| Revision as of 19:12, 12 October 2007 view sourceJoshuaZ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,657 editsm Reverted edits by 203.214.35.172 (talk) to last version by Amatulic← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:18, 12 October 2007 view source 142.25.25.36 (talk) ←Replaced page with '<blockquote> ] </blockquote>'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <blockquote> | |||
| {{otheruses}} | |||
| ] 19:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)age:you guys are LOSERS]] | |||
| {|align="right" | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| |{{Intelligent Design}} | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{creationism2}} | |||
| |} | |||
| <!--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 | |||
| --><!--TEXT--> | |||
| '''Intelligent design''' is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as ]."<!-- | |||
| REFERENCE | |||
| --><ref name=DIposition>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign|title=Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design?|publisher=]|accessdate=2007-05-13}}.</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=|date=2004|accessdate=2007-05-13}}<br />• {{cite web|url=http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/|title=Intelligent Design|publisher=Intelligent Design network|date=2007|accessdate=2007-05-13}}</ref><!--TEXT--> It is a modern form of the traditional ]<!-- This is correct. If you do not know the meaning click on the link. Teleological is not the same as theological.--> for the existence of ], modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.<!-- | |||
| REFERENCE | |||
| --><ref name="kitzruling-IDandGod">"ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer.""this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley" (the ]) "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 |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter= cv |opinion= 2688 |pinpoint= |court= |date=], ] }}, ].</ref><ref name=ForrestMayPaper>{{citation | 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 from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy| first = Barbara| last = Forrest| author-link = Barbara Forrest | date = May, 2007| month = May| year = 2007| publisher = ], Inc.| place = ]|accessdate = 2007-08-06}}.</ref><!-- | |||
| TEXT--> Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the ],<!-- | |||
| REFERENCE | |||
| --><ref name="DI engine"><cite>"Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes."</cite> ], 2005, testifying in the ] trial. {{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=|date=2005|accessdate=2007-07-19}}<br />• "The Discovery Institute is the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." 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=The ]|date=2005-08-21|accessdate=2007-07-19}}<br />• {{cite web | title =Who is behind the ID movement? | work = Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design" | publisher =] | date =9/16/2005 | url =http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16371res20050916.html | accessdate =2007-07-20 }} <br />• {{cite news|url=]|date=2005-07-27|accessdate=2007-07-19}}<br />• {{cite web | title =Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents | work =Science & Religion Guide | publisher =] | date =November 2005 | url =http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=602 | accessdate = 2007-07-20 }} (PDF file from Discovery Institute).<br />• "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. | date = 2006 | url =http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/116/5/1134 | 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|date=2007|accessdate=2007-07-19}}</ref><!-- | |||
| TEXT--> believe the designer to be ].<!-- | |||
| REFERENCE | |||
| --><ref>"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 |pinpoint= |court= |date=], ] }}, ].</ref><!-- | |||
| TEXT--> Advocates of intelligent design claim it is a ],<!-- | |||
| REFERENCE | |||
| --><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php|title=Top Questions about intelligent design|publisher=]|accessdate=2007-05-13}}</ref><!-- | |||
| TEXT--> and seek to fundamentally redefine ] to accept ] explanations.<!-- | |||
| REFERENCE | |||
| --><ref>Stephen C. Meyer and Paul A. Nelson, May 1, 1996, , A book review, Origins & Design, Retrieved ],<br />• Phillip E. Johnson, August 31, 1996, , Access Research Network Phillip Johnson Files, Retrieved ],<br />• Stephen C. Meyer, December 1, 2002, Ignatius Press. ,<br />• {{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter= cv |opinion= 2688 |pinpoint= |court= |date=], ] }}, ],<br />• {{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter= cv |opinion= 2688 |pinpoint= |court= |date=], ] }}, ].<br />• See also<!--relevant? ] and--> ], February 13, 2007, Retrieved ]. </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 ], ]. 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 the ] "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 |work= |publisher= ]|date=September 27, 2007 |accessdate=2007-09-28 }} | |||
| </ref><ref name=teachernet/><!-- | |||
| TEXT--> The ] has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of ] intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by ], do not generate any predictions, and propose no new ] of their own.<!-- | |||
| REFERENCE | |||
| --><ref> National Academy of Sciences, 1999 | |||
| <!-- End of quotation --> </ref> <!-- | |||
| TEXT---> The ], an organization of American science teachers and the largest organization of science teachers in the world, and the ] have termed it ].<!-- | |||
| REFERENCE | |||
| --><ref> National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Press Release ] ].<br />• "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." David Mu. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005..<br />• "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory." American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001.</ref><!-- | |||
| TEXT--> Others have concurred, and some have called it ].<!-- | |||
| REFERENCE | |||
| --><ref> Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.<br />• <cite>"Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science."</cite> H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005. .<br />• Also, ] Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. .<br />• Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006. | |||
| <!-- End of quotation --> </ref> | |||
| <!--TEXT--> | |||
| "Intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 ] ] involving ].<!-- | |||
| REFERENCE | |||
| --><ref name=kitz21>{{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter= cv |opinion= 2688 |pinpoint= |court= |date=], ] }}, ], citing {{cite court |litigants=Edwards v. Aguillard |vol= 482 |reporter=U.S. |opinion= 578 |date= 1987 |url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=482&page=578 }}.</ref> <!-- | |||
| TEXT-->Its first significant published use was in '']'', a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.<!-- | |||
| REFERENCE--><ref name=kitz31>{{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter= cv |opinion= 2688 |pinpoint= |court= |date=], ] }}, ].</ref><!-- | |||
| TEXT--> Several additional books on "intelligent design" were published in the 1990s. By 1995, intelligent design proponents had begun clustering around the Discovery Institute and more publicly advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula.<!-- | |||
| REFERENCE | |||
| --><ref name=disco> Discovery Institute. September 7, 2004.<br>• James M. Kushiner. Touchstone Magazine, June 2002.<br>• Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005.<br>• {{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><!-- | |||
| 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" challenging the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes.<ref name="DI engine"/> | |||
