Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:56, 3 August 2005

Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial theory which states 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.

The National Academy of Sciences has said, intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own, instead they find gaps within current evolutionary theory and fill them in with speculative beliefs. While most of the scientific community does not recognize ID as a scientific theory, over 400 scientists have now signed a dissent statement expressing that they are "skeptical of claims of the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Intelligent Design in summary

Although Intelligent Design theory may have been partially born out of opposition to the theory of evolution, it does not oppose the concept of evolution as a mechanism for directed, intelligent creation, nor even for limited, apparently undirected natural change. Ostensibly its main purpose is to investigate whether or not there is empirical evidence that life on Earth was designed by an intelligent agent or agents. For example, William Dembski, one of ID's leading proponents, has stated that the "fundamental claim" of ID 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."

Dembski uses the example of Mt. Rushmore to provide an analogy to the underlying premise of ID:

"What about this rock formation convinces us that it was due to a designing intelligence and not merely to wind and erosion? Designed objects like Mt. Rushmore exhibit characteristic features or patterns that point us to an intelligence."--The Design Revolution, p. 33.

Proponents of ID look for evidence of what they call signs of intelligence — physical properties of an object that necessitate design. Examples being considered include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity. Many design theorists believe that living systems show one or more of these signs of intelligence, from which they infer that life is designed. This stands in opposition to naturalistic theories of evolution, which attempt to explain life exclusively through natural processes such as random mutations and natural selection.

Critics call ID religious dogma repackaged in an effort to return creationism into public school science classrooms and note that ID features notably as part of the campaign known as Teach the Controversy. Critics also question whether Intelligent Design theory meets the scientific standard of falsifiability. Conversely, ID proponents state that their goal is not to introduce Intelligent Design theory into public schools, but to "teach the controversy" surrounding Darwin's theory and to promote open debate of competing scientific views.

Critics also point to the fact that implicit in ID is a redefinition of natural science, and cite books and statements of principal ID proponents calling for the elimination of "methodological naturalism" from science. "Methodological naturalism" states that all phenomena must be the result of a natural cause. However, Discovery Institute's Dr. Stephen Meyer, in his doctoral research in the history of science at Cambridge University, asserted what he believed to be "the methodological equivalence of design and descent," Thus, according to Meyer, because both "methodological naturalism" and "intelligent design" purport to explain unrepeatable phenomena, neither framework for conducting science can be dismissed out of hand. Famous scientific advocates of design include Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, Lamarck, Pasteur, and others.

The design argument, a precursor to ID?

Philosophers as far back as Plato have reasoned that the complexity of nature shows grounds for believing in supernatural design. The most notable forms of this argument were expressed by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica (thirteenth century) and William Paley in his book Natural Theology (nineteenth century) where he makes the famous watchmaker analogy. According to ID proponents, Intelligent Design is different from the design argument in one important respect: ID says nothing about who did the designing. It only seeks to know whether object X was designed, and pleads agnosticism on all questions of identity, purpose, or intent.

Origin of the term

One of the first occurences of the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in the textbook Of Pandas and People (Haughton Publishing Company, Dallas, 1989). The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial. Johnson is the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture and is considered the father of the intelligent design movement.

Religion and leading ID proponents

Though not all ID proponents espouse theistic beliefs, many principal ID advocates (including Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer) are Christians and have stated their personal view that the designer of life is clearly God. Conversely, many Darwinian adherents including Oxford University's Richard Dawkins, cite Darwinism as the grounds for "intellectually-fulfilled" atheism.

What Intelligent Design is not

Intelligent Design is not and does not claim to be an alternative theory replacing mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, or microevolution. All of these have been observed in laboratories and in the field. This is contrary to how ID is sometimes characterized by both supporters and critics.

ID as a movement

The Intelligent Design movement is an organized campaign to promote ID arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the United States and Europe. The movement claims ID exposes the shortcomings of Darwinian theory and of the philosophy of Naturalism. ID movement proponents assert that science, by relying upon methodological naturalism, demands an a priori adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that dismisses out of hand any explanation that contains a supernatural cause.

