Intelligent design – WikiChoeclaiste

The book defended Paley’s design argument with computer calculations of the improbability of genetic sequences, which he said could not be explained by evolution but required “the abhorred necessity of divine intelligent activity behind nature”, and that “the same problem would be expected to beset the relationship between the designer behind nature and the intelligently designed part of nature known as man.
[29]

Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science.
Creationist Richard B. Bliss used the phrase “creative design” in Origins: Two Models: Evolution, Creation (1976), and in Origins: Creation or Evolution (1988) wrote that “while evolutionists are trying to find non-intelligent ways for life to occur, the creationist insists that an intelligent design must have been there in the first place.
[29][n 4][n 5] Whether this lack of specificity about the designer’s identity in public discussions is a genuine feature of the concept – or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science – has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design.
[24]

Of Pandas and People was published in 1989, and in addition to including all the current arguments for ID, was the first book to make systematic use of the terms “intelligent design” and “design proponents” as well as the phrase “design theory”, defining the term intelligent design in a glossary and representing it as not being creationism.
[58][59] 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.
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.
[55] Other scientists have argued that evolution through selection is better able to explain the observed complexity, as is evident from the use of selective evolution to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems that are considered problems too complex for human “intelligent designers”.
[56]
Fine-tuned universe
Intelligent design proponents have also occasionally appealed to broader teleological arguments outside of biology, most notably an argument based on the fine-tuning of universal constants that make matter and life possible and that are argued not to be solely attributable to chance.
“[66]

Intelligent design proponents such as Paul Nelson avoid the problem of poor design in nature by insisting that we have simply failed to understand the perfection of the design.
[17] As a positive argument against evolution, ID proposes an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts, a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God.
[47] 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.
Retired UC Berkeley law professor, author and intelligent design advocate Phillip E. Johnson puts forward a core definition that the designer creates for a purpose, giving the example that in his view AIDS was created to punish immorality and is not caused by HIV, but such motives cannot be tested by scientific methods.
[60][61][62] 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.
[54]

Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist and religion critic, argues in The God Delusion (2006) that allowing for an intelligent designer to account for unlikely complexity only postpones the problem, as such a designer would need to be at least as complex.
[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
[25] He also argued that science is based upon “foundational assumptions” of naturalism that were as much a matter of faith as those of “creation theory”.
[n 1]

Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes.
[28]

Intelligent design avoids identifying or naming the intelligent designer—it merely states that one (or more) must exist—but leaders of the movement have said the designer is the Christian God.
[23] Like “creation science”, intelligent design centers on Paley’s religious argument from design,[18] but while Paley’s natural theology was open to deistic design through God-given laws, intelligent design seeks scientific confirmation of repeated supposedly miraculous interventions in the history of life.
[10][30]

While intelligent design proponents have pointed out past examples of the phrase intelligent design that they said were not creationist and faith-based, they have failed to show that these usages had any influence on those who introduced the label in the intelligent design movement.
One of the authors of the science framework used by California schools, Kevin Padian, condemned it for its “sub-text”, “intolerance for honest science” and “incompetence”.
[27] At a conference that Thaxton held in 1988 (“Sources of Information Content in DNA”), he said that his intelligent cause view was compatible with both metaphysical naturalism and supernaturalism.
[11][31][37] “Intelligent design” was the most prominent of around fifteen new terms it introduced as a new lexicon of creationist terminology to oppose evolution without using religious language.
[15]

ID presents two main arguments against evolutionary explanations: irreducible complexity and specified complexity, asserting that certain biological and informational features of living things are too complex to be the result of natural selection.
[57] Thus, proponents argue, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular outcome.
Although ID proponents chose this provocative label for their proposed alternative to evolutionary explanations, they have de-emphasized their religious antecedents and denied that ID is natural theology, while still presenting ID as supporting the argument for the existence of God.
[20] They argue that something that is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary as other components change.
[68]

Asserting the need for a designer of complexity also raises the question “What designed the designer?
Critics say that this renders the argument a tautology: complex specified information cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature.
It thus represents the start of the modern intelligent design movement.
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.
[21] As a result, teaching of evolution was effectively suspended in U.S. public schools until the 1960s, and when evolution was then reintroduced into the curriculum, there was a series of court cases in which attempts were made to get creationism taught alongside evolution in science classes.
[40]

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has criticized the book for presenting all of the basic arguments of intelligent design proponents and being actively promoted for use in public schools before any research had been done to support these arguments.
This frequently invoked the argument from design to explain complexity in nature as supposedly demonstrating the existence of God.
[24]