| 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 concluded that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the ] of the ].<!-- | |||
| REFERENCE | |||
| --><ref>{{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter= cv |opinion= 2688 |pinpoint= |court= |date=], ] }}, ].</ref><!-- | |||
| TEXT--> | |||
| ==Overview== | |||
| The term "intelligent design" came into published 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 aid to 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 |date= 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://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5403_20_scott__uno_1989_intro_11_24_2004.asp |title=NCSE Resource |accessdate=2007-09-24 |author=Eugenie C. Scott |authorlink=Eugenie C. Scott |coauthors=Gordon E. Uno |date= 1989 |format= |work=Introduction to NCSE Bookwatch Reviews for '']''}}</ref> | |||
| 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>"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." by Eugenie C. Scott. ]</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 |date= 1999 |format= |work= |publisher=Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity }}</ref> Behe contributed to the 1993 revision of ''Of Pandas and People'', setting out the ideas he later called "]".<ref name=pandafounds>{{cite web |url=http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8442_1_introduction_iof_pandas__11_23_2004.asp |title=NCSE Resource |accessdate=2007-09-24 |author=Nick Matzke |authorlink=Nick Matzke |coauthors= |date= 2004 |format= |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/> | |||
| Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to ] for the development of life. It stands in opposition to conventional ] science, which relies on the ] to explain ] through observable processes such as ] and ].<ref>"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 court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter= cv |opinion= 2688 |pinpoint= |court= |date=], ] }}, ]<br />• "Broom shows conclusively that intelligent design's opposition to Darwinism rests primarily on scientific grounds." William Dembski, in the forward of . Neil Broom. 2001</ref><ref>"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?)." , William Dembski, 10 January 2007 published at Uncommon Descent. Downloaded 24 May 2007.<br />•"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)<br />•"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.<br />•"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." From: USA Today (Magazine) 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>Dembski. The Design Revolution. pg. 27 2004 </ref> In the leaked Discovery Institute ] known as the ], however, the supporters of the movement were told, "We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design. Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."<ref name=wedge1> Discovery Institute, 1999.<br />•"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." Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, ], ].</ref><ref>"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." ] ], April, 2005.</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 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. | |||
| 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. No rigorous test that can identify these effects has yet been proposed.<ref> "...the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims..." ], 2002.</ref><ref>{{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter= cv |opinion= 2688 |pinpoint= |court= |date=], ] }}, ].</ref> No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, nor has intelligent design 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 |pinpoint= |court= |date=], ] }} ]</ref> | |||
| ==Origins of the concept== | |||
| Philosophers have long debated whether the complexity of nature indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator(s). Amongst the first attested arguments for a designer of the ] are those recorded in ]. In the 4th century BC, ] posited a "]" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator 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=2005/10/25 |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> ] also developed the idea of a creator-designer of the cosmos, often called the "]", in his work '']''.<ref>Aristotle, ''Metaphysics'' Bk. 12</ref> In ''De Natura Deorum'', or "''On the Nature of the Gods''" (45 BC), ] stated that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature."<ref>], ''De Natura Deorum'', Book I, 36–37, .</ref> | |||
| The use of this line of reasoning as applied to a supernatural designer has come to be known as the ] for the existence of ]. The most notable forms of this argument were expressed in the 13th century by ] in his '']'',<ref>], '']''. "" in ''faithnet.org.uk''.</ref> design being the fifth of Aquinas' five proofs for God's existence, and by ] in his book ''Natural Theology'' (1802).<ref>], '''', 1809, London, Twelfth Edition.</ref> Paley used the ], which is still used in intelligent design arguments. In the early 19th century, such arguments led to the development of what was called ], the study of ] as a 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. | |||
| Intelligent design in the late 20th and early 21st century can be seen as a modern 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 William Paley (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''</ref><ref>Leading intelligent design proponent William Dembski (2001) argues the contra view in </ref> As evolutionary theory has expanded to explain more phenomena, the examples that are held up as evidence of design have changed. But the essential argument remains the same: complex systems imply a designer. Examples offered in the past included the ] (optical system) and the feathered ]; current examples are mostly ]: protein functions, ], and bacterial ] (see ]). | |||
| ] describes the ] as beginning in 1984 when Jon A. Buell's religious organization the ] (FTE) published ''The Mystery of Life's Origin'' by creationist chemist ].<ref>Dr Barbara Forrest. </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 |date=March 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/> | |||
| Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific ] — it merely states that one (or more) must exist. Although intelligent design itself does not name the designer, the leaders of the intelligent design movement have said that the designer is the ] ].<ref name=dembski_logos>Dembski: <cite>"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,"</cite> </ref><ref name=wedge1/><ref name=wedge2>Phillip Johnson: <cite>"''Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.''"</cite> Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca. . <cite>"''This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy.''"</cite> Johnson 1996. World Magazine. . <cite>"''So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the ]: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do.''"</cite> Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. </ref><ref>]: "I think the designer is God..." . Nightline ABC News, with Ted Koppel, August 10 2005.</ref> Whether this was a genuine feature of the concept or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The '']'' court ruling held the latter to be the case. | |||
| ==Origins of the term== | |||
| ]'', written for use in secondary school biology classes, was the first book on intelligent design. The textbook became a focal point of the ]. During the 2005 trial, it was discovered that the book was changed simply by replacing variations of the word "creation-" with words such as "design", "designed" and "intelligent design". The Kitzmiller case prohibited the teaching of intelligent-design creationism in public school science classes.]] | |||
