Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by R. Baley (talk | contribs) at 10:23, 2 October 2007 (Still no. Undid revision 161759319 by Ramsmenon (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of a series on Intelligent design Watchmaker analogy Concepts Irreducible complexity Specified complexity Fine-tuned universe Intelligent designer Theistic science Neo-creationism Movement Timeline Wedge strategy Politics Kitzmiller v. Dover Campaigns Discovery Institute campaigns "Teach the controversy" Authors Jonathan Wells William A. Dembski Phillip E. Johnson Michael Behe Stephen C. Meyer Organisations Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture Centre for Intelligent Design International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity Truth in Science Reactions Jewish Roman Catholic Scientific bodies that explicitly reject intelligent design Creationism Category v t e

Part of a series on Creationism History Types Young Earth Old Earth day-age gap progressive Neo-creationism Biblical cosmology Book of Genesis creation narrative as an allegory Omphalos hypothesis Creation science Created kind Flood geology Creationist cosmologies Intelligent design Rejection of evolution by religious groups History Public education "Teach the Controversy" Religious views Non-creation Creator in Buddhism Jainism and non-creationism Evolution Theistic evolution Buddhist Catholic Hindu Islamic Jewish Mormon v t e

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 natural selection." It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be God. Intelligent design's advocates claim it is a scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. The National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience. Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.

"Intelligent design" originated in response to a 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving separation of church and state. Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes. 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. With the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture serving a central role in planning and funding, the "intelligent design movement" 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.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 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". U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III 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 Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Overview

The term "intelligent design" came into published use after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that to require the teaching of "creation science" alongside evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause, 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." In drafts of the 1989 high-school level textbook Of Pandas and People, almost all derivations of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were replaced with the words "intelligent design". In the 1990s the term "intelligent design" was increasingly used by advocates of teaching a creation-based alternative to evolution, particularly in the United States.

Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for the development of life. It stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on the scientific method to explain life through observable processes such as mutation and natural selection. The stated purpose of intelligent design is to investigate whether or not existing empirical evidence implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents. William A. Dembski, 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." In the leaked Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document, 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."

Proponents of intelligent design look for evidence of what they term "signs of intelligence": physical properties of an object that point to a designer (see: teleological argument). For example, intelligent design proponents argue that an archaeologist 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 living systems 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 observable, 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. 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.

Origins of the concept

Philosophers have long debated whether the complexity of nature indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator. The first recorded arguments for a designer of the cosmos are in Greek philosophy. In the 4th century BC, Plato posited a "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his Timaeus. Aristotle also developed the idea of a creator-designer of the cosmos, often called the "Unmoved Mover", in his work Metaphysics. In De Natura Deorum, or "On the Nature of the Gods" (45 BC), Cicero stated that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature."

The use of this line of reasoning as applied to a supernatural designer has come to be known as the teleological argument for the existence of God. The most notable forms of this argument were expressed in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae, design being the fifth of Aquinas' five proofs for God's existence, and by William Paley in his book Natural Theology (1802). Paley used the watchmaker analogy, which is still used in intelligent design arguments. In the early 19th century, such arguments led to the development of what was called natural theology, the study of nature as a means to understand "the mind of God." This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens, which ultimately led to Darwin's theory of the origin of species. Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in theistic evolution, who consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be fully compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer.

Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern development of natural theology, which seeks to change the basis of science and undermine evolutionary theory. As evolutionary theory has expanded to explain more phenomena, the examples that are held up as evidence of design have changed. But the essential argument remains the same: complex systems imply a designer. Examples offered in the past included the eye (optical system) and the feathered wing; current examples are mostly biochemical: protein functions, blood clotting, and bacterial flagella (see irreducible complexity).

The earliest known version of the particular line of reasoning that would come to be called "intelligent design" began, according to Barbara Forrest, "in the early 1980s with the publication of The Mystery of Life's Origin (MoLO 1984) by creationist chemist Charles B. Thaxton with Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen. Thaxton worked for Jon A. Buell at the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) in Texas, a religious organization that published MoLO."

Intelligent design deliberately does not try to identify or name the specific agent of creation — 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 Christian god. 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 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case.

Origins of the term

Prior to the publication of the book Of Pandas and People 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 Scientific American, in an 1850 book by Patrick Edward Dove, and even in a 1861 letter of Charles Darwin. The words are also used in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science by Paleyite botanist George James Allman:

No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible — in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design.

The phrase can be found again in Humanism, a 1903 book by one of the founders of classical pragmatism, F.C.S. Schiller: "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 Teleological argument for the existence of God : "Stated most succinctly, the argument runs: The world exhibits teleological 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 and the phrase "intelligent design" was used in a 1982 speech by Sir Fred Hoyle in his promotion of panspermia.

The modern use of the words "intelligent design", as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry, began after the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), ruled that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science curricula. Stephen C. Meyer, cofounder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture, reports that the term came up in 1988 at a conference he attended in Tacoma, Washington, called Sources of Information Content in DNA. He attributes the term to Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People. In drafts of the book Of Pandas and People, over one hundred uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creation science", were changed, almost without exception, to intelligent design. The book was published in 1989 and is considered to be the first intelligent design book. The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial, which advocated redefining science to allow claims of supernatural creation. Johnson, considered the "father" of the intelligent design movement, went on to work with Meyer on the formation and execution of the wedge strategy, and became the program advisor of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

Irreducible complexity

In the context of intelligent design, irreducible complexity was put forward by Michael Behe, 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."

Behe uses the analogy of a mousetrap to illustrate this concept. A mousetrap consists of several interacting pieces — the base, the catch, the spring and the hammer — all of which must be in place for the mousetrap to work. Removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Intelligent design advocates assert that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selectable function is present only when all parts are assembled. Behe's original examples of alleged irreducibly complex biological mechanisms include the bacterial flagellum of E. coli, the blood clotting cascade, cilia, and the adaptive immune system.

Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially. They argue that something 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 scaffolding, which can support an "irreducibly complex" building until it is complete and able to stand on its own. Behe himself has since confessed to "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof." Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the Dover trial, 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."

Specified complexity

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

Dembski defines complex specified information as anything with a less than 1 in 10 chance of occurring by (natural) chance. Critics say that this renders the argument a tautology: Complex specified information (CSI) cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature.

