposed the concept of ].<ref>William Dembski, Photo by Wesley R. Elsberry, taken at lecture given at University of California at Berkeley, 2006/03/17.</ref>]]
* {{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>
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 book
|author=Branden Fitelson, Christopher Stephens, Elliott Sober
|publisher=Cambridge University Press
|year=1998
|url=http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/dembski.pdf
|format=PDF
|title=How Not to Detect Design: A review of William A. Dembski's The Design Inference—Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities
}}</ref><ref>Some of Dembski's responses to assertions of specified complexity being a tautology can be found at {{cite web
|author=William A. Dembski
|url=http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_anotherwaytodetectdesign.htm
|title=Another way to detect design
|publisher=ARN
}}</ref><ref name="Wein">
{{cite web
|author=Richard Wein
|year=2002
|title=Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates: A critique of William Dembski's book ''No Free Lunch''
|url=http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/
}}</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 has been widely discredited by the scientific and mathematical communities.<ref>
{{cite web
|author=Rich Baldwin
|year=2005
|url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/dembski.html
|title=Information Theory and Creationism
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
|author=Mark Perakh
|year=2005
|url=http://www.talkreason.org/articles/newmath.cfm
|title=Dembski 'displaces Darwinism' mathematically -- or does he?
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite journal
|author=Jason Rosenhouse
|url=http://www.math.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/sewell.pdf
|format=PDF
|title=How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics
|journal=The Mathematical Intelligencer
|volume=23
|issue=4
|date=Fall 2001
|pages=3–8
}}</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
|author=John S. Wilkins, Wesley R. Elsberry
|journal=Biology and Philosophy
|volume=16
|pages=711–724
|year=2001
|url=http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/theft_over_toil
|title=The Advantages of Theft over Toil: The Design Inference and Arguing from Ignorance
}}</ref>


===Fine-tuned universe===
], another critic of intelligent design, argues in '']'' 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>
{{Main|Fine-tuned universe}}
{{cite book
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.
|author=Richard Dawkins
|title=The God Delusion
|year=2006
|isbn=0618680004
|publisher=Houghton Mifflin
|location=Boston
}}</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 which are considered problems too complex for human "intelligent designers".<ref>
{{cite journal
|url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526146.000-evolutionary-algorithms-now-surpass-human-designers.html
|title=Evolutionary algorithms now surpass human designers
|journal=New Scientist
|date=July 28, 2007
}}</ref>


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>
===Fine-tuned Universe===
{{see|Fine-tuned Universe}}
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 which 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 ] fellow ] argues that if any of these values were even slightly different, the universe would be dramatically different, making it impossible for many ] and features of the ], such as ], to form.<ref>
{{cite book
|author=Guillermo Gonzalez
|title=The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery
|year=2004
|isbn=0-89526-065-4
|publisher=Regnery Publ.
|location=Washington, DC
}}</ref> Thus, proponents argue, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular outcome.


===Intelligent designer===
Scientists have generally responded that this argument cannot be tested and is therefore not science but metaphysics. Some scientists argue that even when taken as mere speculation, these arguments are poorly supported by existing evidence.<ref>The Panda's Thumb. </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> Victor J. Stenger. University of Colorado. (PDF file)</ref><ref>
{{Main|Intelligent designer}}
{{cite web
|url=http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/ant_encyc.pdf
|title=The Anthropic Principle
|author=Victor J. Stenger
|publisher=University of Colorado
|format=PDF
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite journal
|url=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/full/443145a.html
|title=Our place in the Multiverse
|author=Joseph Silk
|journal=Nature
|volume=443
|issue=7108
|date=September 14, 2006
}}</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>See, e.g., {{cite book
|author=Gerald Feinberg and Robert Shapiro
|chapter=A Puddlian Fable
|editor=Huchingson
|title=Religion and the Natural Sciences
|year=1993
|pages=220–221
}}</ref>


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" />
Proponent ] argues that the evolution of complex forms of life represents a decrease of ], and that it thus violates the ] and so supports intelligent design.<ref>
{{cite news
|last=Sewell
|first=Granville
|title=Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure
|url=http://spectator.org/archives/2005/12/28/evolutions-thermodynamic-failu
|work=The American Spectator
|date=December 28, 2005
|accessdate=2007-02-16
}} (Also available from the )</ref> This, however, is a misapplication of ] principles.<ref>
{{cite web
|title=Entropy, Disorder and Life
|publisher=]
|url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html
|accessdate=2007-07-17
}}</ref> The second law applies to closed systems only. If Granville's argument were valid, living things could not be born and grow, as this also would be a decrease in entropy. Neither evolution nor the growth of living things violates the second law of thermodynamics because living things are not closed systems—they have external energy sources (e.g. food, oxygen, sunlight) whose production requires an offsetting net increase in entropy.


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 designer===
{{see|Intelligent designer}}


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>
Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid 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 '']'', speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements. The authoritative description of intelligent design,<ref>
{{cite web
|author=Dembski
|quote=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.''
|publisher=Discovery Institute
|work=What is Intelligent Design?
|url=http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign
|title=Questions About Intelligent Design
}}</ref> 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
|authro=Dembski
|url=http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-the_ac.html
|publisher=LeaderU
|title=The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendence and Immanence
}}</ref> The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the ], to the exclusion of all other religions.<ref name=KvD26/><ref name="CitizenLink"/><ref name=dembski_logos/>


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>
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 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 name="CoyneTNR">
{{cite journal
|first=Jerry
|last=Coyne
|journal=]
|date=August 22–29, 2005
|volume=233
|issue=8/9
|pages=21–33
|url=http://pondside.uchicago.edu/cluster/pdf/coyne/New_Republic_ID.pdf
|format=PDF
|title=The Case Against Intelligent Design
}}.</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 name="CoyneTNR"/>

Asserting the need for a designer of complexity also raises the question "What designed the designer?"<ref>
{{cite web
|author=Donald E. Simanek
|url=http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/empty.htm
|title=Intelligent Design: The Glass is Empty
}}</ref> Intelligent design proponents say that the question is irrelevant to or outside the scope of intelligent design.<ref>IDEA ''"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..."'' FAQ: Who designed the designer? </ref> Richard Wein counters that the unanswered questions an explanation creates "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"/> Richard Dawkins sees the assertion that the designer does not need to be explained, not as a contribution to knowledge, but as a ].<ref name=Rosenhouse>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/designer.html
|title=Who Designed the Designer?
|author=Jason Rosenhouse
|work=Creation & Intelligent Design Watch
|publisher=Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite book
|author=Richard Dawkins
|title=The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design
|page=141
}}</ref> In the absence of observable, measurable evidence, the very 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 name=Rosenhouse/><ref>See, e.g., {{cite web
|author=Joseph Manson
|title=Intelligent design is pseudoscience
|work=UCLA Today
|volume=26
|issue=2
|date=September 27, 2005
|url=http://www.today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/050927voices_pseudoscience.aspx
}}; {{cite magazine
|author=Rev Max
|title=The Incredibly Strange Story of Intelligent Design
|periodical=New Dawn Magazine
|issue=97
|month=July–August
|year=2006
}}</ref>


==Movement== ==Movement==
{{see|Intelligent design movement}} {{Main|Intelligent design movement}}
]'s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture used banners based on "]" from the ]. Later it used a less religious image, then was renamed the ].<ref> ]'' 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>]]
{{cite web
|url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/evolving-banners-at-discovery-institute
|title=NCSE Resource
|accessdate=2007-10-07
|date=August 29, 2002
|work=Evolving Banners at the Discovery Institute
}}</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>
The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the ] of the 1980s.<ref name=autogenerated1>
{{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">
{{cite web
], "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}}
|url=http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf
* ]</ref>
|format=PDF
|title=Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy
|first=Barbara
|last=Forrest
|author-link=Barbara Forrest
|month=May
|year=2007
|publisher=]
|location=]
|accessdate=2007-08-06
}}</ref> 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>
{{cite journal
|url=http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/fall2005/mu.pdf
|title=Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design
|author=David Mu
|journal=Harvard Science Review
|volume=19
|issue=1
|date=Fall, 2005
|quote=For most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a ] ]".
}}<br/>*{{cite web
|quote=Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory.
|url=http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/per/per26.pdf
|title=Professional Ethics Report
|publisher-link=American Association for the Advancement of Science
|year=2001
}}<br/>*]</ref><ref>Wise, D.U., 2001, Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, n. 1, p. 30–35.</ref><ref>
{{cite journal
|url=http://nagt.org/files/nagt/jge/abstracts/Ross_v53n3p319.pdf
|title=Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism
|format=PDF
|author=Marcus R. Ross
|journal=Journal of Geoscience Education
|volume=53
|issue=3
|date=May, 2005
|pages=319–323
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite book
|title=The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition
|author=]
|publisher=]
|location=]
|date=November 30, 2006
|isbn=0674023390
}}</ref> and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism".<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf
|format=PDF
|title=Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper
|first=Barbara
|last=Forrest
|author-link=Barbara Forrest
|month=May
|year=2007
|publisher=], Office of Public Policy
|location=]
|accessdate=2007-08-22
}}; {{cite book
|author=] and Gross, P.R.
|year=2003
|title=Evolution and the Wedge of Intelligent Design: The Trojan Horse Strategy
|location=Oxford
|publisher=]
|isbn=0195157427
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite book
|quote=''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...''
|url=http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/2645/Default.aspx
|chapter=Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski
|author=]
|pages=645–667
|title=Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives
|editor=Robert T. Pennock
|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts
|publisher=]
|year=2001
|isbn=0262661241
}}; {{cite book
|author=Pennock, Robert T.
|year=1999
|title=Tower of Babel: Evidence Against the New Creationism
|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts
|publisher=]
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite journal
|url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum
|title=The Creation/Evolution Continuum
|author=]
|journal=] Reports
|volume=19
|issue=4
|pages=16–17, 23–25
|month=July/August
|year=1999
}}; {{cite book
|author=]
|year=2004
|title=Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction
|location=Westport, Connecticut
|publisher=Greenwood Press
|isbn=0520246500
}}</ref>