| {{seealso|Timeline of intelligent design}} | |||
| Prior to the publication of the book '']'' in 1989, the words "intelligent design" had been used on several occasions as a descriptive phrase in contexts that are unrelated to the modern use of the term. The phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of '']'', 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 a 1861 letter of ].<ref>, ], Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter 3154, 23 May 1861.</ref> The words are also used in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the ] by ] botanist ]: | |||
| <blockquote>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 =pg. 10; col A. | publisher =The Times | date =Saturday ] ] }}</ref></blockquote> | |||
| 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 on the ] : "Stated most succinctly, the argument runs: The world exhibits ] order (design, adaptation). Therefore, it was produced by an intelligent designer." The phrases "intelligent design" and "intelligently designed" were used in a 1979 book ''Chance or Design?'' by James Horigan<ref>James E. Horigan, ''Chance or Design?'.' Philosophical Library, 1979.</ref> and the phrase "intelligent design" was used in a 1982 speech by Sir ] in his promotion of ].<ref>'Evolution according to Hoyle: Survivors of disaster in an earlier world', By Nicholas Timmins, ''The Times'', Wednesday, ] ]; pg. 22; Issue 61130; col F. 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." </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/> 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 ] |quote=}}</ref> ] was at the conference, and later recalled that "the term came up".<ref name=safire>William Safire. The New York Times. ] ]. </ref> The book ''Of Pandas and People'' was published in 1989, and is considered to be the first intelligent design book,<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 |date= 1998 |publisher=National Association of Biology Teachers }}</ref><ref name=pandafounds/> as well as the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its present use.<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=2007-10-05 |author=Nick Matzke |coauthors=Jon Buell |date=October 13, 2005 |publisher= The Panda's Thumb }}, links to Wayback Machine for pdf.</ref> | |||
| ==Irreducible complexity== | |||
| ] was introduced in ]'s 1996 book, '']'']] | |||
| {{details more|Irreducible complexity}} | |||
| In the context of intelligent design, irreducible complexity was put forward by ], who defines it as "a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."<ref>Behe, Michael (1997): ''Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference'' </ref> | |||
| 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's original examples of alleged<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> irreducibly complex biological mechanisms include the bacterial ] of '']'', the ] cascade, ], and the adaptive ]. | |||
| Critics point out<ref> John H. McDonald's ""</ref><ref>David Ussery, ""</ref> 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 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}}</ref> | |||
| Behe himself has since confessed to "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."<ref>{{cite news | last = Orr | first = H. Allen | title = Devolution | publisher = ] | date = 2005-05-30 | url = http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact }} This article draws from the following exchange of letters in which Behe admits to sloppy prose and non-logical proof: {{cite web | last = Behe | first = M. | coauthors = Dembski, Wells, Nelson, Berlinski | title = Has Darwin met his match? Letters - An exchange over ID | publisher = ] | date = 2003-03-26 | url = http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&id=1406 | format = HTML | accessdate = 2006-11-30 }}</ref> Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the Dover trial, however, 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 |pinpoint= |court= |date=], ] }}, ].</ref> | |||
| ==Specified complexity== | |||
| {{details more|Specified complexity}} | |||
| 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/> | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| ] proposed the concept of ].<ref>Photograph of William Dembski, by Wesley R. Elsberry, taken at lecture given at University of California at Berkeley, 2006/03/17. </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>Branden Fitelson, Christopher Stephens, Elliott Sober: "How Not to Detect Design: A review of William A. Dembski’s The Design Inference -- Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities." Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998 </ref><ref>Some of Dembski's responses to assertions of specified complexity being a tautology can be found at </ref><ref> Richard Wein (2002): "Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates: A critique of William Dembski's book ''No Free Lunch''" </ref> | |||
| The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument is strongly disputed by the scientific community.<ref>Nowak quoted. Claudia Wallis. Time Magazine, ] ] edition, page 32 </ref> Specified complexity has yet to be shown to have wide applications in other fields as Dembski asserts. John Wilkins and ] characterize Dembski's "explanatory filter" as ''eliminative'', because it eliminates explanations sequentially: first regularity, then chance, finally defaulting to design. They argue that this procedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because the asymmetric way it treats the different possible explanations renders it prone to making false conclusions.<ref>John S. Wilkins and Wesley R. Elsberry. Biology and Philosophy, 16: 711–724. 2001. </ref> ], 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>{{cite book|author=Richard Dawkins|title=The God Delusion|year=2006|id=ISBN 0-618-68000-4}}</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> New Scientist, 28 July 2007</ref> | |||
| ==Fine-tuned Universe== | |||
| {{details more|Fine-tuned Universe}} | |||
| Intelligent design proponents also raise occasional arguments outside biology, most notably an argument based on the concept of 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, ], ] 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|id=ISBN 0-89526-065-4}}</ref> Thus, proponents argue, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular outcome. | |||
| Scientists almost unanimously have responded that this argument cannot be tested and is not scientifically productive. Some scientists argue that even when taken as mere speculation, these arguments are poorly supported by existing evidence.<ref>The Panda's Thumb. </ref> | |||
| Proponent ] has stated that the evolution of complex forms of life represents a decrease of ], thereby violating the ] and supporting intelligent design.<ref>{{cite news | last = Sewell | first = Granville | title = Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure | url = http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9128 | work = The American Spectator | date = 2005-12-28 | accessdate = 2007-02-16}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | last = | first = | title = Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure | publisher = Discovery Institute | date = | url = http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3122 | accessdate = 2007-07-17 }}</ref> Critics assert that this is a misapplication of ] principles.<ref>{{cite web | last = | first = | title = Entropy, Disorder and Life | publisher = TalkOrigins.org | date = | url = http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html | accessdate = 2007-07-17 }}</ref> The second law applies to closed systems only. If this argument were true, people wouldn't be born and grow up as this, too, would be a decrease in entropy. However, people are able to grow, and evolution is thermodynamically allowed, by creating an offsetting amount of entropy through the acts of eating and eliminating waste. | |||