The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument is strongly disputed by the scientific community. Specified complexity has yet to be shown to have wide applications in other fields as Dembski asserts. John Wilkins and Wesley Elsberry characterize Dembski's "explanatory filter" as eliminative, because it eliminates explanations sequentially: first regularity, then chance, finally defaulting to design. They argue that this procedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because the asymmetric way it treats the different possible explanations renders it prone to making false conclusions. Richard Dawkins, another critic of intelligent design, argues in The God Delusion that allowing for an intelligent designer to account for unlikely complexity only postpones the problem, as such a designer would need to be at least as complex. Other scientists have argued that evolution through selection is better able to explain the observed complexity, as is evident from the use of selective evolution to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems which are considered problems too complex for human "intelligent designers".

Fine-tuned universe

Intelligent design proponents also raise occasional arguments outside biology, most notably an argument based on the concept of the fine-tuning of universal constants that make matter and life possible and which are argued not to be solely attributable to chance. These include the values of fundamental physical constants, the relative strength of nuclear forces, electromagnetism, gravity between fundamental particles, as well as the ratios of masses of such particles. Intelligent design proponent and Center for Science and Culture fellow Guillermo Gonzalez argues that if any of these values were even slightly different, the universe would be dramatically different, making it impossible for many chemical elements and features of the universe, such as galaxies, to form. Thus, proponents argue, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular outcome.

Scientists 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. Proponent Granville Sewell has stated that the evolution of complex forms of life represents a decrease of entropy, thereby violating the second law of thermodynamics and supporting intelligent design. Critics assert that this is a misapplication of thermodynamic principles. Victor J. Stenger and other critics say both intelligent design and the weak form of the anthropic principle are essentially a tautology; in his view, these arguments amount to the claim that life is able to exist because the universe is able to support life. The claim of the improbability of a life-supporting universe has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination for assuming no other forms of life are possible. Life as we know it might not exist if things were different, but a different sort of life might exist in its place. A number of critics also suggest that many of the stated variables appear to be interconnected and that calculations made by mathematicians and physicists suggest that the emergence of a universe similar to ours is quite probable.

Intelligent designer

Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent they posit. Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene. Dembski, in The Design Inference, speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements. The authoritative description of intelligent design, however, explicitly states that the universe displays features of having been designed. Acknowledging the paradox, Dembski concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life." The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian god, to the exclusion of all other religions.

Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics 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 University of Chicago, 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. Previously, in Darwin's Black Box, Behe had argued that we are simply incapable of understanding the designer's motives, so such questions cannot be answered definitively. Odd designs could, for example, "have been placed there by the designer... for 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."

Asserting the need for a designer of complexity also raises the question "What designed the designer?" Intelligent design proponents say that the question is irrelevant to or outside the scope of intelligent design. Richard Wein counters that 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 question-begging. The new question raised by the explanation is as problematic as the question which the explanation purports to answer." Richard Dawkins sees the claim that the designer does not need to be explained, not as a contribution to knowledge, but as a thought-terminating cliché. In the absence of observable, measurable evidence, the very question "What designed the designer?" leads to an infinite regression from which intelligent design proponents can only escape by resorting to religious creationism or logical contradiction.

Movement

The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s. 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; and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism".

The movement is headquartered in the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), established in 1996 as the creationist wing of the Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes. The Discovery Institute's intelligent design campaigns are primarily in the United States, although efforts have been made in other countries to promote intelligent design. Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of Naturalism. Intelligent design proponents allege that science should not be limited to naturalism and should not demand the adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that dismisses out-of-hand any explanation which contains a supernatural cause. The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Phillip E. Johnson stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept. All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture. Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement are the products of the Discovery Institute, which guides the movement and follows its wedge strategy while conducting its Teach the Controversy campaign and their other related programs.

Leading intelligent design proponents have made conflicting statements regarding intelligent design. In statements directed at the general public, they say intelligent design is not religious; when addressing conservative Christian supporters, they state that intelligent design has its foundation in the Bible. Recognizing the need for support, the institute affirms its Christian, evangelistic orientation: "Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to 'popularize' our ideas in the broader culture."

Barbara Forrest, an expert who has written extensively on the movement, describes this as being due to the Discovery Institute's obfuscating its agenda as a matter of policy. She has written that the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious world-view that undergirds it."

Religion and leading proponents

Although arguments for intelligent design are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer, most of the principal intelligent design advocates are evangelical Christians who have stated that in their view the "designer" is God. Phillip E. Johnson, William Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer are Protestants; Michael Behe is Roman Catholic; and Jonathan Wells, another principal advocate, is a member of the Unification Church. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments that are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the designer. Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having intelligent design identified "as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message". Johnson emphasizes that "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion"; "after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact ... only then can 'biblical issues' be discussed."

The strategy of deliberately disguising the religious intent of intelligent design has been described by William Dembski in The Design Inference. In this work Dembski lists a god or an "alien life force" as two possible options for the identity of the designer; however, in his book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, 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." Dembski also stated, "ID is part of God's general revelation Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ." Both Johnson and Dembski cite the Bible's Gospel of John as the foundation of intelligent design.

Barbara Forrest contends such statements reveal that leading proponents see intelligent design as essentially religious in nature, not merely a scientific concept that has implications with which their personal religious beliefs happen to coincide. She writes that the leading proponents of intelligent design are closely allied with the ultra-conservative Christian Reconstructionism movement. She lists connections of Discovery Institute Fellows Phillip Johnson, Charles Thaxton, Michael Behe, Richard Weikart, Jonathan Wells and Francis Beckwith to leading Christian Reconstructionist organizations, and the extent of the funding provided the Institute by Howard Ahmanson Jr., a leading figure in the Reconstructionist movement.

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 "teach the controversy". There is no such debate, however, within the scientific community; the scientific consensus is that life evolved. Intelligent design is widely viewed as a stalking horse for its proponents' campaign against what they say is the materialist foundation of science, which they argue leaves no room for the possibility of God.

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. 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. 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 Time magazine with a story on Evolution Wars, on 15 August, 2005. The cover shows God facing off against a chimpanzee, and asks:

The push to teach "intelligent design" raises a question: Does God have a place in science class?

The Time magazine story describes the controversy in the Dover school district and the Kitzmiller vs Dover lawsuit that was brought as a result. 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.

From the standpoint of public-school educational policy, the intelligent design controversy centers on three issues:

1. Can intelligent design be defined as science?
2. If so, does the evidence support it and related explanations of the history of life on Earth?
3. If the answer to either question is negative, is the teaching of such explanations appropriate and legal in public education, specifically in science classes?