ID proponent Phillip Johnson believes that the debate over evolution goes further than simple science and, at its core, this controversy is a clash concerning the relative merits of philosophical naturalism. :"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."

The intelligent design movement has been spearheaded by the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture. The stated goal of the Center for Science and Culture is to "encourage schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, as well as supporting the work of scholars who challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory and scholars who are working on the scientific theory known as intelligent design. The Center for Science and Culture also seeks to sway the opinion of the public and policymakers. They work with public school administrators and state and federal elected representatives to introduce scientific critiques of Darwinian theory into public education.

ID in US politics and education

Intelligent Design has featured in a number of controversial political cases. These are discussed in greater depth in the main Intelligent design movement article.

• 2000 Congressional briefing In 2000, the leading ID proponents operating through the Discovery Institute held a congressional briefing in Washington, D.C., to promote ID to lawmakers. Sen. Rick Santorum was and continues to be one of ID's most vocal supporters. One result of this briefing was that Sen. Santorum inserted pro-open debate language into the No Child Left Behind bill calling for students to be taught why evolution "generates so much continuing controversy," an assertion heavily promoted by the Discovery Institute.
• 2001 Santorum Amendment The Discovery Institute played a central role in the inclusion of pro-open debate language known as the Santorum Amendment in the Conference Report of the federal No Child Left Behind education act. Though the amendment lacks the weight of law, it conveys the "sense of the Senate" and its inclusion in the conference report is cited by the Discovery Institute and other ID supporters as providing federal sanction for "teaching the controversy."
• 2001 & 2004 Pennsylvania Board of Education In 2001 the Pennsylvania Board of Education approved revised science standards that raised questions about the status of evolution as science and a theory. In 2004, the Dover, Pennsylvania Board of Education passed a law requiring the teaching of intelligent design. A challenge was filed contending that the law violates the First Amendment. A hearing in Federal District Court is scheduled for September 2005.
• 2002 Ohio Board of Education The Discovery Institute proposed a model lesson plan that prominently featured teaching the scientific controversy concerning Darwin's theory. It was adopted in part in October 2002, with the Board's advising that the science standards do "not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design." This has been touted by the Discovery Institute as a significant victory. Interestingly, some ID opponents have strongly opposed an Ohio State Univeristy doctorate in education candidate whose dissertation centers on the positive or negative impact of "teaching the contoversy" on Ohio public high school science education.

Intelligent design debate

Template:ID The intelligent design debate centers on three issues:

1. whether the definition of science is broad enough to allow for theories of origins and descent that evidence intelligent design
2. whether the evidence supports such theories
3. whether the teaching of such theories is appropriate in public education.

ID supporters generally argue that strictly naturalistic theories utterly fail to explain certain phenomena. Proponents claim that the evidence strongly supports such explanations, as instances of so-called irreducible complexity and specified complexity appear to make it highly unreasonable that the full complexity and diversity of life came about solely through natural means.

Between these two positions there is a large body of opinion that does not condone the teaching of what is scientifically questionable, but is generally sympathetic to the position of Deism/Theism and therefore desires some compromise between the two. The nominal points of contention are seen as being proxies for other issues. For example Richard Dawkins, a very prominent spokesman for evolutionary theory, has argued that evolution disproves the existence of God. Many ID followers are quite open about their view that "Scientism" is itself a religion that promotes secularism and materialism in an attempt to erase religion from public life and view their work in the promotion of ID 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 ID serves as an effective proxy for the religious beliefs of prominent ID proponents in their efforts to advance their religious point of view within society.

Irreducible complexity

The term was coined by biochemist Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box. The irreducible complexity argument holds that evolutionary mechanisms cannot account for the emergence of some complex biochemical cellular systems. ID advocates argue that the systems must therefore have been deliberately engineered by some form of intelligence. Irreducible complexity is defined by Behe as:

"...a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."--(Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference).