In March 1986, Stephen C. Meyer published a review of this book, discussing how information theory could suggest that messages transmitted by DNA in the cell show “specified complexity” and must have been created by an intelligent agent.
His version of the watchmaker analogy argued that a watch has evidently been designed by a craftsman and that it is supposedly just as evident that the complexity and adaptation seen in nature must have been designed.
[44][45]

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.
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.
“[34]
Of Pandas and People
The most common modern use of the words “intelligent design” as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry began after the United States Supreme Court ruled in June 1987 in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard that it is unconstitutional for a state to require the teaching of creationism in public school science curricula.
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.
“[19]
Specified complexity
In 1986, Charles B. Thaxton, a physical chemist and creationist, used the term “specified complexity” from information theory when claiming that messages transmitted by DNA in the cell were specified by intelligence, and must have originated with an intelligent agent.
[42]
Concepts
Irreducible complexity
The term “irreducible complexity” was introduced by biochemist Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box, though he had already described the concept in his contributions to the 1993 revised edition of Of Pandas and People.
“[69] Intelligent design proponents say that the question is irrelevant to or outside the scope of intelligent design.
ID seeks to challenge the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[2][16] though proponents concede that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.
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.
[13] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,[14] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.
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.
In the United States, attempts to introduce “creation science” into schools led to court rulings that it is religious in nature and thus cannot be taught in public school science classrooms.
“[67] 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.
[29][n 12]

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.
[123]
Criticism
Scientific criticism
Advocates of intelligent design seek to keep God and the Bible out of the discussion, and present intelligent design in the language of science as though it were a scientific hypothesis.
[104] The statement formed a key component of Discovery Institute campaigns to present intelligent design as scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support,[105][106] with Institute members continuing to cite the list through at least 2011.
[7] The scientific and academic communities, along with a U.S. federal court, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism;[74][75][76][77][78][79] and several authors explicitly refer to it as “intelligent design creationism”.
“[84]
Religion and leading proponents
Although arguments for intelligent design by the intelligent design movement are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer,[n 13] the majority of principal intelligent design advocates are publicly religious Christians who have stated that, in their view, the designer proposed in intelligent design is the Christian conception of God.
[n 27] 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.
[147]
God of the gaps
Intelligent design has also been characterized as a God-of-the-gaps argument,[148] which has the following form:

There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
According to Morris: “The evidence of intelligent design … must be either followed by or accompanied by a sound presentation of true Biblical creationism if it is to be meaningful and lasting.
[n 30]

Among a significant proportion of the general public in the United States, the major concern is whether conventional evolutionary biology is compatible with belief in God and in the Bible, and how this issue is taught in schools.
[130] The Discovery Institute says that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals,[131] but critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim and state intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with peer review that lack impartiality and rigor,[n 28] consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.
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.
[n 16]

The film portrays intelligent design as motivated by science, rather than religion, though it does not give a detailed definition of the phrase or attempt to explain it on a scientific level.
It has been argued that methodological naturalism is not an assumption of science, but a result of science well done: the God explanation is the least parsimonious, so according to Occam’s razor, it cannot be a scientific explanation.
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.
[93]

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.
Scott and Branch also contend that the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research.
In 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.
[140]
Possible theological implications
Intelligent design proponents often insist that their claims do not require a religious component.
[47] The Discovery Institute’s “teach the controversy” campaign promotes intelligent design while attempting to discredit evolution in United States public high school science courses.
The film contends that the mainstream science establishment, in a “scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms”, suppresses academics who believe they see evidence of intelligent design in nature or criticize evidence of evolution.
They reject the possibility of a Designer who works merely through setting natural laws in motion at the outset,[21] in contrast to theistic evolution (to which even Charles Darwin was open[143]).
Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies on a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause.
“[95] Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, a proponent of Old Earth creationism, believes that the efforts of intelligent design proponents to divorce the concept from Biblical Christianity make its hypothesis too vague.
[n 29]

Further criticism stems from the fact that the phrase intelligent design makes use of an assumption of the quality of an observable intelligence, a concept that has no scientific consensus definition.
[92] In this work, Dembski lists a god or an “alien life force” as two possible options for the identity of the designer; however, in his book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology (1999), Dembski states:

Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don’t have a clue about him.
Intelligent design proponents, they say, are proposing both searching for a designer without knowing anything about that designer’s abilities, parameters, or intentions (which scientists do know when searching for the results of human intelligence), as well as denying the distinction between natural/artificial design that allows scientists to compare complex designed artifacts against the background of the sorts of complexity found in nature.
[149] Historians of science observe that the astronomy of the earliest civilizations, although astonishing and incorporating mathematical constructions far in excess of any practical value, proved to be misdirected and of little importance to the development of science because they failed to inquire more carefully into the mechanisms that drove the heavenly bodies across the sky.
…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.
[21] Intelligent design proponents seek to explain the problem of poor design in nature by insisting that we have simply failed to understand the perfection of the design (for example, proposing that vestigial organs have unknown purposes), or by proposing that designers do not necessarily produce the best design they can, and may have unknowable motives for their actions.
[101][102]

In 2001, the Discovery Institute published advertisements under the heading “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism”, with the claim that listed scientists had signed this statement expressing skepticism:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.
[83] 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.
[151] In this historically motivated definition of science any appeal to an intelligent creator is explicitly excluded for the paralysing effect it may have on scientific progress.
[n 23][n 24][n 25]

Intelligent design proponents seek to change this fundamental basis of science[126] by eliminating “methodological naturalism” from science[127] and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, calls “theistic realism”.
[89][90] Phillip E. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments that are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the designer.
[150] It was the Greek civilization that first practiced science, although not yet as a formally defined experimental science, but nevertheless an attempt to rationalize the world of natural experience without recourse to divine intervention.
[128]

The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design being accepted as valid science.
[109][110][111]

A series of Gallup polls in the United States from 1982 through 2014 on “Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design” found support for “human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced formed of life, but God guided the process” of between 31% and 40%, support for “God created human beings in pretty much their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so” varied from 40% to 47%, and support for “human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in the process” varied from 9% to 19%.
According to a 2005 Harris poll, 10% of adults in the United States viewed human beings as “so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them.
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.
This same argument had been put forward to support creation science at the McLean v. Arkansas (1982) trial, which found it was “contrived dualism”, the false premise of a “two model approach”.
[144]

Further, repeated interventions imply that the original design was not perfect and final, and thus pose a problem for any who believe that the Creator’s work had been both perfect and final.
[7][132][133][134][135][136][excessive citations] The scientific community and science education organizations have replied that there is no scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics.
[103]

The ambiguous statement did not exclude other known evolutionary mechanisms, and most signatories were not scientists in relevant fields, but starting in 2004 the Institute claimed the increasing number of signatures indicated mounting doubts about evolution among scientists.
[142]

Intelligent design proponents attempt to demonstrate scientifically that features such as irreducible complexity and specified complexity could not arise through natural processes, and therefore required repeated direct miraculous interventions by a Designer (often a Christian concept of God).
“[96]

Likewise, two of the most prominent YEC organizations in the world have attempted to distinguish their views from those of the intelligent design movement.
[116][118]

Expelled has been used in private screenings to legislators as part of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaign for Academic Freedom bills.
“[98]
Reaction from the scientific community
The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science curriculum.
[107] As part of a strategy to counter these claims, scientists organised Project Steve, which gained more signatories named Steve (or variants) than the Institute’s petition, and a counter-petition, “A Scientific Support for Darwinism”, which quickly gained similar numbers of signatories.
The Discovery Institute’s intelligent design campaigns have been staged primarily in the United States, although efforts have been made in other countries to promote intelligent design.
Leading intelligent design proponents have made conflicting statements regarding intelligent design.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science describes the film as dishonest and divisive propaganda aimed at introducing religious ideas into public school science classrooms,[120] and the Anti-Defamation League has denounced the film’s allegation that evolutionary theory influenced the Holocaust.
[8] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that “creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.
[173][174]

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.
[170][171] The DfES subsequently stated that “Intelligent design is not a recognised scientific theory; therefore, it is not included in the science curriculum”, but left the way open for it to be explored in religious education in relation to different beliefs, as part of a syllabus set by a local Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education.
[citation needed]

In April 2010, the American Academy of Religion issued Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K–12 Public Schools in the United States, which included guidance that creation science or intelligent design should not be taught in science classes, as “Creation science and intelligent design represent worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.”
[156]

As Jones had predicted, John G. West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture, said:

The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won’t work.
When it was revealed that a group called Truth in Science had distributed DVDs produced by Illustra Media[n 31] featuring Discovery Institute fellows making the case for design in nature,[168] and claimed they were being used by 59 schools,[169] the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) stated that “Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum” (part of the National Curriculum, which does not apply to private schools or to education in Scotland).
“[165]
Status outside the United States
Europe
In June 2007, the Council of Europe’s Committee on Culture, Science and Education issued a report, The dangers of creationism in education, which states “Creationism in any of its forms, such as ‘intelligent design’, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes.
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.
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.
[154]

In his finding of facts, Judge Jones made the following condemnation of the “Teach the Controversy” strategy:

Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class.
[161] In the first, David K. DeWolf, John G. West and Casey Luskin, all of the Discovery Institute, argued that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, the Jones court should not have addressed the question of whether it was a scientific theory, and that the Kitzmiller decision will have no effect at all on the development and adoption of intelligent design as an alternative to standard evolutionary theory.
On November 8, 2005, there had been an election in which the eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent design requirement were all defeated by challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class, and the current school board president stated that the board did not intend to appeal the ruling.
[162] In the second Peter H. Irons responded, arguing that the decision was extremely well reasoned and spells the death knell for the intelligent design efforts to introduce creationism in public schools,[163] while in the third, DeWolf, et al., answer the points made by Irons.
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.
However, these worldviews as well as others “that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature or social sciences courses.
Though it should not be taught as science, “Any questions about creationism and intelligent design which arise in science lessons, for example as a result of media coverage, could provide the opportunity to explain or explore why they are not considered to be scientific theories and, in the right context, why evolution is considered to be a scientific theory.”
[176][177] In 2007, Lisburn city council voted in favor of a DUP recommendation to write to post-primary schools asking what their plans are to develop teaching material in relation to “creation, intelligent design and other theories of origin”.
[180] As a reaction on this situation in the Netherlands, the Director General of the Flemish Secretariat of Catholic Education (VSKO [nl]) in Belgium, Mieke Van Hecke [nl], declared that: “Catholic scientists already accepted the theory of evolution for a long time and that intelligent design and creationism doesn’t belong in Flemish Catholic schools.
Legal challenges in the United States
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.
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.
A DUP former Member of Parliament, David Simpson, has sought assurances from the education minister that pupils will not lose marks if they give creationist or intelligent design answers to science questions.
[164] However, fear of a similar lawsuit has resulted in other school boards abandoning intelligent design “teach the controversy” proposals.
On October 4, 2007, the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution stating that schools should “resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion”, including “intelligent design”, which it described as “the latest, more refined version of creationism”, “presented in a more subtle way”.
“[n 3]

The British Centre for Science Education lobbying group has the goal of “countering creationism within the UK” and has been involved in government lobbying in the UK in this regard.
[184] Tim Hawkes, the head of The King’s School, one of Australia’s leading private schools, supported use of the DVD in the classroom at the discretion of teachers and principals.
[166] Northern Ireland’s Department for Education says that the curriculum provides an opportunity for alternative theories to be taught.
[186] Ideas similar to intelligent design have been considered respected intellectual options among Muslims, and in Turkey many intelligent design books have been translated.
The public outcry caused the minister to quickly concede that the correct forum for intelligent design, if it were to be taught, is in religion or philosophy classes.
[7]
Anti-evolution legislation
A number of anti-evolution bills have been introduced in the United States Congress and State legislatures since 2001, based largely upon language drafted by the Discovery Institute for the Santorum Amendment.
[167]

In the United Kingdom, public education includes religious education, and there are many faith schools that teach the ethos of particular denominations.
They have been presented as supporting “academic freedom”, on the supposition that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection.