Empirical science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation and repeated testing of hypotheses and theories. Intelligent design proponents seek to change this fundamental basis of science by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from science and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, calls "theistic realism". Some have called this approach "methodological supernaturalism", which means belief in a transcendent, nonnatural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, nonnatural deity. Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena and that supernatural explanations provide a very simple and intuitive explanation for the origins of life and the universe. Proponents say that evidence exists in the forms of irreducible complexity and specified complexity that cannot be explained by natural processes.

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. Teaching both, they argue, allows for the possibility of religious belief, without causing the state to actually promote such beliefs. Many intelligent design followers believe that "Scientism" is itself a religion that promotes secularism and materialism in an attempt to erase theism from public life, and they view their work in the promotion of intelligent design as a way to return religion to a central role in education and other public spheres. 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.

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 Establishment Clause. They allege that intelligent design has substituted public support for scientific research. 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 Flying Spaghetti Monster "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 falsifiability. Indeed, intelligent design proponent Michael Behe concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."

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, has been compared to the a priori claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids. In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable, observable or falsifiable, and it violates the principle of parsimony. From a strictly empirical standpoint, one may list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, but one must admit ignorance about exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids.

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. Mainstream religious denominations have responded by expressing support for evolution. They state that their religious faith is fully compatible with science, which is limited to dealing only with the natural world — a position described by the term theistic evolution. As well as pointing out that intelligent design is not science, they also reject it for various philosophical and theological reasons. The arguments of intelligent design have been directly challenged by the over 10,000 clergy who signed the Clergy Letter Project. Prominent scientists who strongly express religious faith, such as the astronomer George Coyne and the biologist Ken Miller, have been at the forefront of opposition to intelligent design. While creationist organizations have welcomed intelligent design's support against naturalism, they have also been critical of its refusal to identify the designer, and have pointed to previous failures of the same argument.

Kitzmiller trial

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Eleven parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania, sued the Dover Area School District over a statement that the school board required be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught. The plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and Pepper Hamilton LLP. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) acted as consultants for the plaintiffs. The defendants were represented by the Thomas More Law Center. The suit was tried in a bench trial from September 26, 2005 to November 4, 2005 before Judge John E. Jones III. Kenneth Miller, Kevin Padian, Brian Alters, Robert Pennock, Barbara Forrest and John Haught served as expert witnesses for the prosecution. Michael Behe, Steve Fuller and Scott Minnich served as expert witnesses for the defense.

On December 20, 2005 Judge Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision, ruling that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional, and barring intelligent design from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms. 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.

Judge Jones himself anticipated that his ruling would be criticized, saying in his decision that:

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

Dr. John G. West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, said: "The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work. He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it."

Newspapers have noted with interest that the judge is "a Republican and a churchgoer."

Since the decision, a variety of scholars and others have examined this decision for flaws and conclusions. Some of this is an attempt to understand what mistakes not to repeat by intelligent design supporters in potential future court proceedings.

In the winter 2007 issue of the University of Montana Law review, three articles addressing this topic were published. David K. DeWolf, John G. West and Casey Luskin, all of the Discovery Institute, argued first 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 decision of the Jones court in Kitzmiller v. Dover will have no effect at all on the development and adoption of intelligent design as an alternative to standard evolutionary theory. Peter Irons responded to the DeWolf et al article, arguing that the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision was extremely well reasoned, and that this decision spells the death knell for the intelligent design efforts to introduce creationism in public schools. DeWolf et al rebut the Irons article in the same issue.

Defining as science

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge of the natural world without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism. Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to materialist metaphysical naturalism 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 natural theology or natural philosophy to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design." This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific, it is expected to be:

• Consistent
• Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
• Useful (describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena)
• Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
• Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
• Correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
• Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
• Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

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, violates the principle of parsimony, is not scientifically useful, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.

In light of the apparent failure of intelligent design to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates 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." 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."

Critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence used by most courts, the Daubert Standard. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four Daubert criteria are:

• The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
• The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
• There should be a known rate of error 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, ruling that "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. To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the principles of science, which limit its inquiries to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data and which require explanations to be based on empirical evidence. 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 conspiracy theory. The issue that supernatural explanations do not conform to the scientific method became a sticking point for intelligent design proponents in the 1990s, and is addressed in the wedge strategy 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 Templeton Foundation, 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."

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. Written by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture Director Stephen C. Meyer, it appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in August 2004. The article was a literature review, which means that it did not present any new research, but rather culled quotations and claims from other papers to argue that the Cambrian explosion 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 Sternberg peer review controversy). Dembski has written that "perhaps the best reason is that intelligent design has yet to establish itself as a thriving scientific research program." 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.

In the Dover trial, the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing. 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. 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." 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."

Despite this, the Discovery Institute continues to insist that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals, 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 impartiality and rigor, consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.

Intelligence as an observable quality

The phrase intelligent design makes use of an assumption of the quality of an observable intelligence, a concept that has no scientific consensus 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 observable without specifying what the criteria for the measurement of intelligence should be. Dembski, instead, asserts that "in special sciences ranging from forensics to archaeology to SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), appeal to a designing intelligence is indispensable." How this appeal is made and what this implies as to the definition of intelligence are topics left largely unaddressed. Seth Shostak, a researcher with the SETI Institute, 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 artificiality.

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.

As a means of criticism, certain skeptics have pointed to a challenge of intelligent design derived from the study of artificial intelligence. 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." This claim is similar in type to an assumption of Cartesian dualism that posits a strict separation between "mind" and the material universe. However, in studies of artificial intelligence, while there is an implicit assumption that supposed "intelligence" or creativity of a computer program is determined by the capabilities given to it by the computer programmer, artificial intelligence need not be bound to an inflexible system of rules. Rather, if a computer program can access randomness as a function, this effectively allows for a flexible, creative, and adaptive intelligence. Evolutionary algorithms, 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 quantum computing 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. Cognitive science 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.

Arguments from ignorance

Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance. In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies 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. Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a false dichotomy where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. In scientific terms, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" for naturalistic explanations of observed traits of living organisms. 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 "god of the gaps" argument, which has the following form:

• There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
• The gap is filled with acts of God (or Intelligent designer) and therefore proves the existence of God (or Intelligent designer).

A god of the gaps argument is the theological version of an argument from ignorance. A key feature of this type of argument is that it merely answers outstanding questions with explanations (often supernatural) that are unverifiable and ultimately themselves subject to unanswerable questions.