According to Darwin's theory of evolution, genetic variations occur without specific design or intent. The environment selects variants that have the highest fitness, which are then passed on to the next generation of organisms. Change occurs by the gradual operation of natural forces over time, perhaps slowly, perhaps more quickly (see punctuated equilibrium). This process is able to create complex structures from simpler beginnings, or convert complex structures from one function to another (see spandrel). Most ID advocates accept that evolution through mutation and natural selection occurs, but assert that it cannot account for irreducible complexity, because irreducibly complex biological systems would not be functional or advantageous unless completely constructed.

Behe uses the mousetrap as an illustrative example of this concept. A mousetrap consists of several interacting pieces—the base, the catch, the spring, the hammer—all of which must be in place for the mousetrap to work. The removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Likewise, biological systems require multiple parts working together in order to function. ID advocates claim that natural selection could not create certain systems step-by-step, because the selectable function is only present when all parts are assembled. Behe's original examples of irreducibly complex mechanisms included the bacterial flagellum of E. coli, the blood clotting cascade, cilia, and the adaptive immune system.

Criticism

Critics of the IC argument contend that IC only makes sense if one assumes that the present function of a system must have been the one that it was selected for. But the concept of co-option or exaptation, in which existing features become adapted for new functions, has long been a mainstay of biology. Conversely, Behe observes that irreducibly complex systems, such as the rotary motor attached to e coli bacterium, contain at least 30 parts that are unique to that system. Thus, Behe counters, cellular parts can only be co-opted for a specific use, if they existed previously to the setting at hand.

The IC argument also assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary, and therefore could not have been added sequentially. But something which is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary. For example, one of the clotting factors that Behe listed as a part of the IC clotting cascade was later found to be absent in whales. However, some, once promising attempts to discredit Behe's irreducible complexity, have not withstood more stringent examination. Renowned scientist Richard Doolittle claimed to disprove the IC of blood clotting cascades in "knock out" mice--mice in which a step in the blood clotting process is removed. In fact, Doolittle was successful in "knocking out" steps in the animals' blood clotting cascades. However, as a result of Doolittle's efforts the mice suffered massive hemhorraging and died--hardly the shining counter argument to IC that Doolittle claimed it to be.

Brown University biologist Dr. Kenneth Miller--a chief critic of IC--has made his views available online, as has Lehigh's Dr. Michael Behe.

Specified complexity

The ID concept of specified complexity was developed by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski. Dembski claims that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and specified, simultaneously) one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed), rather than being the result of natural processes. He provides the following examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified." (Intelligent Design, p. 47) He states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA.

Dembski defines a probability of 1 in 10 as the "universal probability bound". Its value corresponds to the inverse of the upper limit of "the total number of specified events throughout cosmic history," as calculated by Dembski. (The Design Revolution, p. 85) He defines complex specified information (CSI) as specified information with a probability less than this limit. (The terms "specified complexity" and "complex specified information" are used interchangeably.) He argues that CSI cannot be generated by the only known natural mechanisms of physical law and chance, or by their combination. He argues that this is so because laws can only shift around or lose information, but do not produce it, and chance can produce complex unspecified information, or unspecified complex information, but not CSI; he provides a mathematical analysis that he claims demonstrates that law and chance working together cannot generate CSI, either. Dembski and other proponents of ID argue that CSI is best explained as being due to an intelligent cause and is therefore a reliable indicator of design.

Criticism

The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument is strongly disputed by critics of ID. First, critics maintain that Dembski confuses the issue by using "complex" as most people would use "improbable". He defines CSI as anything with a less than 1 in 10 chance of occurring by (natural) chance. Critics claim that this renders the argument a tautology: CSI cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature. They claim that Dembski does not attempt to demonstrate this, but instead simply takes the existence of CSI as a given, and then proceeds to argue that it is a reliable indicator of design.

Another criticism of specified complexity refers to the problem of "arbitrary but specific outcomes". For example, it is unlikely that any given person will win a lottery, but, eventually, a lottery will have a winner; to argue that it is very unlikely that any one player would win is not the same as proving that there is the same chance that no one will win. Similarly, it has been argued that "a space of possibilities is merely being explored, and we, as pattern-seeking animals, are merely imposing patterns, and therefore targets, after the fact." Critics also note that there is much redundant information in the genome, which makes its content much lower than the number of base pairs used. Contrarily, and in step with Design predictions, new research is showing the actual usefulness of genetic material once considered "junk DNA."