Works Cited

[‘1. “Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 1”. TalkOrigins Archive. Houston: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved June 16, 2012. Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes. — Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.
• Wilgoren 2005, “…the institute’s Center for Science and Culture has emerged in recent months as the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country.”
• “Frequently Asked Questions About ‘Intelligent Design'”. American Civil Liberties Union. New York: American Civil Liberties Union. September 16, 2005. Who is behind the ID movement?. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
• Kahn, Joseph P. (July 27, 2005). “The evolution of George Gilder”. The Boston Globe. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
• “WHO’s WHO: Intelligent Design Proponents” (PDF). Science & Theology News. Durham, N.C.: Science & Theology News, Inc. November 2005. ISSN 1530-6410. Retrieved July 20, 2007.
• Attie, et al. 2006, “The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute.”
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy pp. 24–25. “the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. …
…[T]his 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.”
3. ^ Jump up to:a b “Guidance on the place of creationism and intelligent design in science lessons”. Teachernet. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families. Archived from the original (DOC) on November 4, 2007. Retrieved October 1, 2007. The intelligent design movement claims there are aspects of the natural world that are so intricate and fit for purpose that they cannot have evolved but must have been created by an ‘intelligent designer’. Furthermore they assert that this claim is scientifically testable and should therefore be taught in science lessons. Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science. Sometimes examples are quoted that are said to require an ‘intelligent designer’. However, many of these have subsequently been shown to have a scientific explanation, for example, the immune system and blood clotting mechanisms.
Attempts to establish an idea of the ‘specified complexity’ needed for intelligent design are surrounded by complex mathematics. Despite this, the idea seems to be essentially a modern version of the old idea of the ‘God-of-the-gaps’. Lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation of some phenomena (a ‘gap’ in scientific knowledge) is claimed to be evidence of an intelligent designer.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy, pages 26–27, “the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.” Examples include:
• Nickson, Elizabeth (February 6, 2004). “Let’s Be Intelligent about Darwin”. National Post (Reprint). Toronto: Postmedia Network. ISSN 1486-8008. Archived from the original on December 28, 2013. Retrieved February 28, 2014. Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools. — Phillip E. Johnson (2003)
• Grelen, Jay (November 30, 1996). “Witnesses for the prosecution”. World. Vol. 11, no. 28. Asheville, N.C.: God’s World Publications. p. 18. ISSN 0888-157X. Retrieved February 16, 2014. This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science. It’s about religion and philosophy.
• Johnson 2002, “So the question is: How to win? That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the ‘wedge’ strategy: ‘Stick with the most important thing’—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, ‘Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?’ and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do.”
5. ^ Ted, Koppel (August 10, 2005). “Doubting Darwin: The Marketing of Intelligent Design”. Nightline. New York. American Broadcasting Company. Retrieved February 28, 2014. I think the designer is God … — Stephen C. Meyer
• Pearcey 2004, pp. 204–205, “By contrast, design theory demonstrates that Christians can sit in the supernaturalist’s chair, even in their professional lives, seeing the cosmos through the lens of a comprehensive biblical worldview. Intelligent Design steps boldly into the scientific arena to build a case based on empirical data. It takes Christianity out of the ineffectual realm of value and stakes out a cognitive claim in the realm of objective truth. It restores Christianity to its status as genuine knowledge, equipping us to defend it in the public arena.”
6. ^ Bridgham, Jamie T.; Carroll, Sean M.; Thornton, Joseph W. (April 7, 2006). “Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation”. Science. 312 (5770): 97–101. Bibcode:2006Sci…312…97B. doi:10.1126/science.1123348. PMID 16601189. S2CID 9662677. Retrieved February 28, 2014. Bridgham, et al., showed that gradual evolutionary mechanisms can produce complex protein-protein interaction systems from simpler precursors.
7. ^ Orr 2005. This article draws from the following exchange of letters in which Behe admits to sloppy prose and non-logical proof:
• Behe, Michael; Dembski, William A.; Wells, Jonathan; Nelson, Paul A.; Berlinski, David (March 26, 2003). “Has Darwin Met His Match? – Letters: An Exchange Over ID”. Center for Science and Culture (Reprint). Seattle: Discovery Institute. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
8. ^ Dembski, William A. (2001). “Another Way to Detect Design?”. Metanexus. New York: Metanexus Institute. Retrieved June 16, 2012. This is a “three part lecture series entitled ‘Another Way to Detect Design’ which contains William Dembski’s response to Fitelson, Stephens, and Sober whose article ‘How Not to Detect Design’ ran on Metanexus:Views (2001.09.14, 2001.09.21, and 2001.09.28). These lectures were first made available online at Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science http://www.metanexus.net. This is from three keynote lectures delivered October 5–6, 2001 at the Society of Christian Philosopher’s meeting at the University of Colorado, Boulder.”
9. ^ “FAQ: Who designed the designer?”. Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (Short answer). Seattle: Casey Luskin; IDEA Center. Retrieved February 28, 2014. One need not fully understand the origin or identity of the designer to determine that an object was designed. Thus, this question is essentially irrelevant to intelligent design theory, which merely seeks to detect if an object was designed…. Intelligent design theory cannot address the identity or origin of the designer—it is a philosophical / religious question that lies outside the domain of scientific inquiry. Christianity postulates the religious answer to this question that the designer is God who by definition is eternally existent and has no origin. There is no logical philosophical impossibility with this being the case (akin to Aristotle’s ‘unmoved mover’) as a religious answer to the origin of the designer.