The movement is headquartered in the ] (CSC), established in 1996 as the creationist wing of the ] to promote a religious agenda<ref>''"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".'' Discovery Institute, 1999. (PDF file)</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 ] 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"> (PDF) Discovery Institute, 1999.</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" />


] stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast ] as a scientific concept.<ref name=wedge2/><ref name=PJC>''"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 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. </ref> All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its ].<ref name="DI engine"/><ref> 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.
{{cite web
|title=Discovery Institute fellows and staff
|url=http://www.discovery.org/fellows/
}} {{cite web
|title=Center for Science and Culture fellows and staff
|url=http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php
}}</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 ].


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"/> 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 world-view that undergirds it".<ref>

{{cite web
], 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>
|author=Barbara Forrest
|year=2001
|url=http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/wedge.html
|title=The Wedge at Work: Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics
}}</ref>


===Religion and leading proponents=== ===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,<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>
Although arguments for intelligent design are formulated in ] terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer,<!--
REFERENCE
--><ref name="IDstatementOnCreator">"...intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer," and "...the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy". In: {{cite web
|url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=565
|title=''Truth Sheet # 09-05 Does intelligent design postulate a "supernatural creator?''
|publisher=Discovery Institute
|accessdate=2007-07-19
}}</ref><!--
TEXT
--> the majority of principal intelligent design advocates are publicly religious ] who have stated that in their view the designer proposed in intelligent design is ]. Stuart Burgess, ], ], and ] are ], and ] is a ], while ] is a member of the ]. Phillip E. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments that are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of ] 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 ] message".<ref>
{{cite magazine
|author=Phillip Johnson
|title='Keeping the Darwinists Honest' an interview with Phillip Johnson
|work=Citizen Magazine
|month=April
|year=1999
}} ''"Intelligent Design 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 ] out of the discussion"; "after we have separated ] ] from scientific fact only then can 'biblical issues' be discussed".<ref name="Johnson-Touchstone">
{{cite journal
|author=Phillip Johnson
|journal=Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity
|month=July/August
|year=1999
}} ''"...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>


The ] of deliberately disguising the religious intent of intelligent design has been described by William Dembski in ''The Design Inference''.<ref name="Design Inference">William Dembski, 1998. The Design Inference.</ref> In this work Dembski lists a ] or an "]" as two possible options for the identity of the designer; however, in his book ''Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology,'' Dembski states that "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>Dembski, 1999. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, p. 210.</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> 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:
{{cite web
|author=William Dembski
|year=2005
|title=Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris
|url=http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm
}}</ref> Both Johnson and Dembski cite the Bible's ] as the foundation of intelligent design.<ref name=dembski_logos/><ref name=PJC/>


{{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 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 (October 5) ''"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".''</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 Johnson, Charles 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>

{{cite web
Dembski also stated, "ID is part of God's ] ... Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology &#91;]&#93;, 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" />
|url=http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf

|title=Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper
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" />
|publisher=Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy
|format=PDF
|authorlink=Barbara Forrest
|month=May
|year=2007
}}</ref>


===Reaction from other creationist groups=== ===Reaction from other creationist groups===
Not all creationist organizations have embraced the intelligent design movement. ] of Reasons to Believe, 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> 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>
{{cite web
|author=H. Ross
|url=http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue10/index.shtml#more_than_id
|title=More than intelligent design
|work=Facts for Faith
|issue=10
|location=Pasadena, California
|publisher=Reasons to Believe
|year=2002
|accessdate=April 25, 2007
}}</ref>


Likewise, two of the most prominent ] organizations in the world have attempted to distinguish their views from intelligent design. Henry M. Morris 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> 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>
{{cite web
|author=Henry M. Morris
|url=http://www.icr.org/article/859/17/
|title=Design is not enough!
|work=Back to Genesis
|issue=127
|location=Santee, California
|publisher=Institute for Creation Research
|year=1999
|accessdate=April 25, 2007
}}</ref> In 2002, Carl Wieland 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
|author=Carl Wieland
|url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp
|title=AiG's views on the Intelligent Design movement
|publisher=Answers in Genesis
|year=2002
|accessdate=April 25, 2007
}}</ref>


===Reaction from the scientific community===
===Polls===
The unequivocal ] in the ] is that intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science curriculum.<ref name="consensus">''See:''
Several surveys were conducted prior to the December 2005 decision in ''Kitzmiller v. Dover'', 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
* {{Cite court|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|vol=04|reporter=cv|opinion=2688|date=December 20, 2005}} ] p. 83
|date=July 6, 2005
* 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.
|url=http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581
* ]. 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.
|title=Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God
* More than 70,000 Australian scientists
|accessdate=2007-07-13
* : List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism in the sciences.
|work=The Harris Poll #52
* ], "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."
|publisher=Harris Interactive
* ], "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:''
}}</ref>
* {{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 }}
Although ] commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support, these polls suffer from considerable flaws, such as having a very 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>
* ]</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>
{{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!
|accessdate=2007-07-13
|publisher=New Mexicans for Science and Reason
}}</ref><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=September 11, 2003
|work=Doubt and About
|publisher=Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://blogs.salon.com/0001092/2003/07/30.html
|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20030816135718/http://blogs.salon.com/0001092/2003/07/30.html
|archivedate=2003-08-16
|title='Intelligent Design'-ers launch new assault on curriculum using lies and deception
|accessdate=2007-07-13
|author=David Harris
|publisher=]
}}</ref>


In 2001, the Discovery Institute published advertisements under the heading "]", with the claim that listed scientists had signed this statement expressing skepticism:
A May 2005 survey of nearly 1500 physicians in the United States conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute and HCD Research showed that 63% of the physicians agreed more with evolution than with intelligent design.<ref name=Findelsteinpollreport>According to the poll, 18% of the physicians believed that God created humans exactly as they appear today. Another 42% believed that God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings. The poll also found that "an overwhelming majority of Jewish doctors (83%) and half of Catholic doctors (51%) believe that intelligent design is simply "a religiously inspired pseudo-science rather than a legitimate scientific speculation". The poll also found that "more than half of Protestant doctors (63%) believe that intelligent design is a "legitimate scientific speculation".<br/>
{{cite press release
|url=http://www.hcdi.net/News/PressRelease.cfm?ID=93
|title=Majority of Physicians Give the Nod to Evolution Over Intelligent Design
|accessdate=2007-10-08
}}</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>}}
===Film===
The film '']'' sparked further controversy in 2008. This documentary, hosted by ], spends much time focusing on professors who have been asked to leave or have left numerous institutions because, the film insinuates, of their beliefs in Intelligent Design. One of the film's first screenings resulted in ], an interviewee in the film, being asked to leave the theater. There have also been allegations from some interviewees that interviews were recorded many times in order to get the exact phrasing required by the producer. The production company, Premise Media, also has helped finance some religious films such as the '']''.
<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/
|title=Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed (2008)
}}</ref>
<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/080404-expelled-movie.html
|title=New Anti-Evolution Film Stirs Controversy
}}</ref>