Fine-tuned universe and its critics

Part of a series on
Physical cosmology
Big Bang · Universe Age of the universe Chronology of the universe
Early universe Inflation · Nucleosynthesis Backgrounds Gravitational wave (GWB) Microwave (CMB) · Neutrino (CNB)
Expansion · Future Hubble's law · Redshift Expansion of the universe FLRW metric · Friedmann equations Inhomogeneous cosmology Future of an expanding universe Ultimate fate of the universe
Components · Structure Components Lambda-CDM model Dark energy · Dark matter Structure Shape of the universe Galaxy filament · Galaxy formation Large quasar group Large-scale structure Reionization · Structure formation
Experiments Black Hole Initiative (BHI) BOOMERanG Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) Dark Energy Survey Planck space observatory Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey ("2dF") Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)
Scientists Aaronson Alfvén Alpher Copernicus de Sitter Dicke Ehlers Einstein Ellis Friedmann Galileo Gamow Guth Hawking Hubble Huygens Kepler Lemaître Mather Newton Penrose Penzias Rubin Schmidt Smoot Suntzeff Sunyaev Tolman Wilson Zeldovich List of cosmologists
Subject history Discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation History of the Big Bang theory Timeline of cosmological theories
Category Astronomy portal
v t e

ID proponents use the argument that we live in a fine-tuned universe. They propose that the natural emergence of a universe with all the features necessary for life is wildly improbable. Thus, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular outcome. Opinion within the scientific community is still divided on the "finely-tuned universe" issue.

Within mainstream physics this is related to the question of the anthropic principle, whose weak form is based on the observation that the laws of physics must allow for life, since we observe there is life. The strong form, however, is the assertion that the laws of physics must have made it possible for life to arise. The strong form is a distinctly minority position and is highly controversial. Critics of both ID and the weak form of anthropic principle argue that they are essentially a tautology; life as we know it may not exist if things were different, but a different sort of life might exist in its place. The claim of the improbability of a life-supporting universe has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination for assuming no other forms of life are possible (see also carbon chauvinism).

However, Iowa State's Dr. Guillermo Gonzales and the Center for Science and Culture's Dr. Jay Richards contend in their recent book, The Privileged Planet, that recent discoveries in astrobiology affirm the rarity of the conditions necessary for carbon-based life--such as those found on earth. Furthermore, Gonzales and Richards contend that there is a startling correlation between the conditions necessary for life and for scientific discovery. As a measure of the falsifiability of their theory, Gonzales and Richards challenge their critics to show the existence--anywhere in the universe--of non carbon-based, complex life.

Additional Criticisms of ID

Scientific peer review

One of the scientific community's chief oppositions to ID is the perception that ID proponents are attempting to "end run" the scientific method either by not submitting to peer reviewed journals, or by setting up "peer review" that consists entirely of ID supporters. Proponents of ID explain the reason for their absence in peer-reviewed literature is that papers explaining the findings and concepts in support of ID are consistently excluded from the mainstream scientific discourse. They claim this is because ID arguments challenge the principles of philosophical naturalism and uniformitarianism that are accepted as fundamental by the mainstream scientific community. Thus, ID supporters believe that research that points toward to intelligent design is often rejected simply because it deviates from these "dogmatically held beliefs", without regard to the merits of their specific claims.

According to their critics, this is an ad hominem attack, designed to cover over the lack of success in creating scientifically testable or verifiable data or theory, by claiming that there is a conspiracy against them. Critics of ID point out that this is an argument commonly used by advocates of pseudoscientific views (most notably by UFO enthusiasts), and that the perceived bias is simply the result of ID being unscientific and inadequately supported.