Improbable versus impossible events

William Dembski formulated the universal probability bound, a reformulation of the creationist argument from improbability, 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, represents a revision of his original formula, which set the value of the universal probability bound at 1 in 10. In 2005 Dembski again revised his definition to be the inverse of the product of two different quantities, 10 and the variable rank complexity of the event under consideration.

In "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences", John Allen Paulos states that the apparent improbability 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 bridge 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

According to a 2005 Harris poll, 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". Although the Zogby polls commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support," these polls suffer from considerable flaws, such as having a very low response rate (248 out of 16,000), being conducted on behalf of an organization with an expressed interest in the outcome of the poll, and containing leading questions.

International status

Intelligent design has received little support outside of the U.S.

In the United Kingdom, public education includes Religious Education as a compulsory subject, and many "faith schools" that teach the ethos of particular denominations. When it was revealed that a group called Truth in Science had distributed DVDs produced by the Discovery Institute affiliate Illustra Media featuring Discovery Institute fellows making the case for design in nature, and claimed they were being used by 59 schools, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) stated that "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum" (part of the National Curriculum which does not apply to independent schools or to Education in Scotland). The DfES subsequently stated that "Intelligent design is not a recognised scientific theory; therefore, it is not included in the science curriculum", but left the way open for it to be explored in religious education in relation to different beliefs, as part of a syllabus set by local standing advisory councils on religious education. In 2006 the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority produced a Religious Education model unit in which pupils can learn about religious and nonreligious views about creationism, intelligent design and evolution by natural selection.

On June 25, 2007, the UK Government responded to an e-Petition by saying that creationism and intelligent design should not be taught as science, though teachers would be expected to answer pupils' questions within the standard framework of established scientific theories. Detailed government "Creationism teaching guidance" for schools in England was published on September 18, 2007. It states that "Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science", has no underpinning scientific principles, or explanations, and is not accepted by the science community as a whole. Though it should not be taught as science, "questions about creationism and intelligent design which arise in science lessons, for example as a result of media coverage, could provide the opportunity to explain or explore why they are not considered to be scientific theories and, in the right context, why evolution is considered to be a scientific theory." However, "Teachers of subjects such as RE, history or citizenship may deal with creationism and intelligent design in their lessons."

The British Center for Science Education lobbying group has the goal of "countering creationism within the UK" and has been involved in government lobbying in the UK in this regard. However, in Northern Ireland the Democratic Unionist Party 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. In Lisburn 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".

The status of intelligent design in Australia is somewhat similar to that in the UK. When the Australian Federal Education Minister, Brendan Nelson, raised the notion of intelligent design being taught in science classes, the public outcry caused the minister to quickly concede that the correct forum for intelligent design, if it were to be taught, is in religious or philosophy classes.

Plans by Dutch Education Minister Maria van der Hoeven to "stimulate an academic debate" on the subject in 2005 caused a severe public backlash. After the 2007 elections she was succeeded by Ronald Plasterk, described as a "molecular geneticist, staunch atheist and opponent of intelligent design." While creationism has strong political clout in many Islamic countries, intelligent design has not been adapted to Islam. Muzaffar Iqbal, a notable Muslim in Canada, has signed the Scientific Dissent list of the Discovery Institute. In general, however, Muslim creationists are partnering with the Institute for Creation Research.

In June 2007 the Council of Europe's "Committee on Culture, Science and Education" issued a report, The dangers of creationism in education, which states "Creationism in any of its forms, such as 'intelligent design', is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes." In describing the dangers posed to education by teaching creationism, it described intelligent design as "anti-science" and involving "blatant scientific fraud" and "intellectual deception" that "blurs the nature, objectives and limits of science" and links it and other forms of creationism to denialism.

See also

Further reading

• Template:Harvard reference

• Template:Harvard reference

External links

ID perspectives

• Access Research Network
• Design Inference: The website of William A. Dembski
• Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture (Hub of the intelligent design movement)
• EvolutionNews.org Discovery Institute website tracking media coverage of intelligent design.
• ID The Future A multiple contributor weblog by Discovery Institute fellows.
• Intelligent Design Network A nonprofit organization in Kansas to promote intelligent design
• International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID)
• Uncommon Descent William Dembski's blog

Non-ID perspectives

• ACLU site on Intelligent Design
• Intelligent Design? special feature in the Natural History Magazine
• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Design Arguments for the Existence of God
• National Center for Science Education articles and other resources about Intelligent Design
• Resolution from the American Association for the Advancement of Science
• Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences Second Edition (1999)
• Talk Origins Archive (Archive of a UseNet discussion group)
• 139 page in-depth analysis of intelligent design, irreducible complexity, and the book "Of Pandas and People" by the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District judge
• Kitzmiller: An Intelligent Ruling on 'Intelligent Design', JURIST
• ID and Creationism
• The Design Argument Elliot Sober, 2004.
• Short discussion on Natural Knowledge and Natural Design as a contrast to Intelligent Design by Richard Dawkins

Media articles

• Discovery's Creation An overview of the origin of the intelligent design movement. (Seattle Weekly)
• Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate between paleontologist Peter Ward and Stephen Meyer co-founder of the Discovery Institute
• Intelligent Design Deja Vu What would "intelligent design" science classes look like? All we have to do is look inside some 19th-century textbooks. (Washington Post)
• How the media have covered ID (Columbia Journalism Review)
• Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum (Associated Press)
• Banned in biology class: intelligent design (Christian Science Monitor)
• Devolution (The New Yorker)
• The Evolution Debate (The New York Times)
• Debating Evolution in the Classroom (NPR)
• Darwin Victorious (TIME)
• Intelligent Design: Scientific Inquiry or Religious Indoctrination? (Justice Talking)
• Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom (New England Journal of Medicine)
• Language: Neo-creo: backlash to 'intelligent design' (International Herald Tribune)
• Who Owns Intelligent Design? (American Institute of Graphic Arts)