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.
==Creating and teaching the controversy==
{{Main|Teach the 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. The intelligent design movement creates this controversy in order to convince the public, politicians and cultural leaders that schools should "]".<ref>
{{cite news
|author=Shaw, Linda
|work=Seattle Times
|date=March 31, 2005
|url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002225932_design31m.html
|title=Does Seattle group "teach controversy" or contribute to it?
}}</ref> But in fact, there is no such controversy in the ]; the ] is that life evolved.<ref>{{cite web
|publisher=National Association of Biology Teachers
|url=http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp
|title=NABT's Statement on Teaching Evolution
|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20060927160040/http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp
|archivedate=2006-09-27
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
|format=PDF
|title=IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution
|publisher=The Interacademy Panel on International Issues
|date=June 21, 2006
|accessdate=2008-10-17
}} Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the ] ].</ref><ref>From the world's largest general scientific society:
*{{cite press release
|url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf
|format=PDF
|publisher=]
|title=Statement on the Teaching of Evolution
|date=February 16, 2006
|accessdate=2008-10-17
}}
*{{cite press release
|url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml
|publisher=]
|title=AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
|author=Pinholster, Ginger
|date=February 19, 2006
|accessdate=2008-10-17
}}
</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>{{cite news|date=November 27, 2005
|first=Mark
|last=Coultan
|url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/intelligent-design-a-trojan-horse-says-creationist/2005/11/26/1132966007431.html|title=Intelligent design a Trojan horse, says creationist
|work=]
|accessdate=2007-07-29
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cs_2005_02_special
|title=Intelligent Design: Creationism's Trojan Horse
|year=2005
|month=February
|publisher=Americans United for the Separation of Church and State
|accessdate=2007-07-29
}}</ref>


===Polls===
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 a scientific hypothesis.<ref name="IDstatementOnCreator"/><ref name="Johnson-Touchstone"/> However, among a very 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 public controversy was given widespread media coverage in the United States, particularly during the ''Kitzmiller v. Dover'' trial in late 2005 and after President ] expressed support for the idea of teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in August 2005. In response to Bush’s statement and the pending federal trial, '']'' magazine ran an eight-page cover story on the Evolution Wars in which they examined the issue of teaching intelligent design in the classroom.<ref name=TIME>{{cite web
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>
|url=http://ncse.com/news/2005/08/evolution-wars-time-00696
|title="The evolution wars" in Time
|publisher=]
|date=August 11, 2005
|accessdate=2009-11-18
}}<br/>• {{cite journal
|last=Martin
|first=Justin D.
|coauthors=Kaye D. Trammell; Daphne Landers; Jeanne M. Valois; Terri Bailey
|year=2006
|title=Journalism and the Debate Over Origins: Newspaper Coverage of Intelligent Design
|journal=Journal of Media and Religion
|volume=5
|issue=1
|pages=49–61
|doi=10.1207/s15328415jmr0501_3
}}<br/>• {{cite journal
|last=Dingwall
|first=Robert
|coauthors=Meryl Aldridge
|year=2006
|title=Television wildlife programming as a source of popular scientific information: a case study of evolution
|journal=Public Understanding of Science
|volume=15
|pages=131–152
|doi=10.1177/0963662506060588
}}<br/>• {{cite web
|url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0810time.asp
|title=Time for evolution wars
|accessdate=2009-02-16
|last=Sheppard
|first=Pam
|date=2005-08-10
|publisher=Answers in Genesis
}}</ref><ref name=DeWolf/> The cover of the magazine featured a parody of ] from the ]. Rather than pointing at Adam, Michelangelo’s God points at the image of a chimpanzee contemplating the caption which read "''The push to teach "intelligent design" raises a question: Does God have a place in science class?"''.<ref name=Chimp>
*{{cite news
|first=John Angus
|last=Campbell
|authorlink=John Angus Campbell
|coauthors=Bill Marty
|title=Does God have a place in class?: Intelligent design ignites great debate
|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/2920
|work=Calgary Herald
|date=2005-08-25
|accessdate=2009-02-16
}}
*{{cite book
|last=Wells
|first=Jonathan
|authorlink=Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)
|title=The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
|url=http://books.google.com/?id=H8yn0iaRRfoC&pg=PA1&vq=evolution+wars&dq=politically+incorrect+guide+to+intelligent+design
|year=2006|publisher=Regnery Publishing
|isbn=1596980133
|pages=273
}}
*{{cite book
|last=Hewlett
|first=Martinez
|authorlink=Martinez Hewlett
|editor=Robert B. Stewart
|title=Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue
|url=http://books.google.com/?id=MjKkFG8qVjcC&pg=PA44&vq=evolution+wars&dq=intelligent+design+michael+ruse+william+dembski+2007|year=2007|isbn=0800662180
|nopp=44–57
|chapter=The Evolution Wars: Who Is Fighting with Whom about What?
|publisher=Fortress Press
|location=Minneapolis, MN
}}</ref> In the ''Kitzmiller v. Dover'' case, the court ruled that intelligent design was a religious and creationist position, finding that God and intelligent design were both distinct from the material that should be covered in a science class.<ref name="kitzruling-IDandGod"/>


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>
<!-- Commented out: ] -->
] uses the ] to create '']'' knowledge based on observation and repeated testing of hypotheses and theories. Intelligent design proponents seek to change this fundamental basis of science<ref name=Forrest2000>
{{cite journal
|last=Forrest
|first=Barbara
|title=Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection
|journal=Philo
|volume=3
|year=2000
|month=Fall–Winter
|issue=2
|pages=7–29
|url=http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html
|accessdate=2007-07-27
}}</ref> by eliminating "]" from science<ref>{{cite book
|last=Johnson
|first=Phillip E.
|title=Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education
|year=1995
|publisher=InterVarsity Press
|isbn=0830819290
}}<nowiki></nowiki></ref> and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, ], calls "]".<ref name=Johnsonconversation>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/ratzsch.htm
|title=Starting a Conversation about Evolution: Johnson, Phillip
|author=Phillip E. Johnson
|authorlink=Phillip E. Johnson
|date=August 31, 1996
|publisher=]
|quote=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.
|accessdate=2008-10-18
}}</ref> Some have called this approach "methodological supernaturalism", which means belief in a transcendent, nonnatural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, nonnatural deity.<ref>See, for instance: {{cite web
|url=http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Vuletic.html
|title=Methodological Naturalism and the Supernatural
|accessdate=2007-07-27
|last=Vuletic
|first=Mark I.
|year=1997
|month=February
|work=Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise: An Interdisciplinary Conference
|publisher=University of Texas, Austin
}}</ref> Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena and that supernatural explanations provide a very simple and intuitive explanation for the origins of life and the universe.<ref name=Watanabe>
{{cite web
|first=Teresa
|last=Watanabe
|url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?programs=CSCstories&command=view&id=613
|title=Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator
|accessdate=2007-07-22
|date=March 25, 2001
|publisher=]
|quote=<nowiki>:</nowiki> We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise ...&nbsp;We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.
}}</ref> Proponents say that evidence exists in the forms of ] and ] that cannot be explained by natural processes.<ref name=DIposition/>


===Allegations of discrimination against ID proponents===
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>
{{Main|Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed}}
{{cite journal
|url=http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/world2.html
|title=Witnesses For The Prosecution
|first=Joel
|last=Belz
|date=November 30, 1996
|volume=11
|issue=28
|journal=World Magazine
|format=Reprint by Leadership U.
|accessdate=2007-07-23
|page=18
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.christianity.ca/news/social-issues/2004/03.001.html
|title=Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin
|accessdate=2007-07-23
|last=Nickson
|first=Elizabeth
|date=January 10, 2003
|work=Christianity.ca
|publisher=The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
|quote=<nowiki>:</nowiki> 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.
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://ebd10.ebd.csic.es/pdfs/DarwSciOrPhil.pdf
|format=PDF
|title=Darwinism: Science or Philosophy
|accessdate=2007-07-23
|editor1-last=Buell
|editor1-first=Jon
|editor2-last=Hearn
|editor2-first=Virginia
|month=March
|year=1992
|work=Darwinism: Scientific Inference or Philosophical Preference? (Symposium)
|publisher=The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Dallas Christian Leadership, and the C. S. Lewis Fellowship
}}</ref>


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}}
According to critics, intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case and is an attempt to teach religion in public schools. They allege that intelligent design has substituted public support for scientific research.<ref><!-- NOT SURE how to fix this source ... is the text citig the book, or the press release? Per ], say where you got it. Unsure whether to convert this to a correct press release or integrate the URL into cite book, in which case, we need a page number
* {{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}}
* {{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 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>
-->{{cite book
|title=Intelligent design's long march to nowhere
|accessdate=2007-07-23
|last=Giberson
|first=Karl
|authorlink=Karl Giberson
|date=December 5, 2005
|pages=
|publisher=], ]
|url=http://www.templeton.org/capabilities_2004/press02.html
}}</ref> Some critics have said that 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 such as the ] "theory". There are innumerable mutually incompatible supernatural explanations for complexity, and intelligent design does not provide a mechanism for discriminating among them. Philosopher of biology ], for example, states that intelligent design is not falsifiable because "efenders of ID always have a way out".<ref>
{{cite journal
|last=Sober
|first=Elliott
|year=2007
|month=March
|title=What is wrong with intelligent design?
|journal=Quarterly Review of Biology
|volume=82
|issue=1
|pages=3–6
|url=http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/what's%20wrong%20with%20id%20qrb%202007.pdf
|accessdate=2007-07-23
|format=PDF
|doi=10.1086/511656
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070222155420.htm|title=What Is Wrong With Intelligent Design?|accessdate=2007-07-23|date=February 23, 2007
|publisher=Science Daily
}}</ref> Indeed, intelligent design proponent ] concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment".<ref name="Time-15-Aug-2005">
{{cite web
|url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909,00.html
|title=The Evolution Wars
|accessdate=2007-07-23
|last=Wallis
|first=Claudia
|date=August 7, 2005
|publisher=Time Magazine
}}</ref>