On 4 August, 2004, an article by Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture, concerning the origin of body plans and the information necessary to construct them during the Cambrian Explosion--popularly known as "biology's big bang," appeared in the peer reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The publishing of Meyer's paper caused quite an uproar. On 7 September, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement repudiating the article as not meeting its scientific standards and not peer reviewed. Richard Sternberg, who was managing editor at the time of the publishing of the article, vehemently rejects the journal's claims, stating that that Meyer's paper was submitted through standard review processes. The article is available online at www.discovery.org/csc and a critical review of the article is available on the Panda's Thumb website.

ID proponents have also claimed as proof of their being peer-reviewed an article by Michael Behe and David W. Snoke was published in the journal Protein Science. But other scientists have pointed out about the paper "contains no 'design theory,' makes no attempt to model an 'intelligent design' process, and proposes no alternative to evolution." Interestingly, Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonte, the editor of "Revista Biologia"--the oldest biology journal in Europe, recently published a book severely critical of Darwinian theory. In "Why a Fly is Not a Horse," Sermonti challenges the myth that all critics of Darwinism are American religious fundamentalists and argues that since genetics does not explain even the present forms of life, genetic mutations cannot alone explain their origin.

Hypotheses about the designer

Although the Intelligent Design movement is often portrayed as a variant of Bible-based Creationism, ID arguments depend upon scientific evidences and are formulated in secular terms. And just as their Darwinian counterparts assert many and varied metaphysical views, so ID proponents differ greatly on the actual identity of the Designer.

The key arguments in favor of the different variants of ID are so broad that they can be adopted by any number of communities that seek an alternative to evolutionary thought, including those that support non-theistic models of creation although the designers might be different. For example, the notion of an "intelligent designer" is compatible with the materialistic hypotheses that life on Earth was introduced by an alien species, or that it emerged as a result of panspermia, but would not be with the designer(s) of the "fine-tuned" universe.

Likewise, ID claims can support a variety of theistic notions. Some proponents of creationism and intelligent design reject the Christian concept of omnipotence and omniscience on the part of God, and subscribe to Open Theism or Process theology.

"What designed the designer?"

By raising the question of the need for a designer for objects with irreducible complexity, ID also raises the question, "what designed the designer?" Unlike religious creationism, where the question "what created God?" is often answered with philosophical arguments, ID (as a movement) does not address the question of "what designed the designer." Here, ID proponents recognize the limits of science and invite input from philosophers and theologians.

See also

Further reading

Pro-ID

• A Response to Critics of Darwin's Black Box, by Michael Behe.
• Becoming a Disciplined Science: Prospects, Pitfalls, and Reality Check for ID , by William Dembski.
• Searching Large Spaces - Displacement and the No Free Lunch Regress, by William Dembski.
• Michael J. Behe. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, New York: Free Press, 1996. ISBN 0684834936. Argues that several exquisite biochemical mechanisms could not have arisen by a sequence of random mutations and selection.
• William A. Dembski, Charles W. Colson. The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design. Inter Varsity Press. 2004, ISBN 0830823751.
• Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer. Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute), Ignatius Press 2000, ISBN 0898708095
• William A. Dembski. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, InterVarsity Press 1999. ISBN 0830815813
• William A. Dembski, James M. Kushiner. Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, Brazos Press, 2001, ISBN 1587430045
• William A. Dembski, John Wilson. Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, ISI Press, 2004. ISBN 1932236317
• Phillip E. Johnson. Darwin on Trial, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991.
• Phillip E. Johnson. Defeating Darwinism by opening minds, Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997.
• Phillip E. Johnson. Evolution as dogma:?(null)?(null) the establishment of naturalism, Dallas, Tex.: Haughton Pub. Co., 1990
• Robert G. Neuhauser. The Cosmic Deity: Where Scientists and Theologians Fear to Tread, Mill Creek Publishers 2004. ISBN 0975904302
• William Paley. Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity , London: 12th edition, 1809. Online in full.
• Geoffrey Simmons, William Dembski. What Darwin Didn't Know, Harvest House Publishers, 2004, ISBN 0736913130
• Thomas Woodward. Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design, Baker Books, 1993, ISBN 0801064430
• Dean L. Overman, A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997, ISBN 0847689662
• Lee Strobel: The Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004, ISBN 0310241448