Notes

1. ^ "Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design?". Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-05-13..
2. "Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell" (PDF). Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center. 2004. Retrieved 2007-05-13. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
   • "Intelligent Design". Intelligent Design network. 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-13.
3. ^ "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 teleological argument) "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." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Ruling, p. 24.
4. ^ Forrest, Barbara (May, 2007), Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy (PDF), Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc., retrieved 2007-08-06 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link).
5. ^ "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 1". The TalkOrigins Archive. 2005. Retrieved 2007-07-19. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
   • "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: Wilgoren, J (2005-08-21). "Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive" (PDF). The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
   • "Who is behind the ID movement?". Frequently Asked Questions About "Intelligent Design". American Civil Liberties Union. 9/16/2005. Retrieved 2007-07-20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
   • Kahn, JP (2005-07-27). ["The Evolution of George Gilder. The Author And Tech-Sector Guru Has A New Cause To Create Controversy With: Intelligent Design". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2007-07-19. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
   • "Who's Who of Intelligent Design Proponents". Science & Religion Guide. Science & Theology News. November 2005. Retrieved 2007-07-20. (PDF file from Discovery Institute).
   • "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute." Attie, Alan D. (2006). "Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action". Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138. doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation. Retrieved 2007-07-20. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
6. ^ "Science and Policy: Intelligent Design and Peer Review". American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
7. "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Ruling p. 26.
8. "Top Questions about intelligent design". Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-05-13.
9. Stephen C. Meyer and Paul A. Nelson, May 1, 1996, CSC – Getting Rid of the Unfair Rules, A book review, Origins & Design, Retrieved 2007-05-20,
   • Phillip E. Johnson, August 31, 1996, Starting a Conversation about Evolution, Access Research Network Phillip Johnson Files, Retrieved 2007-05-20,
   • Stephen C. Meyer, December 1, 2002, Ignatius Press. The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories,
   • Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Whether ID Is Science,
   • Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also include astrology.
   • See also Evolution of Kansas science standards continues as Darwin's theories regain prominence International Herald Tribune, February 13, 2007, Retrieved 2007-05-20.
10. See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. 3) The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 700 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism. According to the New York Times "There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth." Dean, Cordelia (September 27, 2007). "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-09-28.
11. ^ "Teachernet, Document bank". Creationism teaching guidance. UK Department for Children, Schools and Families. September 18, 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-01. The intelligent design movement claims there are aspects of the natural world that are so intricate and fit for purpose that they cannot have evolved but must have been created by an 'intelligent designer'. Furthermore they assert that this claim is scientifically testable and should therefore be taught in science lessons. Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science. Sometimes examples are quoted that are said to require an 'intelligent designer'. However, many of these have subsequently been shown to have a scientific explanation, for example, the immune system and blood clotting mechanisms.
    Attempts to establish an idea of the 'specified complexity' needed for intelligent design are surrounded by complex mathematics. Despite this, the idea seems to be essentially a modern version of the old idea of the "God-of-the-gaps". Lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation of some phenomena (a 'gap' in scientific knowledge) is claimed to be evidence of an intelligent designer. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); line feed character in |quote= at position 78 (help)
12. National Academy of Sciences, 1999 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition
13. 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 Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3 2005.
    • "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design David Mu. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005..
    • "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory." Professional Ethics Report American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001.
14. Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.
    • "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." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't. .
    • Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. .
    • Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.
15. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Context pg. 21 ff, citing Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)..
16. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., pp. 31 – 33.
17. Media Backgrounder: Intelligent Design Article Sparks Controversy Discovery Institute. September 7, 2004.
    • Berkeley’s Radical James M. Kushiner. Touchstone Magazine, June 2002.
    • Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21 2005.
18. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Conclusion of Ruling.
19. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).
20. "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" Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Ruling, page 64 ff
    • "Broom shows conclusively that intelligent design's opposition to Darwinism rests primarily on scientific grounds." William Dembski, in the forward of How Blind is the Watchmaker? Nature's Design and the Limits of Naturalistic Science. Neil Broom. 2001
21. "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?)." "Truly Programmable Matter", William Dembski, 10 January 2007 published at Uncommon Descent. Downloaded 24 May 2007.
    •"Demonstrative charts introduced through Dr. Forrest show parallel arguments relating to the rejection of naturalism, evolution’s threat to culture and society, 'abrupt appearance' implying divine creation, the exploitation of the same alleged gaps in the fossil record, the alleged inability of science to explain complex biological information like DNA, as well as the theme that proponents of each version of creationism merely aim to teach a scientific alternative to evolution to show its 'strengths and weaknesses,' and to alert students to a supposed 'controversy' in the scientific community." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Decision, p. 34 (emphasis added)
    •"Additionally, Dembski agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Decision, p. 30.
    •"Intelligent Design ... supposes that the origins of living things require supernatural interventions to create the intricate, design-like, living forms that we see all around us." "Natural selection vs. intelligent design" From: USA Today (Magazine) January 1, 2004 Author: Ruse, Michael.
22. Dembski. The Design Revolution. pg. 27 2004
23. ^ Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999.
    •"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." Inferior Design Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, August 10, 2005.
24. "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." Expert Witness Report Barbara Forrest Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, April, 2005.
25. "...the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims..." AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2002.
26. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., p. 70.
27. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). 4: whether ID is science Cite error: The named reference "kitzruling_pg88" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
28. "Plato's Timaeus". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. 2005/10/25. Retrieved 2007-07-22. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
29. Plato. "Timaeus". Internet Classics Archive. classics.mit.edu. Retrieved 2007-07-22.
30. Aristotle, Metaphysics Bk. 12
31. Cicero, De Natura Deorum, Book I, 36–37, Latin Library.
32. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae. "Thomas Aquinas' 'Five Ways'" in faithnet.org.uk.
33. William Paley, Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, 1809, London, Twelfth Edition.