''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>
Critics have asserted that intelligent design proponents cannot legitimately ''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 created life on Earth, which advocate William Dembski has said could alternately be an "alien" life force,<ref name="Design Inference"/> has been compared to the '']'' claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids.<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://edisk.fandm.edu/michael.murray/Providence.pdf
|title=Natural Providence (or Design Trouble)
|accessdate=2007-07-23
|last=Murray
|first=Michael J.
|date=Forthcoming
|format=PDF
|publisher=Franklin & Marshall College
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/NRCSEPosReID.html
|title=What is the position of the NRCSE on the teaching of intelligent design <nowiki></nowiki> as an alternative to neo-Darwinian evolution in Nebraska schools?
|accessdate=2007-07-23
|last=Dembski
|first=William A.
|authorlink=William A. Dembski
|publisher=Creighton University
}}</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".-->


==Criticism==
Supporters of intelligent design have also reached out to other faith groups with similar accounts of creation with the hope that the broader coalition will have greater influence in supporting science education that does not contradict their religious views.<ref name=Watanabe/> Many religious bodies have responded by ]. The Roman Catholic church has stated that religious faith is fully compatible with science, which is limited to dealing only with the natural world<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p91.htm
|title=Catechetical Lecture at St. Stephan's Cathedral, Vienna
|accessdate=2007-07-22
|last=Schönborn
|first=Cardinal Christoph
|authorlink=Christoph Cardinal Schönborn
|date=October 2, 2005
|format=http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p91.htm
|format=Reprint
|publisher=Bring You To
|quote=Purpose and design in the natural world, no difficulty with the theory of evolution the borders of scientific theory.
}}</ref>—a position described by the term '']''.<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum
|title=The Creation/Evolution Continuum
|accessdate=2009-11-18
|last=Scott
|first=Eugenie C.
|date=December 7, 2000
|publisher=]
}}</ref> As well as pointing out that intelligent design is not science, they also reject it for various philosophical and theological reasons.<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.ncccusa.org/pdfs/evolutionbrochurefinal.pdf
|title=Science, Religion, and the Teaching of Evolution in Public School Science Classes
|accessdate=2007-07-17
|last=Resseger
|first=Jan (Chair)
|year=2006
|month=March
|format=PDF
|work=Committee on Public Education and Literacy
|publisher=]
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/IDTHG.html
|title=Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem
|accessdate=2007-07-21
|last=Murphy
|first=George L.
|year=2002
|publisher=Creighton University
|format=Reprint
}}</ref> The arguments of intelligent design have been directly challenged by the over 10,000 ] who signed 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>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/is-idm-christian
|title=Intelligent design: is it intelligent; is it Christian?
|accessdate=2007-07-21
|last=Sheppard
|first=Pam S.
|date=February 4, 2006
|publisher=]
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue10/index.shtml#more_than_id
|title=More Than Intelligent Design
|accessdate=2007-07-21
|last=Ross
|first=Hugh
|authorlink=Hugh Ross (creationist)
|issue=10
|work=Facts for Faith
|publisher=Reasons to Believe
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite press release
|url=http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/intelligent_design.php
|title=The "Intelligent Design" Distraction
|accessdate=2007-07-20
|year=2007
|publisher=Harun Yahya International
}}</ref> and have pointed to previous failures of the same argument.<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp
|title=AiG's views on the Intelligent Design Movement
|accessdate=2007-07-20
|last=Wieland
|first=Carl
|date=August 30, 2002
|publisher=Answers in Genesis
}}</ref>


===Scientific criticism===
Some religiously oriented commentators, such as ], have more directly criticized the advocates of intelligent design as presenting a perspective of God that is dangerous to religion.<ref name=Slifkin>Natan Slifkin (2006). ''The Challenge of Creation'' (New York: Yashar Books) 288 ff.</ref> Those who promote it as parallel to religion, he asserts, do not truly understand it. Slifkin criticizes intelligent design's advocacy of teaching their perspective in biology classes, wondering why no one claims that God's hand should be taught in other secular classes, such as history, physics or geology. Slifkin also asserts that the intelligent design movement is inordinately concerned with portraying God as "in control" when it comes to things that cannot be easily explained by science, but not in control in respect to things which ''can'' be explained by scientific theory.<ref name=Slifkin/> ] expresses a view similar to Slifkin's: "he struggles of the Intelligent Design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures - rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God.<ref>
{{Main|Intelligent design and science}}
{{cite book
|author=Miller, Kenneth
|chapter=The Flagellum Unspun
|title=Debating Design
|editor1=Dembski, William
|editor2=Ruse, Michael
|publisher=Cambridge University Press
|year=2004
|pages=95
}}</ref>


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
===Defining science===
The ] 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>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1780
|title=The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories
|accessdate=2007-07-19
|last=Meyer
|first=Stephen C.
|authorlink=Stephen C. Meyer
|date=December 1, 2002
|publisher=], ]
}}</ref> This presents a ], which in the ] is about how and where to draw the lines around science.<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/wuthrich/teaching/2007_145/Lecture02.pdf
|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20070724203349/http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/wuthrich/teaching/2007_145/Lecture02.pdf
|archivedate=2007-07-24
|format=PDF
|last=Wüthrich
|first=Christian
|title=Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience
|work=Department of Philosophy
|publisher=University of California at San Diego
|date=January 11, 2007
|accessdate=2007-07-19
}}</ref> For a theory to qualify as scientific,<ref>
{{cite book
|last=Gauch, Jr.
|first=Hugh G.
|title=Scientific Method in Practice
|year=2003
|publisher=Cambridge UP
|chapter=Chapters 5–8
|isbn=0521017084
}} 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>
{{cite book
|last=Elmes
|first=David G.
|coauthors=Kantowitz, Barry H.; Roediger, Henry L.
|title=Research Methods in Psychology
|edition=8th
|year=2005
|publisher=Wadsworth Publishing
|isbn=0534609767
|chapter=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>
{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|volume=04 |volume=04
Line 1,692: Line 241:
|opinion=2688 |opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005 |date=December 20, 2005
}}, ]. 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:<!-- }} ], 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 ])
This list breaches ], will leave it to others to decide which way they want to format the list
* 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)
*'''Consistent'''
* Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
*'''Parsimonious''' (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see ])
* Progressive (refines previous theories)
*'''Useful''' (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
* Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)
*'''Empirically testable and falsifiable''' (see ])
*'''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; 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>See, e.g., {{cite web 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
|author=Mark Perakh
|title=The Dream World of William Dembski's Creationism
|work=Skeptic
|volume=11
|issue=4
|year=2005
|pages=54–65
|publisher=Talk Reason
|url=http://talkreason.com/articles/Skeptic_paper.cfm
}}</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. See, e.g., {{cite book
|author=Branden Fitelson, ''et al.''
|chapter=How Not to Detect Design–Critical Notice: William A. Dembski ''The Design Inference''
|editor=Robert T. Pennock
|title=Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives
|publisher=MIT Press
|year=2001
|pages=597–616
}}.</ref> is not scientifically useful,<ref>See, e.g., {{cite web
|first=Jill E.
|last=Schneider
|publisher=Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University
|year=2005
|title=Thoughts on Evolution and Intelligent Design
|url=http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/schneider/evolution.htm
|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>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., {{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|volume=04 |volume=04
Line 1,738: Line 257:
|opinion=2688 |opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005 |date=December 20, 2005
}} ] and ].</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. See, e.g., {{cite court }} ], 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 |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|volume=04 |volume=04
Line 1,744: Line 263:
|opinion=2688 |opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005 |date=December 20, 2005
}} ] and ].</ref> and is not correctable, dynamic, provisional 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. See, e.g., the brief explanation in {{cite court }} ], 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 |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04 |vol=04
Line 1,750: Line 269:
|opinion=2688 |opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005 |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>
}} ].</ref><ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf
|title=Nobel Laureates Initiative
|accessdate=2007-07-19
|date=September 9, 2005
|format=PDF
|publisher=The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity
}} 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>
{{cite news
|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20060614003243/www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html
|title=Intelligent Design is not Science: Scientists and teachers speak out
|accessdate=2009-01-09
|month=October
|year=2005
|publisher=]
}} The October 2005 statement, by a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers said: "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>


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">
Critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the ],<ref>
], "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.
{{cite web
|url=http://pharyngula.org/index/science/comments/creationism_and_the_daubert_test/
|title=Creationism and the Daubert test?
|date=May 21, 2005
|publisher=], Pharyngula.org
}}</ref> the criteria for ] mandated by the ]. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. Its four criteria are:
*The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
*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.
In '']'', using these criteria and others mentioned above, Judge Jones ] "... 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".