| ] 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> Victor J. Stenger. University of Colorado. (PDF file)</ref><ref> Joseph Silk. Nature, Volume 443 Number 7108, 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.,'' Gerald Feinberg and Robert Shapiro, "A Puddlian Fable" in Huchingson, ''Religion and the Natural Sciences'' (1993), pp. 220–221</ref> | |||
| ==Intelligent designer== | |||
| {{details more|Intelligent designer}} | |||
| 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>"The theory of Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.''" Discovery Institute. What is Intelligent Design? </ref> 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>Dembski. </ref> The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the ] God, to the exclusion of all other religions.<ref name=dembski_logos/> | |||
| ], a prominent critic of intelligent-design creationism.]] | |||
| Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics go so far as to argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science. For example, Jerry Coyne, of the ], asks why a designer would "give us a pathway for making vitamin C, but then destroy it by disabling one of its enzymes" and why he or she would not "stock oceanic islands with reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and freshwater fish, despite the suitability of such islands for these species." Coyne also points to the fact that "the flora and fauna on those islands resemble that of the nearest mainland, even when the environments are very different" as evidence that species were not placed there by a designer.<ref>Jerry Coyne. ], ] 2005. </ref> Previously, in '']'', Behe had argued that we are simply incapable of understanding the designer's motives, so such questions cannot be answered definitively. Odd designs could, for example, "have been placed there by the designer... for artistic reasons, to show off, for some as-yet undetectable practical purpose, or for some unguessable reason." Coyne responds that in light of the evidence, "either life resulted not from intelligent design, but from evolution; or the intelligent designer is a cosmic prankster who designed everything to make it look as though it had evolved."<ref>Jerry Coyne: "" ''The New Republic'', Aug 22 & 29, 2005 issue, p. 21–33.</ref> | |||
| Asserting the need for a designer of complexity also raises the question "What designed the designer?"<ref>Dr. Donald E. Simanek. </ref> Intelligent design proponents say that the question is irrelevant to or outside the scope of intelligent design.<ref>IDEA <cite>"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..."</cite> FAQ: Who designed the designer? </ref> Richard Wein counters that the unanswered questions a theory 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>Richard Wein. 2002. </ref> 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> Jason Rosenhouse. Creation & Intelligent Design Watch, Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.</ref><ref>Richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design pg 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., Joseph Manson, "Intelligent design is pseudoscience", ''UCLA Today'' Vol. 26. No.2 Sept. 27, 2005. ; Rev Max, "The Incredibly Strange Story of Intelligent Design", ''New Dawn Magazine'' No. 97 (July-August 2006)</ref> | |||
| ==Movement== | |||
| ]'s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture used banners based on “Creation of Adam” from the ]. Later it used a less religious image, then was renamed the ].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8325_evolving_banners_at_the_discov_8_29_2002.asp |title=NCSE Resource |accessdate=2007-10-07 |date=August 29, 2002 |work=Evolving Banners at the Discovery Institute }}</ref>]] | |||
| {{details more|Intelligent design movement}} | |||
| The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the ] of the 1980s.<ref name=ForrestMayPaper/> The scientific and academic communities, along with a US Federal court, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism;<ref>"for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a ] ]." , David Mu, Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.<br>• "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory." , ], 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>, Marcus R. Ross, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 319-323</ref><ref> | |||
| ''The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition'', ], ], ], November 30, 2006, ISBN 0674023390.</ref> and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism".<ref>{{citation | 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 from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy| first = Barbara| last = Forrest| author-link = Barbara Forrest | date = May,2007| month = May| year = 2007| publisher = ], Inc.| place = ]|accessdate = 2007-08-22}}; ] and Gross, P.R., 2003, ''Evolution and the Wedge of Intelligent Design: The Trojan Horse Strategy'', ], ], 224 p., ISBN 0195157427 </ref><ref>"''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...''", from , ], p. 645-667 of ''Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives'', Robert T. Pennock (editor), ], ], 2001, 825 p., ISBN 0262661241; Pennock, R.T., 1999, ''Tower of Babel: Evidence Against the New Creationism'', ], ], 440 p.</ref><ref> | |||
| , ], | |||
| ] Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999.; ], 2004, ''Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction'', Westport, Greenwood Press, 296p, 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><cite>"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the 'thin edge of the wedge,' was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."</cite> Discovery Institute, 1999. (PDF file)</ref> calling for broad social, academic and political changes. The ] are primarily in the ], 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"> Discovery Institute, 1999.</ref> | |||
| ] stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast ] as a scientific concept.<ref name=wedge2/><ref name=PJC><cite>"''I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."..."Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"..."I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves.''"</cite> Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. </ref> All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its ].<ref>Discovery Institute fellows and staff. Center for Science and Culture fellows and staff. </ref> Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement are the products of the Discovery Institute, which guides the movement and follows its ] while conducting its ] campaign and their ]. | |||
| ]'s 1991 book '']'' was among the early "intelligent design" books that attempted to "]" about evolution.]] | |||
| 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"/> | |||
| ], an expert who has written extensively on the movement, describes this as being due to the Discovery Institute's obfuscating its agenda as a matter of policy. She has written that the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious world-view that undergirds it."<ref>Barbara Forrest. 2001. "</ref> | |||
| ===Religion and leading proponents=== | |||
| 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=Discovery Institute Truth Sheet # 09-05 ''Does intelligent design postulate a "supernatural creator?''|accessdate=2007-07-19}}</ref><!-- | |||
| TEXT | |||