34. Dr Barbara Forrest. Know Your Creationists: Know Your Allies
35. ^ Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999
36. ^ Phillip Johnson: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca. Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin. "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." Johnson 1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution. "So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson
37. Stephen C. Meyer: "I think the designer is God..." Darwin, the marketing of Intelligent Design . Nightline ABC News, with Ted Koppel, August 10 2005.
38. Dove, Patrick Edward, The theory of human progression, and natural probability of a reign of justice. London, Johnstone & Hunter, 1850. LC 08031381 "Intelligence-Intelligent Design."
39. Letter 3154 — Darwin, C. R. to Herschel, J. F. W., 23 May 1861, Charles Darwin, Darwin Correspondence Project, Letter 3154, 23 May 1861.
40. "The British Association". The Times. Saturday 20 September 1873. pp. pg. 10, col A. {{cite news}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
41. James E. Horigan, Chance or Design?'.' Philosophical Library, 1979.
42. 'Evolution according to Hoyle: Survivors of disaster in an earlier world', By Nicholas Timmins, The Times, Wednesday, 13 January 1982; 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."
43. William Safire. The New York Times. August 21 2005.On Language: Neo-Creo
44. National Association of Biology Teachers. A Reader's Guide to Of Pandas and People National Center for Science Education. Of Pandas and People, the foundational work of the Intelligent Design movement
45. "Although science has made great progress by limiting itself to explaining only through natural causes, Johnson would have us allow the occasional supernatural intervention for those phenomena that cause problems for his particular theology. Though he has no objection to natural explanations for how fluids pass through a cell membrane, we need to leave room for a "whimsical creator" (p. 31) or God’s "inscrutable purpose" (p. 71) to explain the origin of life or the origin of complex body plans. Confusing unsolved with unsolveable, he wishes us to stop seeking natural causes for these phenomena. Johnson wishes to take us back to an earlier, less scientifically productive time when science had to wait for religious approval before daring to explain something that was religiously sensitive." Darwin On Trial: A Review by Eugenie C. Scott. NCSE
46. Behe, Michael (1997): Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference
47. Irreducible complexity of these examples is disputed; see Kitzmiller, pp. 76–78, and Ken Miller Webcast
48. The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" Kenneth R. Miller Brown University
49. John H. McDonald's "reducibly complex mousetrap"
50. David Ussery, "A Biochemist's Response to 'The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution'"
51. For example, Bridgham et al.showed that gradual evolutionary mechanisms can produce complex protein-protein interaction systems from simpler precursors. Bridgham; et al. (2006). "Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation". Science. 312 (5770): 97–101. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
52. Orr, H. Allen (2005-05-30). "Devolution". The New Yorker. This article draws from the following exchange of letters in which Behe admits to sloppy prose and non-logical proof: Behe, M. (2003-03-26). "Has Darwin met his match? Letters - An exchange over ID" (HTML). Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2006-11-30. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
53. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., p. 64.
54. Dembski. Intelligent Design, p. 47
55. Photograph of William Dembski, by Wesley R. Elsberry, taken at lecture given at University of California at Berkeley, 2006/03/17.
56. 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
57. Some of Dembski's responses to assertions of specified complexity being a tautology can be found at
58. Richard Wein (2002): "Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates: A critique of William Dembski's book No Free Lunch"
59. Nowak quoted. Claudia Wallis. Time Magazine, 15 August 2005 edition, page 32 Evolution Wars
60. John S. Wilkins and Wesley R. Elsberry. Biology and Philosophy, 16: 711–724. 2001. The Advantages of Theft over Toil: The Design Inference and Arguing from Ignorance
61. Richard Dawkins (2006). The God Delusion. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
62. Evolutionary algorithms now surpass human designers New Scientist, 28 July 2007
63. Guillermo Gonzalez (2004). The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. ISBN 0-89526-065-4.
64. The Panda's Thumb. review of The Privileged Planet
65. Sewell, Granville (2005-12-28). "Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure". The American Spectator. Retrieved 2007-02-16.
66. "Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure". Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-07-17.
67. "Entropy, Disorder and Life". TalkOrigins.org. Retrieved 2007-07-17.
68. Is The Universe Fine-Tuned For Us? Victor J. Stenger. University of Colorado. (PDF file)
69. The Anthropic Principle Victor J. Stenger. University of Colorado. (PDF file)
70. Our place in the Multiverse Joseph Silk. Nature, Volume 443 Number 7108, September 14 2006.
71. See, e.g., Gerald Feinberg and Robert Shapiro, "A Puddlian Fable" in Huchingson, Religion and the Natural Sciences (1993), pp. 220–221
72. "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? Questions About Intelligent Design
73. Dembski. The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendence and Immanence
74. Jerry Coyne. The New Republic, August 22 2005. The Case Against Intelligent Design
75. Jerry Coyne: “The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name: The Case Against Intelligent Design” in The New Republic, Aug 22 & 29, 2005 issue, p. 21–33. Available at http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050822&s=coyne082205
76. Dr. Donald E. Simanek. Intelligent Design: The Glass is Empty
77. IDEA "One need not fully understand the origin or identity of the designer to determine that an object was designed. Thus, this question is essentially irrelevant to intelligent design theory, which merely seeks to detect if an object was designed... Intelligent design theory cannot address the identity or origin of the designer - it is a philosophical / religious question that lies outside the domain of scientific inquiry. Christianity postulates the religious answer to this question that the designer is God who by definition is eternally existent and has no origin. There is no logical philosophical impossibility with this being the case (akin to Aristotle's 'unmoved mover') as a religious answer to the origin of the designer..." FAQ: Who designed the designer? FAQ: Who designed the designer?
78. Richard Wein. 2002. Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates
79. ^ Who Designed the Designer? Jason Rosenhouse. Creation & Intelligent Design Watch, Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.
80. Richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design pg 141
81. 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)
82. "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design, David Mu, Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
    • "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory." Professional Ethics Report, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001.
    • Conclusion of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Ruling
83. Wise, D.U., 2001, Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, n. 1, p. 30-35.
84. Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism, Marcus R. Ross, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 319-323
85. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition, Ronald L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, November 30, 2006, ISBN 0674023390.
86. Forrest, Barbara (May,2007), Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy (PDF), Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc., retrieved 2007-08-22 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link); Forrest, B.C. and Gross, P.R., 2003, Evolution and the Wedge of Intelligent Design: The Trojan Horse Strategy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 224 p., ISBN 0195157427
87. "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 Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski, Robert T. Pennock, p. 645-667 of Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, Robert T. Pennock (editor), Cambridge, MIT Press, 2001, 825 p., ISBN 0262661241; Pennock, R.T., 1999, Tower of Babel: Evidence Against the New Creationism, Cambridge, MIT Press, 440 p.
88. The Creation/Evolution Continuum, Eugenie Scott, NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999.; Scott, E.C., 2004, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, Westport, Greenwood Press, 296p, ISBN 0520246500
89. "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." Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999. (PDF file)
90. ^ Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999.
91. ^ "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."..."Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"..."I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won