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>
===Peer review===

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's being considered as valid science.<ref name=kitzruling_pg87>
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
{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|volume=04 |volume=04
Line 1,789: Line 282:
|opinion=2688 |opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005 |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> The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article in a ].<ref name="aaas_pr"/><ref name=kitzruling_pg87/>

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.<ref name="main"> ], ].</ref> Intelligent design proponents believe that their writings are rejected for not conforming to purely naturalistic, non-supernatural 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>
{{cite web
|url=http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/creation/bush_intelligent_design_2005.html
|title=The President and the teaching of evolution
|accessdate=2007-07-19
|last=]
|first=John
|year=2005
|month=August
|publisher=John Hawks Weblog
}}</ref> ] has rebutted the claim, noting "Anyone who thinks that scientists do not question Darwinism has never been to an evolutionary conference." He noted that scientists such as ] and ] have challenged certain Darwinist theories and offered explanations of their own and despite this they "have not been persecuted, shunned, fired or even expelled. Why? Because they are doing science, not religion."<ref></ref> The issue that 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 can be accepted by the broader scientific community.

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>
{{cite news
|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html?ex=1291352400&en=feb5138e425b9001&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
|title=Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker
|accessdate=2007-07-19
|last=Goodstein
|first=Laurie
|date=December 4, 2005
|publisher=New York Times
}}</ref> }}</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
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>{{wayback|url=http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html|title=Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington|date=20070926214521}}</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.<ref name=Meyer2004>
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
{{cite journal
|volume=04
|author=Meyer, S.C.
|reporter=cv
|year=2004
|opinion=2688
|title=The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories
|date=December 20, 2005
|journal=Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
}} ], 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>
|volume=117
|issue=2
|pages=213–239
|url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=549
|accessdate=2007-05-10
}}</ref> The article was a ], 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 ]<ref>The ] and several similar academic disputes are the subject of the 2008 documentary "]".</ref>). Dembski has written that "perhaps the best reason is that intelligent design has yet to establish itself as a thriving scientific research program."<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.designinference.com/documents/2001.03.ID_as_nat_theol.htm
|title=Is Intelligent Design a Form of Natural Theology?
|accessdate=2007-07-19
|last=Dembski
|first=William A.
|authorlink=William Dembski
|year=2001
|publisher=Design Inference Website
}}</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>
{{cite web
|url=http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i17/17a00801.htm
|title=Darwinism Under Attack
|last=McMurtie
|first=Beth
|date=December 21, 2001
|work=The Chronicle Of Higher Education
|accessdate=2008-12-10
}}</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>
In the ], the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing.<ref name=autogenerated2>]</ref> There, intelligent design proponents cited just one paper, on simulation modeling of evolution by Behe and Snoke,<ref>
{{cite journal
|last=Behe
|first=Michael J
|coauthors=David W Snoke
|date=October 2004
|title=Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues
|journal=Protein Science
|publisher=The Protein Society
|volume=13
|issue=10
|pages=2651–64
|issn=0961-8368
|url=http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121602290/HTMLSTART
|accessdate=16 March 2009
|doi=10.1110/ps.04802904
|pmid=15340163
|pmc=2286568
}}</ref> which mentioned neither irreducible complexity nor intelligent design and which Behe admitted did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms.<ref name=kitzruling_pg88/> ] called the conclusions of the article "an artifact of unwarranted biological assumptions, inappropriate mathematical modeling, and faulty logic".<ref>
{{cite journal
|last=Lynch
|first=Michael
|date=September 2005
|title=Simple evolutionary pathways to complex proteins
|journal=Protein Science
|publisher=The Protein Society
|volume=14
|issue=9
|pages=2217–2225
|issn=0961-8368
|accessdate=16 March 2009
|doi=10.1110/ps.041171805
|pmid=16131652
|pmc=2253472
}}</ref> In sworn testimony, however, 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>]'', October 19, 2005, 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/>


===Arguments from ignorance===
The Discovery Institute insists that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals,<ref>
], along with ] and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are ].
{{cite web
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://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science
|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
|title=Peer-Reviewed, Peer-Edited, and other Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
|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>
|accessdate=2007-07-17
|first=Staff
|year=2007
|month=July
|publisher=Discovery Institute
}}</ref> including in its list the two articles mentioned above. Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, stating 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 journal
|last=Brauer
|first=Matthew J.
|coauthors=Forrest, Barbara; Gey Steven G.
|year=2005
|title=Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution
|journal=Washington University Law Quarterly
|volume=83
|issue=1
|url=http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/83-1/p%201%20Brauer%20Forrest%20Gey%20book%20pages.pdf
|accessdate=2007-07-18
|format=PDF
|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.
}}</ref> consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html
|title=Index to Creationist Claims
|publisher=]
|first=Mark
|last=Isaak
|year=2006
|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>


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
===Intelligence as an observable quality===
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>
{{cite web
|title=Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences
|work=Intelligent Design?
|first=William A.
|last=Dembski
|url=http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
|accessdate=2007-07-18
|month=April
|year=2002
|publisher=]
}}</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 ], disputed 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 ]ity.<ref>
{{cite web
|title=SETI and Intelligent Design
|first=Seth
|last=Shostak
|url=http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_intelligentdesign_051201.html
|accessdate=2007-07-18
|month=December
|year=2005
|publisher=]
|quote=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
}}</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".—{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|volume=04 |vol=04
|reporter=cv |reporter=cv
|opinion=2688 |opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005 |date=December 20, 2005
}}, ]</ref> }} ], pp. 71–74.</ref>


===Possible theological implications===
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>
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>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-03/intelligent-design.html
|title=Darwin in Mind: Intelligent Design Meets Artificial Intelligence
|accessdate=2007-07-17
|last=Edis
|first=Taner
|year=2001
|month=March/April
|publisher=Skeptical Inquirer Magazine
}}</ref> This claim is similar in type to an assumption of ] that posits a strict separation between "mind" and the material ]. 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. 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 along these lines of inquiry. 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.<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1136
|title=Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell
|accessdate=2007-07-14
|year=2007
|publisher=Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
}}</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" />
===Arguments from ignorance===
], along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are ].<ref name="2002-09-10">
{{cite web
|url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/intelligent-design-not-accepted-by-most-scientists
|title="Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by Most Scientists
|accessdate=2009-11-18
|last=Scott
|first=Eugenie C.
|coauthors=Branch, Glenn
|year=2002
|month=September
|publisher=]
}}</ref> 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.<ref name="2002-09-10"/> Particularly, ]'s demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a ], 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.


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>
Intelligent design has also been characterized as a "]" argument, which has the following form:
:*There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
:*The gap is filled with acts of God (or ]) and therefore proves the existence of God (or intelligent designer).


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" />
A god-of-the-gaps 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, for instance: {{cite journal
|last=Hube
|first=Richard H.
|year=1971
|month=Fall
|title=Man Come Of Age: Bonhoeffer's Response To The God-Of-The-Gaps
|journal=Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
|volume=14
|pages=203–220
}}</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>
==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 ]. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of ], and that the school board policy thus violated the ] of the ].<ref>. National Center for Science Education. October 17th, 2008</ref>


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>
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 ] (NCSE) acted as consultants for the plaintiffs. The defendants were represented by the ].<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 {{cite court
|litigants=Tammy Kitzmiller, ''et al.'' v. Dover Area School District, ''et al.'' |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04
|year=2005
|reporter=cv
|court=United States District Court for the middle district of Pennsylvania
|opinion=2688
|url=http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/04cv2688-111.pdf
|date=December 20, 2005
|format=PDF
|court=United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
}}</ref> The suit was tried in a ] from September 26, 2005 to November 4, 2005 before Judge ]. ], Kevin Padian, ], ], ] and ] served as expert witnesses for the prosecution. ], ] and ] served as expert witnesses for the defense.
|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, ] the Dover mandate was unconstitutional, and barring intelligent design from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms. The eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent design requirement were all defeated in a November 8, 2005 election by challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class, and the current school board president stated that the board does not intend to appeal the ruling.<ref> 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>
{{cite news
|first=Michael
|last=Powell
|title=Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design'
|work=The Washington Post
|date=December 21, 2005
|url=http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=5945
|accessdate=2007-09-03
}}</ref>


In his finding of facts, Judge Jones made the following condemnation of the ] strategy: In his finding of facts, Judge Jones made the following condemnation of the "Teach the Controversy" strategy:
{{quotation|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.}}


{{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
===Reaction===
|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: Judge Jones himself anticipated that his ruling would be criticized, saying in his decision that:
{{quotation|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.}}


{{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.
As Jones had predicted, ], Associate Director of the ] at ], said:
{{quotation|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>


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 web
{{cite court
|last=Crowther
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|first=Robert
|vol=04
|title=Dover Intelligent Design Decision Criticized as a Futile Attempt to Censor Science Education
|reporter=cv
|work=Evolution News & Views
|opinion=2688
|publisher=Discovery Institute
|date=December 20, 2005 |date=December 20, 2005
}} ] pp. 137–138</ref>}}
|url=http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/dover_intelligent_design_decis.html

|accessdate=2007-09-03
As Jones had predicted, ], Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture, said:
}}</ref>.