| --> most of the principal intelligent design advocates are ] Christians who have stated that in their view the "designer" is ]. ], ], and ] are ]; ] is ]; and ], another principal advocate, is a member of the ]. 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>Phillip Johnson. ''Keeping the Darwinists Honest'', an interview with Phillip Johnson. Citizen Magazine. April 1999. <cite>"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."</cite></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">Phillip Johnson. Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. July/August 1999.<cite>"...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."</cite> </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. ''"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."'' 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>Dembski. 2005. Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris.</ref> Both Johnson and Dembski cite the Bible's ] as the foundation of intelligent design.<ref name=dembski_logos/><ref name=PJC/> | |||
| 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 (]) <cite>"What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own." ... "Intelligent design, as it is understood by the proponents that we are discussing today, does involve a supernatural creator, and that is my objection. And I am objecting to it as they have defined it, as Professor Johnson has defined intelligent design, and as Dr. Dembski has defined intelligent design. And both of those are basically religious. They involve the supernatural."</cite> </ref> She writes that the leading proponents of intelligent design are closely allied with the ultra-conservative ] movement. She lists connections of Discovery Institute Fellows Phillip Johnson, Charles Thaxton, Michael Behe, ], ] and ] to leading Christian Reconstructionist organizations, and the extent of the funding provided the Institute by ], a leading figure in the Reconstructionist movement.<ref> ]. May, 2007.</ref> | |||
| ==Controversy== | |||
| {{details more|Creation-evolution controversy}} | |||
| A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is convincing the general public that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved, in order to convince the public, politicians and cultural leaders that schools should "]".<ref>Seattle Times. ] 2005. </ref> There is no such debate, however, within the scientific community; the ] is that life evolved.<ref>National Association of Biology Teachers </ref><ref> Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the ] ].</ref><ref>From the ], the world's largest general scientific society: , </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 web |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 |publisher=] |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> | |||
| Advocates for 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="Johnson-Touchstone"/><ref name="IDstatementOnCreator"/> However, among the general public in the United States the major concern is whether or not conventional evolutionary biology is compatible with belief in God and in the Bible, and concerns about what 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 2005. Prominent coverage of the public controversy was given on the front page of ] magazine with a story on Evolution Wars, on 15 August, 2005. The cover poses the question: "Does God have a place in science class?"<ref>, Events of 2005, News Archive, ], August 11, 2005.</ref> The eventual decision of the court ruled that intelligent design was a religious and creationist position, and answered the question posed by Time magazine with a firm negative, finding that God and intelligent design were both distinct from the material that should be covered in a science class.<ref name="kitzruling-IDandGod"/> | |||
| ] | |||
| From the standpoint of public-school educational policy, the intelligent design controversy centers on three issues: | |||
| # Can intelligent design be defined as science? | |||
| # If so, does the evidence support it and related explanations of the history of life on Earth? | |||
| # If the answer to either question is negative, is the teaching of such explanations appropriate and legal in public education, specifically in ] classes? | |||
| ] 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>{{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. |authorlink= |coauthors= ||others= |title= Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education |date=1995 |publisher=InterVarsity Press |language= |isbn=0830819290}}<nowiki></nowiki></ref> and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, ], calls "]".<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." Phillip Johnson.</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 |format= |work=Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise: An Interdisciplinary Conference at the |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...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/> | |||
| 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>{{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.|page=18|accessdate=2007-07-23}}</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 |year= |month= |format= |work=Christianity.ca |publisher= The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |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 |title=Darwinism: Science or Philosophy |accessdate=2007-07-23 |last=Buell |first=Jon |coauthors= Hearn, Virginia, eds. |date=March 1992 |format=PDF |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> | |||
| According to critics, intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case and is an attempt to teach religion in public schools, which the U.S. Constitution forbids under the ]. They allege that intelligent design has substituted public support for scientific research.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1534152/posts |title=Intelligent design’s long march to nowhere |accessdate=2007-07-23 |last=Giberson |first=Karl |authorlink= Karl Giberson |coauthors= |date=December 5, 2005 |year= |month= |format= |work= |publisher= ], ]}} </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. Furthermore, intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable, which violates the scientific requirement of ].<ref>{{cite journal |last=Sorber |first=Elliott |authorlink= |coauthors= |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}}</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><ref>{{cite journal |last=Sonleitner |first=Frank J.|year=2006 |month=March |title= Intelligent Design is not Testable|journal=], Abstracts with Programs, 40th Annual Meeting |volume=38 |issue=1 |pages=10 |accessdate= 2007-07-23}}</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> | |||
| 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://server1.fandm.edu/departments/Philosophy/staticpages/Murray/Providence.pdf |title=Natural Providence (or Design Trouble) |accessdate=2007-07-23 |last= Murray |first=Michael J. |authorlink= |coauthors= |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 |date= |year= |month= |format= |work= |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."--> | |||
| Intelligent design proponents aim to gain support by unifying the religious world — Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who believe in a creator — in challenging Darwinism with a God-friendly alternative theory.<ref name=Watanabe/> Mainstream religious denominations have responded by ]. They state that their religious faith is fully compatible with science, which is limited to dealing only with the natural world<ref>{{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://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp |title=The Creation/Evolution Continuum |accessdate=2007-07-22 |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=] |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= }}</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.|date= 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/home/area/wow/preview/part8.asp |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 |issue=10 |work=Facts for Faith |publisher= Reasons to Believe}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |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 |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= August 30, 2002 |publisher= Answers in Genesis}}</ref><ref>Retired California surgeon Dr. Mel Mulder has produced a series of 50 radio spots, and a book entitled "]" that describes his feeling that the ] does not go far enough in several ways.</ref> | |||