92. Discovery Institute fellows and staff. Center for Science and Culture fellows and staff.
93. Barbara Forrest. 2001. "The Wedge at Work: Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics
94. ^ "...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: "Discovery Institute Truth Sheet # 09-05 Does intelligent design postulate a "supernatural creator?". Retrieved 2007-07-19.
95. Phillip Johnson. Keeping the Darwinists Honest, an interview with Phillip Johnson. Citizen Magazine. April 1999. "Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. ... The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed."
96. ^ Phillip Johnson. Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. July/August 1999."...the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact." The Wedge
97. ^ William Dembski, 1998. The Design Inference.
98. 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
99. Dembski. 2005. Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris.Reply to Henry Morris
100. Barbara Forrest. Expert Testimony. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial transcript, Day 6 (October 5) "What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own." ... "Intelligent design, as it is understood by the proponents that we are discussing today, does involve a supernatural creator, and that is my objection. And I am objecting to it as they have defined it, as Professor Johnson has defined intelligent design, and as Dr. Dembski has defined intelligent design. And both of those are basically religious. They involve the supernatural."
101. Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007.
102. Seattle Times. March 31 2005.Does Seattle group "teach controversy" or contribute to it?
103. National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution
104. IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society.
105. From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution, AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
106. Coultan, Mark (November 27, 2005). "Intelligent design a Trojan horse, says creationist". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2007-07-29.
107. "Intelligent Design: Creationism's Trojan Horse". Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. 2005. Retrieved 2007-07-29. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
108. ^ Wallis, Claudia (August 7, 2005). "The Evolution Wars". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2007-07-23.
109. Forrest, Barbara (2000). "Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection". Philo. 3 (2): 7–29. Retrieved 2007-07-27. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
110. Johnson, Phillip E. (1995). Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0830819290. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |coauthors= (help)
111. "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.
112. See, for instance: Vuletic, Mark I. (1997). "Methodological Naturalism and the Supernatural". Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise: An Interdisciplinary Conference at the. University of Texas, Austin. Retrieved 2007-07-27. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
113. ^ Watanabe, Teresa (March 25, 2001). "Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-07-22. : 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
114. Belz, Joel (November 30, 1996). "Witnesses For The Prosecution" (Reprint by Leadership U.). World Magazine. 11 (28): 18. Retrieved 2007-07-23.
115. Nickson, Elizabeth (January 10, 2003). "Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin". Christianity.ca. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. Retrieved 2007-07-23. : 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 web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)
116. Buell, Jon (March 1992). "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy" (PDF). Darwinism: Scientific Inference or Philosophical Preference? (Symposium). The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Dallas Christian Leadership, and the C. S. Lewis Fellowship. Retrieved 2007-07-23. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); line feed character in |publisher= at position 72 (help)
117. Giberson, Karl (December 5, 2005). "Intelligent design's long march to nowhere". Templeton Foundation, Science & Theology News. Retrieved 2007-07-23. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)
118. Sorber, Elliott (2007). "What is wrong with intelligent design?" (PDF). Quarterly Review of Biology. 82 (1): 3–6. Retrieved 2007-07-23. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
119. "What Is Wrong With Intelligent Design?". Science Daily. February 23, 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-23.
120. Sonleitner, Frank J. (2006). "Intelligent Design is not Testable". Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 40th Annual Meeting. 38 (1): 10. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
121. Murray, Michael J. (Forthcoming). "Natural Providence (or Design Trouble)" (PDF). Franklin & Marshall College. Retrieved 2007-07-23. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
122. Dembski, William A. "What is the position of the NRCSE on the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to neo-Darwinian evolution in Nebraska schools?". Creighton University. Retrieved 2007-07-23. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)
123. Schönborn, Cardinal Christoph (October 2, 2005). "Catechetical Lecture at St. Stephan's Cathedral, Vienna" (Reprint). Bring You To. Retrieved 2007-07-22. Purpose and design in the natural world, no difficulty...with the theory of evolution the borders of scientific theory.
124. Scott, Eugenie C. (December 7, 2000). "The Creation/Evolution Continuum". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2007-07-22.
125. Resseger, Jan (Chair) (2006). "Science, Religion, and the Teaching of Evolution in Public School Science Classes" (PDF). Committee on Public Education and Literacy. National Council of Churches. Retrieved 2007-07-17. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
126. Murphy, George L. (2002). "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem" (Reprint). Creighton University. Retrieved 2007-07-21.
127. Sheppard, Pam S. (February 4, 2006). "Intelligent design: is it intelligent; is it Christian?". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2007-07-21.
128. Ross, Hugh. "More Than Intelligent Design". Facts for Faith. Reasons to Believe. Retrieved 2007-07-21.
129. "The "Intelligent Design" Distraction". Harun Yahya International. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-20.
130. Wieland, Carl (August 30, 2002). "AiG's views on the Intelligent Design Movement". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2007-07-20. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
131. Retired California surgeon Dr. Mel Mulder has produced a series of 50 radio spots, and a book entitled "Beyond intelligent design" that describes his feeling that the intelligent design movement does not go far enough in several ways.
132. Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (2005), Text.
133. Powell, Michael (2005-12-21). "Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design'". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-09-03.
134. Crowther, Robert (2005-12-20). "Dover Intelligent Design Decision Criticized as a Futile Attempt to Censor Science Education". Evolution News & Views. Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-09-03.
135. Associated Press. "Judge rules against 'intelligent design'". MSNBC. Retrieved 2007-09-03.
136. Provonsha, Michael (2006-09-21). "Godless: The Church of Liberalism". eSkeptic. Retrieved 2007-09-03.
137. Padian, Kevin. "Discovery Institute tries to "swift-boat" Judge Jones". National Center for Science Education National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2007-09-03. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); horizontal tab character in |publisher= at position 39 (help)
138. Raffaele, Martha (2005-12-20). "Intelligent design policy struck down". Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 2007-09-03.
139. Articles - Editor's Note: Intelligent Design Articles, University of Montana Law Review, Volume 68, Number 1, April 10, 2007.
140. INTELLIGENT DESIGN WILL SURVIVE KITZMILLER V. DOVER, David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin, University of Montana Law Review, Volume 68, Number 1, May 4, 2007.
141. DISASTER IN DOVER: THE TRIALS (AND TRIBULATIONS) OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN, Peter Irons, University of Montana Law Review, Volume 68, Number 1, April 27, 2007.
142. Rebuttal to Irons, David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin, University of Montana Law Review, Volume 68, Number 1, April 27, 2007.
143. Meyer, Stephen C. (December 1, 2002). "The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories". Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-07-19. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
144. Wüthrich, Christian (January 11, 2007). "Demarcating science vis-à-vis pseudoscience" (PDF). Department of Philosophy. University of California at San Diego. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