10. ^ Pennock 2001, “Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski”, pp. 645–667, “Dembski chides me for never using the term ‘intelligent design’ without conjoining it to ‘creationism’. He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to ‘rally the troops’. (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski’s movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability…”
11. ^ Jump up to:a b c “The Wedge” (PDF). Seattle: Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. 1999. Archived from the original on April 22, 2007. Retrieved May 31, 2014. The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a ‘wedge’ that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The beginning of this strategy, the ‘thin edge of the wedge,’ was Phillip Johnson’s critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe’s highly successful Darwin’s Black Box followed Johnson’s work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
12. ^ Jump up to:a b c Johnson, Phillip E. “How The Evolution Debate Can Be Won”. Coral Ridge Ministries. Fort Lauderdale, Fla.: Coral Ridge Ministries. Archived from the original on November 7, 2007. Retrieved February 28, 2014. I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science. … Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn’t true. It’s falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? … I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves. — Johnson, “Reclaiming America for Christ Conference” (1999)
13. ^ Jump up to:a b “Does intelligent design postulate a “supernatural creator?”. Discovery Institute. Seattle. Truth Sheet # 09-05. Retrieved July 19, 2007. … intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer. … ‘… the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy.’
14. ^ Johnson, Phillip E. (April 1999). “Keeping the Darwinists Honest”. Citizen. Colorado Springs, Colo.: Focus on the Family. ISSN 1084-6832. Retrieved February 28, 2014. ID is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. … The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed.
15. ^ “Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 2”. TalkOrigins Archive. Houston: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved February 28, 2014. What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I’m also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John’s Gospel. That stands on its own. … Intelligent design, as it is understood by the proponents that we are discussing today, does involve a supernatural creator, and that is my objection. And I am objecting to it as they have defined it, as Professor Johnson has defined intelligent design, and as Dr. Dembski has defined intelligent design. And both of those are basically religious. They involve the supernatural. — Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.
16. ^ Geoffroy, Gregory (June 1, 2007). “Statement from Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy”. News Service: Iowa State University. Ames, Ohio: Iowa State University. Retrieved December 16, 2007.
• Rennie, John; Mirsky, Steve (April 16, 2008). “Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn’t Want You to Know…” Scientific American. Stuttgart, Germany: Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group. ISSN 0036-8733. Retrieved June 24, 2014.
• Vedantam, Shankar (February 5, 2006). “Eden and Evolution”. The Washington Post. p. W08. Retrieved February 16, 2008. GMU spokesman Daniel Walsch denied that the school had fired Crocker. She was a part-time faculty member, he said, and was let go at the end of her contract period for reasons unrelated to her views on intelligent design.
17. ^ Gauch 2003, Chapters 5–8. Discusses principles of induction, deduction and probability related to the expectation of consistency, testability, and multiple observations. Chapter 8 discusses parsimony (Occam’s razor).
18. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science, p. 64. The ruling discusses central aspects of expectations in the scientific community that a scientific theory be testable, dynamic, correctible, progressive, based upon multiple observations, and provisional.
19. ^ See, e.g., Fitelson, Stephens & Sober 2001, “How Not to Detect Design–Critical Notice: William A. Dembski The Design Inference”, pp. 597–616. Intelligent design fails to pass Occam’s razor. Adding entities (an intelligent agent, a designer) to the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events.
20. ^ See, e.g., Schneider, Jill E. “Professor Schneider’s thoughts on Evolution and Intelligent Design”. Department of Biological Sciences. Bethlehem, Pa.: Lehigh University. Archived from the original on September 2, 2006. Retrieved February 28, 2014. Q: Why couldn’t intelligent design also be a scientific theory? A: The idea of intelligent design might or might not be true, but when presented as a scientific hypothesis, it is not useful because it is based on weak assumptions, lacks supporting data and terminates further thought.
21. ^ See, e.g., Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy, p. 22 and s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science, p. 77. The designer is not falsifiable, since its existence is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. The designer being beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can be neither supported nor undermined by observation, making intelligent design and the argument from design analytic a posteriori arguments.
22. ^ See, e.g., Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy, p. 22 and s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science, p. 66. That intelligent design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that it violates a basic premise of science, naturalism.