Anti-ID

• Matt Young, Taner Edis eds.: Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism, Rutgers University Press (2004). ISBN 081353433X Anthology by scientists.
• Robert Pennock ed.: Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, MIT Press (2002). ISBN 0262661241 Comprehensive anthology including IDT advocates.
• Robert Pennock: Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism, MIT Press (1999). ISBN 0262661659 Early critique of IDT - compare to similar more recent.
• Niall Shanks: God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory, Oxford University Press (2004). ISBN 0195161998 Philosopher/biologist concludes the ID movement threatens scientific and democratic values inherited from the Enlightenment.
• Mark Perakh: Unintelligent Design, Prometheus (Dec 2003). ISBN 1591020840 Distinguished physicist, the mathematical claims of IDT.
• Frederick C. Crews: "Saving Us from Darwin, Part II", The New York Review of Books, Vol 48, No 16 (18 October 2001). Discusses Pollack, The Faith of Biology and the Biology of Faith; Haught, God After Darwin; Ruse, Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?; Miller, Finding Darwin's God; and Gould, Rocks of Ages.
• Frederick C. Crews: "Saving Us from Darwin", The New York Review of Books, Vol 48, No 15 (4 October 2001). Discusses Johnson, The Wedge of Truth; Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?; Behe, Darwin's Black Box; Dembski (Ed.), Mere Creation; Dembski, Intelligent Design; Pennock, Tower of Babel; and Miller, Finding Darwin's God.
• Kenneth R. Miller: Finding Darwin's God, HarperCollins (1999). ISBN 0060930497 A cell biologist and devout Christian critiques Intelligent Design Theory and advocates theistic evolution.
• National Academy of Sciences: Science and Creationism, National Academies Press (1999). ISBN 0309064066 The collective scientific mainstream speaks on anti-evolution.
• Ernst Mayr: One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, Harvard University Press (1993). ISBN 0674639065

External links

Pro-ID

• Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture
• International Society for Complexity, Information and Design
• Uncommon Descent
• Telic Thoughts
• Intelligent Design network, inc.
• Intelligent Design FAQ (for ID)
  • Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture
  • The Discovery Institute: The "Wedge Document": "So What?"
• Origins
• Design Inference Website
• Is the design explanation legitimate? Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. 2001

Anti-ID

• Talk Origins Archive
• Talk Reason.org
• EvoWiki
• Resolution from the American Association for the Advancement of Science
• Entry about Intelligent Design in "The Skeptic's Dictionary" by Robert Todd Carroll
• The "New" Creationism Robert Wright. Slate. 2001
• Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection Barbara Forrest. 2000. Originally published in Philo, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall-Winter 2000), pp. 7-29.
• National Center for Science Education articles and other resources about ID
• Analysis of William A. Dembski's Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, and Phillip Johnson's The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism Jason Rosenhouse. Assistant Professor, Mathematics. James Madison University
• The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream Chapter 1 of the book Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics by Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. MIT Press, 2001

Neutral

• Entry about Intelligent Design in "The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" by Kenneth Einar Himma Though ultimately concludes "design inferences simply cannot do the job they are asked to do in design arguments for God's existence".
• "The Crusade Against Evolution", a somewhat critical history of the Intelligent Design movement, supplemented by a pro-Intelligent Design article by George Guilder of the Discovery Institute
• Does "Intelligent Design" Threaten the Definition of Science? John Roach. National Geographic News. April 27, 2005
• Plagues and People by William McNeill, Anchor 1998

Miscellaneous

Young-Earth creationist comment

• AiG's (Answers in Genesis') views on the Intelligent Design Movement

ID and education

• David Morris, Alternet, 23 May 2005, "Having Fun With Intelligent Design"

Scientific databases Anyone reading this online Encyclopedia can just as easily conduct an online scientific literature search to read about the relative scientific merits of evolution and creationism:

• PubMed
• sciencedirect

Legal References

• McLean v Arkansas Board of Education.