145. Gauch Jr., Hugh G. (2003). "Chapters 5–8". Scientific Method in Practice. Cambridge UP. ISBN 0521017084. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Discusss principles of induction, deduction and probability related to the expectation of consistency, testability, and multiple observations. Chapter 8 discusses parsimony (Occam's razor)
146. Elmes, David G. (2005). "Chapter 2". Research Methods in Psychology (8th ed.). Wadsworth Publishing. ISBN 0534609767. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear= and |accessmonth= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) 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."
147. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., 4: whether ID is science. 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,
148. See, e.g., Mark Perakh, "The Dream World of William Dembski's Creationism", in Skeptic Volume 11 (Number 4) 2005, 54–65.
149. 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.
150. 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."
151. The designer is not falsifiable, since its existence is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. The designer being beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can be neither supported nor undermined by observation, making intelligent design and the argument from design analytic a posteriori arguments. See, e.g., Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Ruling, p. 22 and p. 77.
152. That intelligent design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that it violates a basic premise of science, naturalism. See, e.g., Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Ruling, p. 22 and p. 66.
153. 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 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). p. 66.
154. "Nobel Laureates Initiative" (PDF). The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity. September 9, 2005. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
155. "Intelligent Design is not Science: Scientists and teachers speak out". University of New South Wales. 2005. Retrieved 2007-07-19. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
156. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., 4. Whether ID is Science, p. 87
157. Hawks, John (2005). "The President and the teaching of evolution". John Hawks Weblog. Retrieved 2007-07-19. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
158. Goodstein, Laurie (December 4, 2005). "Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
159. "Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington". Biological Society of Washington. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
160. Meyer, S.C. (2004). "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories". Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 117 (2): 213–239. Retrieved 2007-05-10.
161. Dembski, William A. (2001). "Is Intelligent Design a Form of Natural Theology?". Design Inference Website. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
162. McMurtie, Beth (2001). "Darwinism Under Attack". The Chronicle Of Higher Education.
163. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, October 19 2005, AM session Kitzmiller Testimony, Behe
164. "Peer-Reviewed, Peer-Edited, and other Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)". Discovery Institute. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-17. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
165. Isaak, Mark (2006). "Index to Creationist Claims". The TalkOrigins Archive. 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
166. Brauer, Matthew J. (2005). "Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution" (PDF). Washington University Law Quarterly. 83 (1). Retrieved 2007-07-18. ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly "peer-reviewed" journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of "peer review" that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
167. Dembski, William A. (2002). "Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences". Intelligent Design?. Natural History Magazine. Retrieved 2007-07-18. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
168. Shostak, Seth (2005). "SETI and Intelligent Design". Space.com. Retrieved 2007-07-18. In fact, the signals actually sought by today's SETI searches are not complex, as the ID advocates assume. ... If SETI were to announce that we're not alone because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of artificiality {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
169. "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." — Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., p. 81
170. Edis, Taner (2001). "Darwin in Mind: Intelligent Design Meets Artificial Intelligence". Skeptical Inquirer Magazine. Retrieved 2007-07-17. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
171. "Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell". Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-14.
172. ^ Scott, Eugenie C. (2002). ""Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by Most Scientists". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2007-07-14. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
173. See, for instance: Hube, Richard H. (1971). "Man Come Of Age: Bonhoeffer's Response To The God-Of-The-Gaps". Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 14: 203–220. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
174. Rosenhouse, Jason (2001). "How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics" (PDF). The Mathematical Intelligencer. 23 (4): 3–8. Retrieved 2007-07-14. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
175. Dembski, William A. (2004). The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0830823751.
176. The rank complexity is Dembski's φ function, which ranks patterns in order of their descriptive complexity. See specified complexity.
177. "Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God". The Harris Poll #52. Harris Interactive. July 6, 2005. Retrieved 2007-07-13.
178. "Zogby Poll of Ohio Likely Voters How Should We Teach Evolution". Zogby Poll. John Zogby. 2006. Retrieved 2007-08-27.
179. "Sandia National Laboratories says that the Intelligent Design Network (IDNet-NM/Zogby) "Lab Poll" is BOGUS!". New Mexicans for Science and Reason. Retrieved 2007-07-13. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)
180. Mooney, Chris (September 11, 2003). "Polling for ID". Doubt and About. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Retrieved 2007-02-16.
181. "'Intelligent Design'-ers launch new assault on curriculum using lies and deception". Salon.com. Retrieved 2007-07-13. {{cite web}}: Text "David Harris' Science & Literature. News and commentary on science, literature, journalism and their intersection" ignored (help)
182. "WIRED Magazine response". Illustra Media. Retrieved 2007-07-13. 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)
183. Meyer, Stephen C. (July 15, 2004). "Unlocking the Mystery of Life". Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-07-13. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
184. Randerson, James (November 27, 2006). "Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-07-13.
185. "'Design' attack on school science". BBC News. September 29, 2006. Retrieved 2007-07-13.
186. "Written Answers". Daily Hansard. Parliament of the United Kingdom. November 1, 2006. Retrieved 2007-07-13.
187. "Schools: Intelligent Design". Daily Hansard. Parliament of the United Kingdom. Retrieved 2007-07-13.
188. ^ "NCSE Resource -- Guidance on creationism for British teachers". NCSE. September 25, 2007. Retrieved 2007-09-30. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
189. "How can we answer questions about creation and origins?" (pdf). Qualifications and Curriculum Authority for England. 2006. Retrieved 2007-10-01.
190. "NoCreSciEd - epetition reply". Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Retrieved 2007-07-13. {{cite web}}: Text "June 21, 2007" ignored (help)
191. The dangers of creationism in education, Report, Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Rapporteur: Mr Guy LENGAGNE, France, Socialist Group, Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe, Doc. 11297, 8 June 2007.
192. Lesley-Anne Henry (September 26, 2007). "Tussle of Biblical proportions over creationism in Ulster classrooms - Education - News - Belfast Telegraph". Belfast Telegraph. Retrieved 2007-10-01., "Viewpoint: The world, according to Lisburn folk - Opinion - News - Belfast Telegraph". Belfast Telegraph. September 27, 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-01. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
193. "DUP CALL FOR SCHOOLS TO TEACH CREATION PASSED BY COUNCIL - Lisburn Today". 26 September 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-01.
194. Smith, Deborah (October 21, 2005). "Intelligent design not science: experts". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2007-07-13.
195. "Cabinet ministers announced (update)". DutchNews.nl. February 13, 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-13.
196. Edis, Taner. "Cloning Creationism in Turkey". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2007-07-13.
197. "The dangers of creationism in education". Council of Europe. Retrieved 2007-08-03.

• Creationist objections to evolution
• Denialism
• Intelligent design
• Neo-Creationism
• Pseudoscience
• Origin of life