}}
{{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 with interest that the judge is "a ] and a ]".<ref>

{{cite news
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}}
|agency=Associated Press
* {{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>
|title=Judge rules against 'intelligent design'

|publisher=MSNBC
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>
|date=December 20, 2005
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 }}
|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
* {{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" />
|accessdate=2008-10-17

}}</ref><ref>
===Anti-evolution legislation===
{{cite web
{{Main|Anti-evolution legislation}}
|last=Provonsha
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}}
|first=Matthew
|title=Godless: The Church of Liberalism
|work=eSkeptic
|date=September 21, 2006
|url=http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-21.html
|accessdate=2007-09-03
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
|first=Kevin
|last=Padian
|coauthors=Nick Matzke
|date=January 4, 2006
|title=Discovery Institute tries to "swift-boat" Judge Jones
|publisher=National Center for Science Education
|url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/discovery-institute-tries-to-swift-boat-judge-jones
|accessdate=2009-11-18
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite news
|first=Martha
|last=Raffaele
|title=Intelligent design policy struck down
|work=Dallas Morning News
|date=December 20, 2005
|url=http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/122105dnnatidesign.780fc9a.html
|accessdate=2007-09-03
}}</ref>


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>
Subsequently, 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 the Spring of 2007 the University of Montana Law review published three articles.<ref>
{{cite journal
|url=http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Editors%27%20Note.pdf
|format=PDF
|title=Articles: Editor's Note: Intelligent Design Articles
|journal=] Law Review
|volume=68
|issue=1
|date=April 10, 2007
|accessdate=2008-10-16
}}</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
|url=http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Discovery%20Institute%20Article.pdf
|format=PDF
|title=Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover
|author=DeWolf, David K
|coauthors=West, Johng G; Luskin, Casey
|journal=] Law Review
|volume=68
|issue=1
|date=May 4, 2007
}}</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
|url=http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Irons%20Response.pdf
|format=PDF
|title=Disaster In Dover: The Trials (And Tribulations) Of Intelligent Design
|author=Irons, Peter
|journal=] Law Review
|volume=68
|issue=1
|date=April 27, 2007
|accessdate=2008-10-16
}}</ref> while in the third, DeWolf et al. answer the points made by Irons.<ref>
{{cite journal
|url=http://www.umt.edu/mlr/DI%20Rebuttal.pdf
|format=PDF
|title=Rebuttal to Irons
|author=DeWolf, David K; West, John G; Luskin, Casey
|journal=] Law Review
|volume=68
|issue=1
|date=April 27, 2007
|accessdate=2008-10-16
}}</ref> However, fear of a similar lawsuit has resulted in other school boards abandoning intelligent design "teach the controversy" proposals.<ref name=ForrestMayPaper/>


==Status outside the United States== ==Status outside the United States==

===Europe=== ===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=coe_report>{{cite web|url=http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11297.htm|title=The dangers of creationism in education|publisher=]|accessdate=2007-08-03}}</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=NCSE Resource—Council of Europe approves resolution against creationism|publisher=National Center for Science Education|date=October 4, 2007|accessdate=2009-11-18}} 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://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNewsMolt/idUKL0417855220071004|title=Council of Europe firmly opposes creationism in school|accessdate=2007-10-05|agency=Reuters}}</ref>
* {{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>


], ] 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 by the Discovery Institute affiliate Illustra Media<ref>{{cite web 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}}
|url=http://www.illustramedia.com/ID01WiredMagPage.htm
* {{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>
|title=WIRED Magazine response
{{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
|accessdate=2007-07-13
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>
|publisher=Illustra Media
|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 The Privileged Planet)
}}</ref> featuring Discovery Institute fellows making the case for design in nature,<ref>
{{cite web
|date=July 15, 2004
|last=Meyer
|first=Stephen C.
|authorlink=Stephen C. Meyer
|coauthors=Allen, W. Peter
|url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2116&program=CSC%20-%20Video%20and%20Curriculum%20-%20Multimedia
|title=]
|accessdate=2007-07-13
|publisher=], ]
}}</ref> and claimed they were being used by 59 schools,<ref>
{{cite news
|date=November 27, 2006
|first=James
|last=Randerson
|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/nov/27/controversiesinscience.religion
|title=Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools
|accessdate=2008-10-17
|publisher=Guardian
}}</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
|date=September 29, 2006
|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5392096.stm
|title='Design' attack on school science
|accessdate=2007-07-13
|publisher=BBC News
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
|date=November 1, 2006
|url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm061101/text/61101w0010.htm#0611021004183
|title=Written Answers
|accessdate=2007-07-13
|work=Daily Hansard
|publisher=]
}}</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 web
|url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/61218w0006.htm
|title=Schools: Intelligent Design
|date=December 18, 2006
|accessdate=2007-07-13
|work=Daily Hansard
|publisher=]
}}</ref> In 2006 the ] produced a ] model unit in which pupils can learn about religious and nonreligious
views about creationism, intelligent design and evolution by natural selection.<ref name=ukguide/><ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/qca-06-2728_y9_science_religion_master.pdf
|format=PDF
|title=How can we answer questions about creation and origins?
|accessdate=2007-10-01
|year=2006
|publisher=] for England
}}</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 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" />
|date=21 June 2007
|author=Prime Minister's Office
|title=NoCreSciEd - epetition reply
|url=http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page12021
|accessdate=2007-07-13
|location=London
|publisher=]
}}</ref> Detailed government "Creationism teaching guidance" for schools in England was published on September 18, 2007.<ref name=ukguide>
{{cite web
|url=http://ncse.com/news/2007/02/guidance-creationism-british-teachers-001170
|title=NCSE Resource—Guidance on creationism for British teachers
|accessdate=2009-11-18
|date=September 25, 2007
|publisher=]
}}</ref> 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, "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>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=11890
|title=Teachernet, Document bank
|accessdate=2007-10-01
|date=September 18, 2007
|work=Creationism teaching guidance
|publisher=UK Department for Children, Schools and Families
|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 "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.}}</ref>


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}}
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>
* {{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>
{{cite web
|author=Lengagne, Guy
|url=http://www.assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11297.htm
|title=The dangers of creationism in education
|work=Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Socialist Group, Parliamentary Assembly
|publisher=], Doc. 11297
|date=June 8, 2007
|accessdate=2008-10-17
}}</ref> However, in ] the ] claims that the revised curriculum provides an opportunity for alternative theories to be taught, and has sought assurances that pupils will not lose marks if they give creationist or intelligent design answers to science questions.<ref>
{{cite news
|url=http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/education/tussle-of-biblical-proportions-over-creationism-in-ulster-classrooms-13479246.html
|title=Tussle of Biblical proportions over creationism in Ulster classrooms
|accessdate=2007-10-01
|author=Henry, Lesley-Anne
|date=September 26, 2007
|work=]
}}<br/>*{{cite news
|url=http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/viewpoint-the-world-according-to-lisburn-folk-13479536.html
|title=Viewpoint: The world, according to Lisburn folk
|accessdate=2007-10-01
|date=September 27, 2007
|work=]
}}</ref> In ] the DUP has arranged that the City Council will 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
|url=http://www.lisburntoday.co.uk/news/Creation-Motion-Passed-By-Council.3233193.jp
|title=Dup Call For Schools To Teach Creation Passed By Council—Lisburn Today
|publisher=Ulster Star
|accessdate=2008-10-17
|date=September 26, 2007
}}</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>
Plans by Dutch Education Minister ] to "stimulate an academic debate" on the subject in 2005 caused a severe public backlash.<ref>
{{cite journal
|title=Evolution Politics: Is Holland Becoming the Kansas of Europe?
|author=Enserink, Martin
|journal=]
|date=June 3, 2005
|volume=308
|issue=5727
|page=1394
|doi=10.1126/science.308.5727.1394b
|url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/308/5727/1394b|pmid=15933170
|pages=1394b
}}</ref> After the ] she was succeeded by ], described as a "molecular geneticist, staunch atheist and opponent of intelligent design".<ref>
{{cite news
|date=February 13, 2007
|url=http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/print/001501.php
|title=Cabinet ministers announced (update 2)
|accessdate=2008-05-31
|publisher=DutchNews.nl
}}</ref> As a reaction on this situation in the ], in ] the President of the Flemish Catholic Educational Board (VSKO) Mieke Van Hecke 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>De Morgen, May 23, 2005</ref>