23. ^ See, e.g., the brief explanation in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science, p. 66. Intelligent design professes to offer an answer that does not need to be defined or explained, the intelligent agent, designer. By asserting a conclusion that cannot be accounted for scientifically, the designer, intelligent design cannot be sustained by any further explanation, and objections raised to those who accept intelligent design make little headway. Thus intelligent design is not a provisional assessment of data, which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that a conclusion that need not be accounted for has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data.
24. ^ “Nobel Laureates Initiative” (PDF) (Letter). The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity. September 9, 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 7, 2005. Retrieved February 28, 2014. The September 2005 statement by 38 Nobel laureates stated that: “…intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent.”
25. ^ “Intelligent Design is not Science: Scientists and teachers speak out”. Faculty of Science. Sydney: University of New South Wales. October 2005. Archived from the original on June 14, 2006. Retrieved January 9, 2009. The October 2005 statement, by a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers said: “intelligent design is not science” and “urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science.”
26. ^ Johnson 1996b, “My colleagues and I speak of ‘theistic realism’—or sometimes, ‘mere creation’—as the defining concept of our [the ID] movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology.”
27. ^ Watanabe, Teresa (March 25, 2001). “Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 28, 2014. ‘We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. …’We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.’ — Phillip E. Johnson
28. ^ Brauer, Matthew J.; Forrest, Barbara; Gey, Steven G. (2005). “Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution”. Washington University Law Review. 83 (1): 79–80. ISSN 2166-7993. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 20, 2013. Retrieved February 28, 2014. ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly ‘peer-reviewed’ journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of ‘peer review’ that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows.
29. ^ Isaak, Mark (ed.). “CI001.4: Intelligent Design and peer review”. TalkOrigins Archive. Houston: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved February 28, 2014. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical.
30. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science, p. 81. “For human artifacts, we know the designer’s identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer’s abilities, needs, and desires. With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies.”
31. ^ “WIRED Magazine response”. Illustra Media. La Habra, Calif. Archived from the original on December 20, 2008. Retrieved July 13, 2007. It’s also important that you read a well developed rebuttal to Wired’s misleading accusations. Links to both the article and a response by the Discovery Institute (our partners in the production of Unlocking the Mystery of Life and The Privileged Planet) are available below.
• Ratliff, Evan (October 2004). “The Crusade Against Evolution”. Wired. Vol. 12, no. 10. New York: Condé Nast. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
• “Wired magazine reporter criticized for agenda driven reporting”. Center for Science and Culture. Seattle: Discovery Institute. October 13, 2004. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
32. Numbers 2006, p. 373; “[ID] captured headlines for its bold attempt to rewrite the basic rules of science and its claim to have found indisputable evidence of a God-like being. Proponents, however, insisted it was ‘not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins – one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution.’ Although the intellectual roots of the design argument go back centuries, its contemporary incarnation dates from the 1980s”Numbers, Ronald L. (2006) [Originally published 1992 as The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism; New York: Alfred A. Knopf]. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (Expanded ed., 1st Harvard University Press pbk. ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-02339-0. LCCN 2006043675. OCLC 69734583.
33. ^ Jump up to:a b Meyer, Stephen C. (December 1, 2005). “Not by chance”. National Post. Don Mills, Ontario: CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc. Archived from the original on May 1, 2006. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
34. ^ Boudry, Maarten; Blancke, Stefaan; Braeckman, Johan (December 2010). “Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience” (PDF). The Quarterly Review of Biology. 85 (4): 473–482. doi:10.1086/656904. hdl:1854/LU-952482. ISSN 0033-5770. PMID 21243965. S2CID 27218269. Article available from Universiteit Gent
35. ^ Pigliucci 2010
36. ^ Young & Edis 2004 pp. 195–196, Section heading: But is it Pseudoscience?
37. ^ Jump up to:a b “CSC – Frequently Asked Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design?”. Center for Science and Culture. Seattle: Discovery Institute. Retrieved July 15, 2018.
• “Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell” (PDF). Seattle: Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center. 2004. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
• “Intelligent Design”. Intelligent design network. Shawnee Mission, Kan.: Intelligent Design network, inc. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
38. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g Forrest, Barbara (May 2007). “Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals” (PDF). Center for Inquiry. Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 19, 2011. Retrieved August 6, 2007.
39. ^ Jump up to:a b See:
• List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting intelligent design
• Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science p. 83
• The Discovery Institute’s A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by “over 700 scientists” as of August 20, 2006. The four-day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7,733 signatories from scientists opposing ID.
• AAAS 2002. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID.
• More than 70,000 Australian scientists “…urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science.”
• National Center for Science Education: List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism in the sciences.