| ===Kitzmiller trial=== | |||
| '']'' 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 ]. | |||
| 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>{{cite court | litigants = Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. | date = 2005 | url = http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/04cv2688-111.pdf}}</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. | |||
| 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>{{cite news | |||
| | first = Michael | |||
| | last = Powell | |||
| | title = Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design' | |||
| | work = The Washington Post | |||
| | date = 2005-12-21 | |||
| | url = http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=5945 | |||
| | accessdate = 2007-09-03 }}</ref> | |||
| Judge Jones himself anticipated that his ruling would be criticized, saying in his decision that: | |||
| {{cquote|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.}} | |||
| Dr. John G. West, Associate Director of the ] at ], 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."<ref>{{cite news | last = Crowther | first = Robert | title = Dover Intelligent Design Decision Criticized as a Futile Attempt to Censor Science Education | work = Evolution News & Views | publisher = Discovery Institute | date = 2005-12-20 | url = http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/dover_intelligent_design_decis.html | accessdate = 2007-09-03}}</ref> | |||
| Newspapers have noted with interest that the judge is "a ] and a ]goer."<ref>{{cite news | last = Associated Press | title = Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’ | work = MSNBC | url = http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ | accessdate = 2007-09-03}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | last = Provonsha | first = Michael | title = Godless: The Church of Liberalism | work = eSkeptic | date = 2006-09-21 | url = http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-21.html | accessdate = 2007-09-03}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | first = Kevin | last = Padian | coauthors = Nick Matzke | title = Discovery Institute tries to "swift-boat" Judge Jones | publisher = National Center for Science Education National Center for Science Education| url = http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/127_discovery_institute_tries_to__1_4_2006.asp | accessdate = 2007-09-03}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | first = Martha | last = Raffaele | title = Intelligent design policy struck down | work = Dallas Morning News | date = 2005-12-20 | url = http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/122105dnnatidesign.780fc9a.html | accessdate = 2007-09-03}}</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>, ] Law Review, Volume 68, Number 1, April 10, 2007.</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>, David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin, ] Law Review, Volume 68, Number 1, 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>, Peter Irons, ] Law Review, Volume 68, Number 1, April 27, 2007.</ref> while in the third, DeWolf et al answer the points made by Irons.<ref>, David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin, ] Law Review, Volume 68, Number 1, April 27, 2007.</ref> However, fear of a similar lawsuit has resulted in other school boards abandoning intelligent design "teach the controversy" proposals.<ref name=ForrestMayPaper/> | |||
| ===Defining as science=== | |||
| The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating ] and acquiring new ] of the ] without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called ]. Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to ] ] and have often said that not only is their own position scientific, but it is even more scientific than evolution, and that they want a redefinition of science as a revived ] or ] to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design."<ref>{{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 |coauthors= |date=December 1, 2002 |work= |publisher=], ] |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= }}</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|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. |coauthors= |title=Scientific Method in Practice |year=2003 |publisher=Cambridge UP |chapter=Chapters 5–8 |isbn=0521017084 }} Discusss 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 |accessdate= |accessyear= |accessmonth= |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 |vol=04 |reporter= cv |opinion= 2688 |pinpoint= |court= |date=], ] }}, ]. The ruling discusses central aspects of expectations in the scientific community that a scientific theory be ''testable, dynamic, correctible, progressive, based upon multiple observations, and provisional'', </ref> it is expected to be: | |||
| :* '''Consistent''' | |||
| :* '''Parsimonious''' (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see ]) | |||
| :* '''Useful''' (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively) | |||
| :* '''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, but ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,<ref>See, e.g., Mark Perakh, "The Dream World of William Dembski's Creationism", in Skeptic Volume 11 (Number 4) 2005, 54–65. </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., Branden Fitelson, ''et al'': "How Not to Detect Design–Critical Notice: William A. Dembski ''The Design Inference'' ", in Robert T. Pennock, ed. ''Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives'', (MIT Press, 2001) p597–616.</ref> is not scientifically useful,<ref>See, e.g., Jill E. Schneider (Dept. of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University, 2005) "Thoughts on Evolution and Intelligent Design" "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 |vol=04 |reporter= cv |opinion= 2688 |pinpoint= |court= |date=], ] }} ] 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 |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter= cv |opinion= 2688 |pinpoint= |court= |date=], ] }} ] and ].</ref> and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.<ref>Intelligent design professes to offer an answer that does not need to be defined or explained, the intelligent agent, designer. By asserting a conclusion that cannot be accounted for scientifically, ''the designer'', intelligent design cannot be sustained by any further explanation, and objections raised to those who accept intelligent design make little headway. Thus intelligent design is not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that a conclusion that need not be accounted for has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data. See, e.g., the brief explanation in {{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter= cv |opinion= 2688 |pinpoint= |court= |date=], ] }} ].</ref> | |||
| In light of the apparent failure of intelligent design to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005, 38 ] issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."<ref>{{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 |work= |publisher= The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity}}</ref> In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html |title= Intelligent Design is not Science: Scientists and teachers speak out|accessdate=2007-07-19 |month=October|year=2005|publisher=]}}</ref> | |||
| Critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for ] used by most courts, the ]. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four ] are: | |||
| :* 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 deciding ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'' in 2005, Judge Jones agreed with the plaintiffs, ] "we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." | |||
| ===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 being considered as valid science.<ref name=kitzruling_pg87>{{cite court |litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District |vol=04 |reporter= cv |opinion= 2688 |pinpoint= |court= |date=], ] }}, ]</ref> To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed ].<ref name=kitzruling_pg87/><ref name="aaas_pr"/> | |||
| Intelligent design, by appealing to a ] agent, directly conflicts with the ]s of ], which limit its inquiries to ], observable and ultimately ] ] and which require explanations to be based on empirical ]. Dembski, Behe and other intelligent design proponents say bias by the scientific community is to blame for the failure of their research to be published. Intelligent design proponents believe that their writings are rejected for not conforming to purely naturalistic, nonsupernatural mechanisms rather than because their research is not up to "journal standards", and that the merit of their articles is overlooked. Some scientists describe this claim as a ].<ref>{{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=Hawks |first=John |year=2005 |month=August |publisher=John Hawks Weblog}}</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 web |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= ]}}</ref> | |||
| 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>{{cite web |url=http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html | title=Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington |accessdate=2007-07-17 |last= |first= |accessdate=2007-07-19 |publisher=Biological Society of Washington}}</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>{{cite journal | |||
| | author = Meyer, S.C. | |||
| | year = 2004 | |||
| | title = The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories | |||
| | journal = Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington | |||
| | 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 ]). 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 |year=2001 |publisher=The Chronicle Of Higher Education}}</ref> | |||
| In the ], the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing.<ref name=kitzruling_pg88>]</ref> There, intelligent design proponents cited just one paper, on simulation modeling of evolution by Behe and Snoke, which mentioned neither irreducible complexity nor intelligent design and which Behe admitted did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms.<ref name=kitzruling_pg88/> 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>]'', ] ], 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/> | |||
| Despite this, the Discovery Institute continues to insist that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science |title=Peer-Reviewed, Peer-Edited, and other Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) |accessdate=2007-07-17 |first=Staff |year=2007 |month=July |format= |work= |publisher=Discovery Institute}}</ref> including in their list the two articles mentioned above. Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, pointing out that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Instead, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lack ] and ],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html|title=Index to Creationist Claims|publisher=The TalkOrigins Archive|first=Mark|last=Isaak|date=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> consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.<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://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/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> | |||
| ===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 ], refuted Dembski's comparison of SETI and intelligent design, saying that intelligent design advocates base their inference of design on complexity — the argument being that some biological systems are too complex to have been made by natural processes — while SETI researchers are looking primarily for ]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 |vol=04 |reporter= cv |opinion= 2688 |pinpoint= |court= |date=], ] }}, ]</ref> | |||
| 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>{{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. Furthermore, forays into such areas as ] seem to indicate that real probabilistic functions may be available in the future. Intelligence derived from randomness is essentially indistinguishable from the "innate" intelligence associated with biological organisms, and poses a challenge to the intelligent design conception that intelligence itself necessarily requires a designer. ] continues to investigate the nature of intelligence 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> | |||
| ===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://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/996_intelligent_design_not_accep_9_10_2002.asp |title="Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by Most Scientists |accessdate=2007-07-14 |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 upon 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 of 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. In scientific terms, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" for naturalistic explanations of observed traits of living ]s. 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. | |||
| 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 ]). | |||
| 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 |issue= |pages=203–220}}</ref> | |||
| ===Improbable versus impossible events=== | |||
| ] formulated the ], a reformulation of the creationist ''argument from improbability'',<ref>{{cite journal |last=Rosenhouse |first=Jason |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2001 |month=Fall |title= How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics|journal=The Mathematical Intelligencer |volume=23 |issue=4 |pages=3–8 |url=http://www.math.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/sewell.pdf | format=PDF |accessdate= 2007-07-14 }}</ref> which he argues is the smallest probability of anything occurring in the universe over all time at the maximum possible rate. This value, 1 in 10<sup>120</sup>, represents a revision of his original formula, which set the value of the universal probability bound at 1 in 10<sup>150</sup>.<ref>{{cite book |last=Dembski |first=William A. |authorlink=William A. Dembski |title=] |year=2004 |publisher= InterVarsity Press |isbn=0830823751}}</ref> In 2005 Dembski again revised his definition to be the inverse of the product of two different quantities, 10<sup>120</sup> and the variable rank complexity of the event under consideration.<ref> The rank complexity is Dembski's φ function, which ranks patterns in order of their ]. See ].</ref> | |||
| In "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences", ] states that the apparent ] of a given scenario cannot necessarily be taken as an indication that this scenario is more unlikely than any other potential one: "Rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a ] hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion . Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable." | |||
| ===Polls=== | |||
| 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 ], ten percent 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 | date=July 6, 2005 |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 |accessdate=2007-07-13 |format= |work=The Harris Poll #52|publisher=Harris Interactive }}</ref> | |||
| A ] of scientists at the ], commissioned by the Discovery Institute, showed a higher percentage (79%) favored teaching intelligence design in schools.<ref></ref> ], however, denied that the survey took place, and serious concerns have been raised as to its validity, 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 leading questions.<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 |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |year= |month= |format= |work= |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://web.archive.org/web/20030816135718/http://blogs.salon.com/0001092/2003/07/30.html |title='Intelligent Design'-ers launch new assault on curriculum using lies and deception |accessdate=2007-07-13 | David Harris' Science & Literature. News and commentary on science, literature, journalism and their intersection |publisher=]}}</ref> A May 2005 survey of nearly 1500 physicians in the US 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. An additional 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 web |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 |format= |work=}}</ref> | |||
| ===Status outside the United States=== | |||
| Intelligent design has received little support outside of the U.S. | |||
| ], ] 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 |url=http://www.illustramedia.com/ID01WiredMagPage.htm |title=WIRED Magazine response|accessdate=2007-07-13 |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 Unlocking the Mystery of Life 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=Unlocking the Mystery of Life|accessdate=2007-07-13 |publisher=], ]}}</ref> and claimed they were being used by 59 schools,<ref>{{cite web | date=November 27, 2006|first=James|last=Randerson|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5392096.stm|title=Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools |accessdate=2007-07-13 |publisher=]}}</ref> the ] (DfES) stated that "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum" (part of the ] which does not apply to ]s or to ]).<ref>{{cite web | 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=]}}</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 local standing advisory councils on religious education.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/61218w0006.htm |title=Schools: Intelligent Design |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 |title= How can we answer questions about creation and origins? |accessdate=2007-10-01 |date=2006 |format=pdf |work= |publisher=] for ] }}</ref> | |||
| On ], ], 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 | June 21, 2007 | |||
| | title=NoCreSciEd - epetition reply |url=http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page12021.asp |accessdate=2007-07-13 |publisher=]}}</ref> Detailed government "Creationism teaching guidance" for schools in England was published on ], ].<ref name=ukguide>{{cite web |url=http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/UK/474_guidance_on_creationism_for_br_9_25_2007.asp |title=NCSE Resource -- Guidance on creationism for British teachers |accessdate=2007-09-30 |author= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date=September 25, 2007 | |||
| |format= |work= |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 |coauthors= |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>, Report, Committee on Culture, Science and Education, | |||
| Rapporteur: Mr Guy LENGAGNE, France, Socialist Group, Parliamentary Assembly, ], Doc. 11297, 8 June 2007.</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 web |url=http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/education/article2999003.ece |title=Tussle of Biblical proportions over creationism in Ulster classrooms - Education - News - Belfast Telegraph |accessdate=2007-10-01 |author=Lesley-Anne Henry |date=September 26, 2007 |publisher=] }}, {{cite web |url=http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/article3002955.ece |title=Viewpoint: The world, according to Lisburn folk - Opinion - News - Belfast Telegraph |accessdate=2007-10-01 |author= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date=September 27, 2007 |format= |work= |publisher=] |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=}}</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 web |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 |accessdate=2007-10-01 |date=26 September 2007 }}</ref> | |||
| The status of intelligent design ] is somewhat similar to that in the UK. When the 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>{{cite web | date=October 21, 2005 |last=Smith |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 |publisher=]}}</ref> | |||
| Plans by Dutch Education Minister ] to "stimulate an academic debate" on the subject in 2005 caused a severe public backlash. After the ] she was succeeded by ], described as a "molecular geneticist, staunch atheist and opponent of intelligent design."<ref>{{cite web |date= February 13, 2007 |url=http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2007/02/cabinet_ministers_announced_1.php |title= Cabinet ministers announced (update) |accessdate=2007-07-13 |publisher=DutchNews.nl}}</ref> While ] has strong political clout in many Islamic countries, intelligent design has not been adapted to ]. ], a notable Muslim in Canada, has signed the '']'' list of the ]. In general, however, Muslim creationists are partnering with the ].<ref>{{cite web |last=Edis |first=Taner |url=http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol19/8371_cloning_creationism_in_turkey_12_30_1899.asp |title=Cloning Creationism in Turkey |accessdate=2007-07-13 |publisher=]}}</ref> | |||
| 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 ], ], 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 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://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/XX/783_council_of_europe_approves_res_10_4_2007.asp |title=NCSE Resource -- Council of Europe approves resolution against creationism |accessdate=2007-10-05 }} | |||
| * {{cite web |url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNewsMolt/idUKL0417855220071004 |title=Council of Europe firmly opposes creationism in school |accessdate=2007-10-05 |work= Reuters}}</ref> | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| {{portal|Creationism}} | |||
| {{col-begin}} | |||
| {{col-3}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| {{col-break}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| {{col-break}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * '']'' | |||
| {{col-end}} | |||
| ==Further reading== | |||
| * ], ''Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design'', ISBN 978-0-8050-8306-4 | |||
| *{{Harvard reference | Surname=Humes| Given=Edward | Title=] | Publisher=Harper Collins | Place=] | Year=2007}} | |||
| *{{Harvard reference | Surname=Forrest | Given=Barbara | Title=Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design | Publisher=Oxford University Press | Place=] | Year=2004 | id = ISBN 9780195157420 }} | |||
| ==External links== | |||
| <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 | |||
| ===Non-ID perspectives=== | |||
| * | |||
| * special feature in the Natural History Magazine | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * Second Edition (1999) | |||
| * (Archive of a UseNet discussion group) | |||
| * by the ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School'' District judge | |||
| *, ] | |||
| * | |||
| * Elliot Sober, 2004. | |||
| * by ] | |||
| ===Media articles=== | |||
| * 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> | |||
| ==Notes== | |||
| {{reflist|2}} | |||
| {{featured article}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 19:18, 12 October 2007
]