===Elsewhere=== ===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>
] has strong political clout in many ]ic countries, and antievolutionary views are mainstream with considerable official support and elite support among academic theologians and scientists.<ref name=icash>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.hssonline.org/publications/Newsletter2008/NewsletterJanuary2008Creationism.html
|title=The History of Science Society : The Society
|accessdate=2008-02-23
|author=Edis, Taner
|month=January
|year=2008
|work=Islamic Creationism: A Short History
|publisher=History of Science Society
|pages=Newsletter
|volume=37
|issue=1
}}</ref> In general, Muslim creationists have partnered with the ] for ideas and materials which they adapted to their own theological positions. Similarly, some use was made of intelligent design antievolution resources. ], a notable Muslim in Canada, signed the '']'' list of the ].<ref>
{{cite web
|last=Edis
|first=Taner
|url=http://ncse.com/rncse/19/6/cloning-creationism-turkey
|title=Cloning Creationism in Turkey
|accessdate=2009-11-18
|publisher=]
}}</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/> and ] 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/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?id=54183&lng=en
|publisher=ISN Security Watch
|title=Turkey's survival of the fittest
|accessdate=2008-03-13
|author=Jones, Dorian L
|date=March 12, 2008
}}</ref>


===Relation to Islam===
The status of intelligent design in Australia is somewhat similar to that in the UK (see: ]). When the former Australian Federal Education Minister, ], 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 religious or philosophy classes.<ref>
], 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>
{{cite news

|date=October 21, 2005
===Relation to ISKCON===
|last=Smith
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>
|first=Deborah
|url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/intelligent-design-not-science-experts/2005/10/20/1129775902661.html
|title=Intelligent design not science: experts
|accessdate=2007-07-13
|work=]
}}</ref>


==See also== ==See also==
{{div col|colwidth=22em}}<!-- Please respect alphabetical order -->
{{col-begin}} {{col-break}}
* ]
*]
*] * ]
* ]
*]/]
* ]
*]
* ]
{{col-break}}
* ]
;Arguments in favor
*] * ]
*] * ]
*] * ]
* ]
*]
* ]
{{col-break}}
* ]
;Criticism
*] * ]
* ]
*'']''
* ]
;Parodies
* ]
*]
* ]
*]
* ]
{{col-break}}
;Related topics in ] * ]
* ]
*]
*] * ]
* ]
*]
* ]
{{col-break}}
* ]
{{portal|Creationism}}
* ]
{{col-end}}
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* "]"
* ]
* ]
{{div col end}}


==Notes==
==References and notes==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} {{Reflist|30em|group=n}}

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

== Bibliography ==

* {{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}}


==Further reading== ==Further reading==
{{refbegin}} {{Refbegin|30em}}
* {{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 }}
<small>Chronological order of publication (oldest first)</small>
* {{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 document|surname=Forrest|given=Barbara|title=Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design|publisher=Oxford University Press|place=U.S.|year=2004|id=ISBN 9780195157420|postscript=<!--None-->}}
* {{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}}
*{{Cite document|surname=Humes|given=Edward|title=]|publisher=Harper Collins|place=U.S.|year=2007|id=ISBN 978-0060885489|postscript=<!--None-->}}
{{Refend}}
*{{Cite book|last=Shermer|first=Michael|author-link=Michael Shermer|author2-link=|publication-date=|year=2007|title=Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design|publication-place=New York|publisher=Henry Holt|isbn=978-0-8050-8306-4}}
*{{Cite document|surname=Slack|given=Gordy|title=The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|place=U.S.|year=2007|id=ISBN 9780787987862|postscript=<!--None-->}}
*Davis, Jimmy H. and Poe, Harry L (2008), ''Chance or Dance: An Evaluation of Design'', Templeton Foundation Press, ISBN 978-1599471334
{{refend}}
==External links==
{{wikiquote}}
<div class="references-small" style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;">
===ID perspectives===
*
*
* (Hub of the intelligent design movement)
* Discovery Institute website tracking media coverage of intelligent design.
* A multiple contributor weblog by Discovery Institute fellows.
* A nonprofit organization in Kansas to promote intelligent design
*
* William Dembski's blog


{{Navboxes
===Non-ID perspectives===
*
*
* special feature in the Natural History Magazine
*
*
*
* Second Edition (1999)
* (Archive of the UseNet discussion group ])
* by the ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School'' District judge
*, ]
*
* Elliott Sober, 2004.
* by ]
===Media articles===
* A PBS-NOVA documentary on the Dover, PA Intelligent Design trial in 2005.('']'')
* An overview of the origin of the intelligent design movement. ('']'')
* debate between ] ] and ] co-founder of the ]
* What would "intelligent design" science classes look like? All we have to do is look inside some 19th century textbooks. ('']'')
* ('']'')
* ('']'')
* ('']'')
* ('']'')
* (])
* ('']'')
* (Justice Talking)
* ('']'')
</div>

{{Template group
|list= |list=
{{featured article}} {{Creationism topics}}
{{Creationism}} {{Pseudoscience}}
{{Philosophy of religion}}
{{pseudoscience}}
{{God arguments}}
{{philosophy of religion}}
{{Design}}
{{Philosophy topics}}
}} }}
{{Portal bar|Evolutionary biology|Science}}
{{Authority control}}


{{DEFAULTSORT:Intelligent Design}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Intelligent Design}}
] ]
]
] ]
] ]
] ]
]

{{Link GA|sv}}
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

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
ClockworkWatchmaker 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 analogy

In 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 design

Since 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 People
Use of the terms "creationism" versus "intelligent design" in sequential drafts of the 1989 book 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 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 complexity
The concept of irreducible complexity was popularised by Michael Behe in his 1996 book, Darwin's Black Box.

The 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 complexity

In 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.

William A. Dembski proposed the concept of specified complexity.

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 universe

Intelligent 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 designer

The 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 movement
The Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture used banners based on The Creation of Adam from the Sistine Chapel. Later it used a less religious image, then was renamed the Center for Science and Culture.

The 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 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 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 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. 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 District

Kitzmiller 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 legislation

A 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

Notes

  1. "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.
  2. ^ 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."
  3. ^ "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.
  4. ^ 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."
  5. 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."
  6. 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.
  7. Orr 2005. This article draws from the following exchange of letters in which Behe admits to sloppy prose and non-logical proof:
  8. 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."
  9. "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.
  10. 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..."
  11. ^ "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)
  12. ^ 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)
  13. ^ "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.'
  14. 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.
  15. "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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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).
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. "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."
  25. "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."
  26. 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."
  27. 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
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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."
  31. "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.