• Nature Methods 2007, “Long considered a North American phenomenon, pro-ID interest groups can also be found throughout Europe. …Concern about this trend is now so widespread in Europe that in October 2007 the Council of Europe voted on a motion calling upon member states to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline.”
• Dean 2007, “There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth.”
40. ^ “An intelligently designed response”. Nature Methods (Editorial). 4 (12): 983. December 2007. doi:10.1038/nmeth1207-983. ISSN 1548-7091.
41. ^ Jump up to:a b c Haught, John F. (April 1, 2005). “Report of John F. Haught, Ph. D” (PDF). Retrieved August 29, 2013. Haught’s expert report in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
42. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Matzke, Nick (January–April 2006). “Design on Trial: How NCSE Helped Win the Kitzmiller Case”. Reports of the National Center for Science Education. 26 (1–2): 37–44. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved November 18, 2009.
• Matzke, Nick (November 7, 2005). “Missing Link discovered!”. Evolution Education and the Law (Blog). Berkeley, Calif.: National Center for Science Education. Archived from the original on January 14, 2007. Retrieved November 18, 2009.
43. ^ Jump up to:a b Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy, pp. 31–33.
44. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy p. 32 ff, citing Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).
45. ^ “Media Backgrounder: Intelligent Design Article Sparks Controversy”. Center for Science and Culture. Seattle: Discovery Institute. September 7, 2004. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
• Johnson, Phillip E. (June 2002). “Berkeley’s Radical”. Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity (Interview). 15 (5). Interviewed by James M. Kushiner. Chicago: Fellowship of St. James. ISSN 0897-327X. Retrieved June 16, 2012. Johnson interviewed in November 2000.
• Wilgoren, Jodi (August 21, 2005). “Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive”. The New York Times. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
• Downey 2006
46. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science Page 69 and s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#H. Conclusion p. 136.
47. ^ Meyer, Stephen C.; Nelson, Paul A. (May 1, 1996). “Getting Rid of the Unfair Rules”. Origins & Design (Book review). Colorado Springs, Colo.: Access Research Network. Retrieved May 20, 2007.
• Johnson, Phillip E. (May–June 1996). “Third-Party Science”. Books & Culture (Book review). Vol. 2, no. 3. Archived from the original on February 19, 2014. Retrieved June 16, 2012. The review is reprinted in full by Access Research Network [archived February 10, 1999].
• Meyer, Stephen C. (2000). “The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories”. Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe: Papers Presented at a Conference Sponsored by the Wethersfield Institute, New York City, September 25, 1999. Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute. Vol. 9. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. ISBN 978-0-89870-809-7. LCCN 00102374. OCLC 45720008. Retrieved December 1, 2014.
• Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science, p. 68. “lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology.”
• See also Hanna, John (February 13, 2007). “Kansas Rewriting Science Standards”. The Guardian. London. Associated Press. Archived from the original on February 16, 2007. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
48. ^ Giberson, Karl W. (April 21, 2014). “My Debate With an ‘Intelligent Design’ Theorist”. The Daily Beast. New York: The Newsweek Daily Beast Company. Retrieved May 14, 2014.
49. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Scott, Eugenie C.; Matzke, Nicholas J. (May 15, 2007). “Biological design in science classrooms”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 104 (Suppl 1): 8669–8676. Bibcode:2007PNAS..104.8669S. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701505104. PMC 1876445. PMID 17494747. abstract
50. ^ Jump up to:a b Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science, p. 64.
51. ^ Jump up to:a b McDonald, John H. “A reducibly complex mousetrap”. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
• Ussery, David (December 1997). “A Biochemist’s Response to ‘The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution'” (Book review). Archived from the original on March 4, 2014. Retrieved February 28, 2014. Originally published in Bios (July 1998) 70:40–45.
52. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Padian, Kevin; Matzke, Nicholas J. (January 1, 2009). “Darwin, Dover, ‘Intelligent Design’ and textbooks” (PDF). Biochemical Journal. 417 (1): 29–42. doi:10.1042/bj20081534. ISSN 0264-6021. PMID 19061485. Retrieved November 10, 2015.
53. ^ Ayala, Francisco J. (2007). Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press. pp. 6, 15–16, 138. ISBN 978-0-309-10231-5. LCCN 2007005821. OCLC 83609838. Ayala writes that “Paley made the strongest possible case for intelligent design”, and refers to “Intelligent Design: The Original Version” before discussing ID proponents reviving the argument from design under the pretense that it is scientific.
54. ^ Pennock 1999, pp. 60, 68–70, 242–245
• Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy, pp. 24–25.
55. ^ Jump up to:a b Forrest, Barbara C. (March 11, 2006). “Know Your Creationists: Know Your Allies”. Daily Kos (Interview). Interviewed by Andrew Stephen. Berkeley, Calif.: Kos Media, LLC. OCLC 59226519. Retrieved February 28, 2014.
56. ^ Jump up to:a b Meyer, Stephen C. (March 1986). “We Are Not Alone”. Eternity. Philadelphia: Evangelical Foundation Inc. ISSN 0014-1682. Retrieved October 10, 2007.
57. ^ Meyer, Stephen C. (March 1986). “Scientific Tenets of Faith”. The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation. 38 (1). Retrieved May 31, 2019.
58. ^ Thaxton, Charles B. (November 13–16, 1986). DNA, Design and the Origin of Life. Jesus Christ: God and Man. Dallas. Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
59. ^ Jump up to:a b Thaxton, Charles B. (June 24–26, 1988). In Pursuit of Intelligent Causes: Some Historical Background. Sources of Informa
Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/vesparado/5635348214/’]