Notes and references

1. William Dembski, 1998. The Design Inference. Cambridge University Press; cited in Evan Ratliff, 2004. "The Crusade Against Evolution." In Wired Magazine.
2. "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science" In Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition National Academy of Sciences, 1999
3. Elizabeth Nickson, 2004. "Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin." In Christianity.ca.
4. Barbara Forrest, 2000. "Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection." In Philo, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall-Winter 2000), pp. 7-29.
5. William Dembski in The Design Inference" (see further reading) cited extraterrestrials as a possible designer .
6. Thomas Aquinas, 1265-1272. Summa Theologica. "Thomas Aquinas' 'Five Ways'" In faithnet.org.uk.
7. The Design Revolution, pg. 64-65
8. This claim has been made by:
   • Michael J. Murray, n.d. "Natural Providence (or Design Trouble)" (PDF)
9. "...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." Phillip Johnson. "The Wedge", Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. July/August 1999.
10. "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." Phillip Johnson. "Keeping the Darwinists Honest", an interview with Phillip Johnson. In Citizen Magazine. April 1999.
11. Joel Belz, 1996. "Witnesses For The Prosecution." In World Magazine.
    • Jerome N. Cragle Jr, 2005. "Scientific evidence favors evolution, not 'intelligent design'." Letter to Times Leader.
    • Erik Bell, 2001. "Smelly science." Letter to SF Weekly.
12. Joseph Boxhorn, 2004. "Observed Instances of Speciation." In TalkOrigins.org; and Chris Stassen, James Meritt, Anneliese Lilje and L. Drew Davis, 1997. "Some More Observed Speciation Events." In TalkOrigins.org.
13. Max Blumenthal, 2004 "Avenging angel of the religious right." In Salon.com.
14. Barbara Forrest, 2001. "The Wedge at Work." from Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics. MIT Press.
15. CNN, 2005. "Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional."
16. Martha Raffaele, 2005. "House Debate Over Evolution at Pa. Schools." ]/Yahoo! News.
17. Semba U, Shibuya Y, Okabe H, Yamamoto T., 1998. "Whale Hageman factor (factor XII): prevented production due to pseudogene conversion." Thromb Res. 1998 Apr 1;90(1):31-7.
18. Matt Inlay, 2002. "Evolving Immunity." In TalkDesign.org.
19. Nic J. Matzke, 2003. "Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum." In TalkDesign.org.
20. Lenski RE, Ofria C, Pennock RT, Adami C., 2003. "The evolutionary origin of complex features." Nature. 2003 May 8;423(6936):139-44.
21. ISCID, 2003. "Vignere Encoded Text Evolution."
22. William A. Dembski, 2005. ""Searching Large Spaces: Displacement and the No Free Lunch Regress (356k PDF)", pp. 15-16, describing an argument made by Michael Shermer in How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God, 2nd ed. (2003).
23. Beth McMurtrie, 2001. "Darwinism Under Attack." The Chronicle Of Higher Education.
24. Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington. September, 2004.
25. AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
26. The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories. Stephen C. Meyer. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239. August, 2004.
27. Richard Sternberg, 2004. "Procedures for the publication of the Meyer paper."
28. "Clarifications Regarding the BSG, Bryan College, and Richard Sternberg."
29. Wesley R. Elsberry, 2004. "Meyer's Hopeless Monster." In The Panda's Thumb.
30. Elizabeth Nickson, 2004. "Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin." In Christianity.ca.
31. Joel Belz, 1996. "Witnesses For The Prosecution." In World Magazine.
32. Jon Buell & Virginia Hearn (eds), 1992. "Proceedings of a Symposium entitled: Darwinism: Scientific Inference of Philosophical Preference?" (PDF)
33. "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Phillip E. Johnson. January 10, 2003 on American Family Radio In www.christianity.ca
34. Phillip E. Johnson in his book "Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education" (InterVarsity Press, 1995), positions himself as a "theistic realist" against "methodological naturalism."
35. "Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God." - William Dembski. Science Test. In Church & State Magazine, July/August 2000.
36. William Dembski, quoted by Barbara Forrest. In The Newest Evolution of Creationism. Barbara Forrest. Natural History. April, 2002, page 80

• Creationism
• Intelligent design
• Evolution
• Pseudoscience
• Cosmology