References

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ 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.
  3. 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
  4. Pigliucci 2010
  5. Young & Edis 2004 pp. 195–196, Section heading: But is it Pseudoscience?
  6. ^ "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.
  7. ^ 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.
  8. ^ See:
  9. "An intelligently designed response". Nature Methods (Editorial). 4 (12): 983. December 2007. doi:10.1038/nmeth1207-983. ISSN 1548-7091.
  10. ^ 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.
  11. ^ 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.
  12. ^ 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.
  13. 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).
  14. "Media Backgrounder: Intelligent Design Article Sparks Controversy". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle: Discovery Institute. September 7, 2004. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. ^ 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
  19. ^ 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.
  20. ^ McDonald, John H. "A reducibly complex mousetrap". Retrieved February 28, 2014.
  21. ^ 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.
  22. 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.
  23. Pennock 1999, pp. 60, 68–70, 242–245
  24. ^ 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.
  25. ^ Meyer, Stephen C. (March 1986). "We Are Not Alone". Eternity. Philadelphia: Evangelical Foundation Inc. ISSN 0014-1682. Retrieved October 10, 2007.
  26. Meyer, Stephen C. (March 1986). "Scientific Tenets of Faith". The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation. 38 (1). Retrieved May 31, 2019.
  27. 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.
  28. ^ 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.
  29. ^ 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.
  30. ^ 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
  31. ^ 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.
  32. 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":
  33. Elsberry, Wesley R. (December 5, 1996). "Enterprising Science Needs Naturalism". Talk Reason. Retrieved August 23, 2013.
  34. Forrest, Barbara (April 1, 2005). "Expert Witness Report" (PDF). Retrieved May 30, 2013. Forrest's expert report in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
  35. Witt, Jonathan (December 20, 2005). "Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design". Evolution News & Views. Seattle: Discovery Institute. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
  36. Safire, William (August 21, 2005). "Neo-Creo". The New York Times. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
  37. ^ Matzke, Nick (November 23, 2004). "Critique: 'Of Pandas and People'". National Center for Science Education (Blog). Berkeley, Calif. Retrieved September 24, 2007.
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. Ruse 1992, p. 41
  42. 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.
  43. 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."
  44. 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.
  45. 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."
  46. McDonald, John H. (2002). "A reducibly complex mousetrap". University of Delaware. Archived from the original on February 22, 2014. Retrieved November 14, 2024.
  47. ^ 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.
  48. Dembski 1999, p. 47
  49. Photograph of William A. Dembski taken at lecture given at University of California, Berkeley, March 17, 2006.
  50. 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.
  51. ^ 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.
  52. Baldwin, Rich (July 14, 2005). "Information Theory and Creationism: William Dembski". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
  53. Perakh, Mark (March 18, 2005). "Dembski 'displaces Darwinism' mathematically – or does he?". Talk Reason. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
  54. 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.
  55. Dawkins 2006
  56. Marks, Paul (July 28, 2007). "Evolutionary algorithms now surpass human designers". New Scientist (2614): 26–27. ISSN 0262-4079. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
  57. Gonzalez 2004
  58. Stenger 2011, p. 243
  59. Susskind 2005
  60. 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.
  61. 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.
  62. 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.
  63. Feinberg & Shapiro 1993, "A Puddlian Fable", pp. 220–221
  64. Pennock 1999, pp. 229–229, 233–242
  65. 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."
  66. ^ 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.
  67. ^ Behe 1996, p. 221
  68. ^ Pennock 1999, pp. 245–249, 265, 296–300
  69. 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.
  70. 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.
  71. Dawkins 1986, p. 141
  72. 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.
  73. "Evolving Banners at the Discovery Institute". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, Calif. August 28, 2002. Retrieved October 7, 2007.
  74. 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.
  75. ^ See:
  76. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#H. Conclusion p. 136.
  77. 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.
  78. 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.
  79. Numbers 2006
  80. Forrest & Gross 2004
  81. Pennock 1999
  82. 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.
  83. "Fellows". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle: Discovery Institute. Retrieved July 15, 2018.
  84. 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.
  85. 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.
  86. Meyer 2009, "Michael Denton, an agnostic, argues for intelligent design in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 326–343."
  87. 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."
  88. "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.
  89. 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."
  90. Shanks 2004, p. 11: "Muzaffar Iqbal, president of the Center for Islam and Science, has recently endorsed work by intelligent design theorist William Dembski."
  91. ^ 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.
  92. Dembski 1998
  93. Dembski 1999, p. 210
  94. 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.
  95. ^ Dixon, Thomas (July 24, 2008). Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction. OUP Oxford. p. 82. ISBN 978-0199295517.
  96. Ross, Hugh (July 2002). "More Than Intelligent Design". Facts for Faith. No. 10. Glendora, Calif.: Reasons to Believe. OCLC 52894856. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
  97. 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.
  98. 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.
  99. National Academy of Sciences 1999, p. 25
  100. 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.
  101. 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.
  102. 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.
  103. "Sign – Dissent from Darwin". dissentfromdarwin.org. Seattle: Discovery Institute. Archived from the original on April 11, 2011. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
  104. "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.
  105. Evans, Skip (April 8, 2002). "Doubting Darwinism Through Creative License". National Center for Science Education (Blog). Berkeley, Calif. Retrieved April 25, 2011.
  106. Chang, Kenneth (February 21, 2006). "Few Biologists But Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition". The New York Times. Retrieved January 4, 2008.
  107. 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.
  108. "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.
  109. "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.
  110. 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.
  111. 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.
  112. Swift, Art (May 22, 2017). "In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low". Gallup, Inc.
  113. "In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins". Gallup.Com. Omaha: Gallup, Inc. June 2, 2014. Retrieved January 30, 2016.
  114. Dean, Cornelia (September 27, 2007). "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin". The New York Times. Retrieved May 14, 2014.
  115. 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.
  116. ^ 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.
  117. 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.'
  118. Catsoulis, Jeannette (April 18, 2008). "Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary". The New York Times (Movie review). Retrieved May 14, 2014.
  119. Simon, Stephanie (May 2, 2008). "Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 14, 2014.
  120. 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.
  121. Frankowski, Nathan (Director) (2008). Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Motion picture). Premise Media Corporation; Rampant Films. OCLC 233721412.
  122. Mosher, Dave (April 3, 2008). "New Anti-Evolution Film Stirs Controversy". LiveScience. New York: Space Holdings Corp. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
  123. 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.
  124. 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".
  125. 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.
  126. 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.
  127. Johnson 1995. Johnson positions himself as a "theistic realist" against "methodological naturalism".
  128. Jennings, Byron K. (2015). In Defense of Scientism: An Insider's view of Science. Byron Jennings. p. 60. ISBN 978-0994058928.
  129. ^ 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
  130. "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.
  131. "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 .
  132. 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.
  133. "Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate". World News Tonight. New York: American Broadcasting Company. November 9, 2005. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
  134. 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.
  135. 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."
  136. 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.
  137. 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."
  138. "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.
  139. 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.
  140. 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.
  141. Merriman 2007, p. 26
  142. 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.
  143. 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."
  144. 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.
  145. Coyne, George (August 6, 2005). "God's chance creation". The Tablet. Archived from the original on February 20, 2006. Retrieved October 16, 2008.
  146. "Vatican official: 'Intelligent design' isn't science". USA Today. November 18, 2005. Retrieved October 16, 2008.
  147. Forrest, Barbara; Gross, Paul R. (2007). Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford University Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-0195319736.
  148. ^ 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.
  149. 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.
  150. Ronan, p. 61
  151. Ronan, p. 123
  152. "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.
  153. 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.
  154. 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.
  155. 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
  156. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#H. Conclusion pp. 137–138
  157. 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.
  158. 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.
  159. Provonsha, Matthew (September 21, 2006). "Godless: The Church of Liberalism". eSkeptic (Book review). ISSN 1556-5696. Retrieved September 3, 2007.
  160. 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.
  161. "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.
  162. 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.
  163. 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.
  164. 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.
  165. "American Academy of Religion on teaching creationism". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, Calif. July 23, 2010. Retrieved August 9, 2010.
  166. ^ "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.
  167. "Council of Europe approves resolution against creationism". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, Calif. October 5, 2007. Retrieved November 18, 2009.
  168. 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.
  169. Randerson, James (November 26, 2006). "Revealed: rise of creationism in UK school". The Guardian. London. Retrieved October 17, 2008.
  170. "'Design' attack on school science". BBC News. London: BBC. September 29, 2006. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
  171. "Truth in Science". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons. November 1, 2006. col. 455W–456W.
  172. "Schools: Intelligent Design". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Lords. December 18, 2006. col. WA257–WA258.
  173. "Guidance on creationism for British teachers". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, Calif. February 2, 2007. Retrieved November 18, 2009.
  174. 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.
  175. "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.
  176. "The creation of a new Giant's Causeway row". Belfast Telegraph. Dublin: Independent News & Media. November 30, 2007. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
  177. 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.
  178. "Dup Call For Schools To Teach Creation Passed By Council". Ulster Star. Edinburgh: Johnston Publishing Ltd. September 26, 2007. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
  179. 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.
  180. "Cabinet ministers announced (update 2)". DutchNews.nl. Amsterdam: Dutch News BV. February 13, 2007. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
  181. "Katholieke wetenschappers hebben de evolutietheorie al lang aanvaard". De Morgen. Brussels: De Persgroep Nederland. May 23, 2005.
  182. Wroe, David (August 11, 2005). "'Intelligent design' an option: Nelson". The Age. Sydney: Fairfax Media. Retrieved March 2, 2014.
  183. Smith, Deborah (October 21, 2005). "Intelligent design not science: experts". The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: Fairfax Media. Retrieved July 13, 2007.
  184. 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.
  185. Green, Shane (October 28, 2005). "School backs intelligent design DVD". The Age. Sydney: Fairfax Media. Retrieved October 22, 2011.
  186. 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.
  187. Edis, Taner (January 2008). "Islamic Creationism: A Short History". Newsletter. 37 (1). Archived from the original on July 16, 2011. Retrieved April 20, 2011.
  188. Jones, Dorian L. (March 12, 2008). "Turkey's survival of the fittest". Security Watch. Zurich: International Relations and Security Network. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
  189. Jensen 2011

Bibliography

Further reading

Links to related articles
Creationism
General
Book of Genesis
Types
Controversies
Related
Pseudoscience
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
Terminology
Topics
characterized as
pseudoscience
Medicine
Social science
Physics
Other
Promoters of
pseudoscience
Related topics
Resources
Philosophy of religion
Concepts in religion
Conceptions of God
God in
Existence of God
For
Against
Theology
Religious language
Problem of evil
Philosophers
of religion
(by date active)
Ancient and
medieval
Early modern
1800
1850
1880
1900
1920
postwar
1970
1990
2010
Related topics
Arguments for and against the existence of God
For
Against
Design
Disciplines
Communication
design
Environmental
design
Industrial
design
Interaction
design
Other
applied arts
Other
design
& engineering
Approaches
  • Tools
  • Intellectual property
  • Organizations
  • Awards
Tools
Intellectual
property
Organizations
Awards
Related topics
Portals: Categories: