Intelligent design

1813:. In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies on a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside science. Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a false dichotomy, where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. Scott and Branch also contend that the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research. 2177:, which included guidance that creation science or intelligent design should not be taught in science classes, as "Creation science and intelligent design represent worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." However, these worldviews as well as others "that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature or social sciences courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of worldviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others." 2249:"Creationism teaching guidance" for schools in England was published on September 18, 2007. It states that "Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science", has no underpinning scientific principles, or explanations, and is not accepted by the science community as a whole. Though it should not be taught as science, "Any questions about creationism and intelligent design which arise in science lessons, for example as a result of media coverage, could provide the opportunity to explain or explore why they are not considered to be scientific theories and, in the right context, why evolution is considered to be a scientific theory." However, "Teachers of subjects such as RE, history or citizenship may deal with creationism and intelligent design in their lessons." 3178:, "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..." 2911:, "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." 1589:

Previously, a series of Gallup polls in the United States from 1982 through 2014 on "Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design" found support for "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced formed of life, but God guided the process" of between 31% and 40%, support for "God created human beings in pretty much their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" varied from 40% to 47%, and support for "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in the process" varied from 9% to 19%. The polls also noted answers to a series of more detailed questions.

1175:, Behe had argued that we are simply incapable of understanding the designer's motives, so such questions cannot be answered definitively. Odd designs could, for example, "...have been placed there by the designer for a reason—for artistic reasons, for variety, to show off, for some as-yet-undetected practical purpose, or for some unguessable reason—or they might not." Coyne responds that in light of the evidence, "either life resulted not from intelligent design, but from evolution; or the intelligent designer is a cosmic prankster who designed everything to make it look as though it had evolved." 3904:

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."

1786:

different from conventional design detection, undermining the key elements that make it possible as legitimate science. Intelligent design proponents, they say, are proposing both searching for a designer without knowing anything about that designer's abilities, parameters, or intentions (which scientists do know when searching for the results of human intelligence), as well as denying the distinction between natural/artificial design that allows scientists to compare complex designed artifacts against the background of the sorts of complexity found in nature.

1187:

wanting to spoil a child with extravagant toys, the designer can have multiple motives for not giving priority to excellence in engineering. He says that "Another problem with the argument from imperfection is that it critically depends on a psychoanalysis of the unidentified designer. Yet the reasons that a designer would or would not do anything are virtually impossible to know unless the designer tells you specifically what those reasons are." This reliance on inexplicable motives of the designer makes intelligent design scientifically untestable. Retired

2961:, 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." 1468:, believes that the efforts of intelligent design proponents to divorce the concept from Biblical Christianity make its hypothesis too vague. In 2002, he wrote: "Winning the argument for design without identifying the designer yields, at best, a sketchy origins model. Such a model makes little if any positive impact on the community of scientists and other scholars. ... the time is right for a direct approach, a single leap into the origins fray. Introducing a biblically based, scientifically verifiable creation model represents such a leap." 3673:, 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. 674:—it merely states that one (or more) must exist—but leaders of the movement have said the designer is the Christian God. Whether this lack of specificity about the designer's identity in public discussions is a genuine feature of the concept – or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science – has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case. 2080:

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.

2202:. On October 4, 2007, the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution stating that schools should "resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion", including "intelligent design", which it described as "the latest, more refined version of creationism", "presented in a more subtle way". The resolution emphasises that the aim of the report is not to question or to fight a belief, but to "warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science". 2198:, 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 75: 1238: 4021:, p. 373; " captured headlines for its bold attempt to rewrite the basic rules of science and its claim to have found indisputable evidence of a God-like being. Proponents, however, insisted it was 'not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins – one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution.' Although the intellectual roots of the design argument go back centuries, its contemporary incarnation dates from the 1980s" 1020:(2006) that allowing for an intelligent designer to account for unlikely complexity only postpones the problem, as such a designer would need to be at least as complex. Other scientists have argued that evolution through selection is better able to explain the observed complexity, as is evident from the use of selective evolution to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems that are considered problems too complex for human "intelligent designers". 16080: 718:. The book defended Paley's design argument with computer calculations of the improbability of genetic sequences, which he said could not be explained by evolution but required "the abhorred necessity of divine intelligent activity behind nature", and that "the same problem would be expected to beset the relationship between the designer behind nature and the intelligently designed part of nature known as man." In a 1984 article as well as in his affidavit to 13762: 11123: 331: 7033:'We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists ... in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom,' said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director. ... 'It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom,' said NSTA President Mike Padilla. 'Nonscientific viewpoints have little value in increasing students' knowledge of the natural world.' 756: 13752: 1479:(ICR) wrote, in 1999, that ID, "even if well-meaning and effectively articulated, will not work! It has often been tried in the past and has failed, and it will fail today. The reason it won't work is because it is not the Biblical method." According to Morris: "The evidence of intelligent design ... must be either followed by or accompanied by a sound presentation of true Biblical creationism if it is to be meaningful and lasting." In 2002, 1823:(1982) trial, which found it was "contrived dualism", the false premise of a "two model approach". Behe's argument of irreducible complexity puts forward negative arguments against evolution but does not make any positive scientific case for intelligent design. It fails to allow for scientific explanations continuing to be found, as has been the case with several examples previously put forward as supposed cases of irreducible complexity. 969:. 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 16068: 3400:

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.

3295:

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.

934:

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 has acknowledged using "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against

1171:) and why a designer would not "stock oceanic islands with reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and freshwater fish, despite the suitability of such islands for these species". Coyne also points to the fact that "the flora and fauna on those islands resemble that of the nearest mainland, even when the environments are very different" as evidence that species were not placed there by a designer. Previously, in 692:, discussion of the religious "argument from design" or "teleological argument" in theology, with its concept of "intelligent design", has persistently referred to the theistic Creator God. Although ID proponents chose this provocative label for their proposed alternative to evolutionary explanations, they have de-emphasized their religious antecedents and denied that ID is 1487:(AiG), criticized design advocates who, though well-intentioned, "'left the Bible out of it'" and thereby unwittingly aided and abetted the modern rejection of the Bible. Wieland explained that "AiG's major 'strategy' is to boldly, but humbly, call the church back to its Biblical foundations ... we neither count ourselves a part of this movement nor campaign against it." 7412:

Miller, who is Jewish. Although it is not a religious organization, the Institute has a long record of supporting religious liberty and the legitimate role of faith-based institutions in a pluralistic society. In fact, it sponsored a program for several years for college students to teach them the importance of religious liberty and the separation of church and state.

1794:" campaign promotes intelligent design while attempting to discredit evolution in United States public high school science courses. The scientific community and science education organizations have replied that there is no scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics. 1312:, an expert who has written extensively on the movement, describes this as being due to the Discovery Institute's obfuscating its agenda as a matter of policy. She has written that the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious worldview that undergirds it." 3619:, 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 8789:(also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a 'teach the controversy' approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists 'continue to investigate and critically analyze' aspects of Darwin's theory. 3160:

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

825:. "Intelligent design" was the most prominent of around fifteen new terms it introduced as a new lexicon of creationist terminology to oppose evolution without using religious language. It was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its primary present use, as stated both by its publisher Jon A. Buell, and by 8911:

evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to 'critically analyze' evolution or to understand 'the controversy.' But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one.

2758:...his argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley... The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God." 2158:", on the supposition that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection. Critics of the legislation have pointed out that there are no credible scientific critiques of evolution, and an investigation in 1381:

evangelical message." Johnson emphasizes that "...the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact."

613:. In the United States, attempts to introduce "creation science" into schools led to court rulings that it is religious in nature and thus cannot be taught in public school science classrooms. Intelligent design is also presented as science and shares other arguments with "creation science" but avoids literal 1898:, and said that "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science." In 2006, he "condemned ID as a kind of 'crude creationism' which reduced God to a mere engineer." 2800:

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.

1155:, 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. 977: 3399:

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

2755:

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

2092:

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

1320:

Although arguments for intelligent design by the intelligent design movement are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer, the majority of principal intelligent design advocates are publicly religious Christians who have stated that, in their view, the

1186:

by insisting that we have simply failed to understand the perfection of the design. Behe cites Paley as his inspiration, but he differs from Paley's expectation of a perfect Creation and proposes that designers do not necessarily produce the best design they can. Behe suggests that, like a parent not

8877:, "That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned." 7411:

Discovery Institute is a secular think tank, and its Board members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, including mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic. Until recently the Chairman of Discovery's Board of Directors was former Congressman John

3218:

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

1987:

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

1768:

The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design being accepted as valid science. The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article

1380:

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

1299:

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

1259:

The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s. The scientific and academic communities, along with a U.S. federal court, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism;

3903:

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.

3294:

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

3235:

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

3159:

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

1956:

that first practiced science, although not yet as a formally defined experimental science, but nevertheless an attempt to rationalize the world of natural experience without recourse to divine intervention. In this historically motivated definition of science any appeal to an intelligent creator is

1835:

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

1588:

creationism survey found that 38% of adults in the United States hold the view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings, which was noted as being at the lowest level in 35 years.

1542:

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

1304:

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

735:(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." The first systematic use of the term, defined in a glossary and claimed to be other than creationism, was in 658:

in the cell show "specified complexity" and must have been created by an intelligent agent. He also argued that science is based upon "foundational assumptions" of naturalism that were as much a matter of faith as those of "creation theory". In November of that year, Thaxton described his reasoning

3758:, "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." 3125:

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

2799:

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

2108:

published three articles. In the first, David K. DeWolf, John G. West and Casey Luskin, all of the Discovery Institute, argued that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, the Jones court should not have addressed the question of whether it was a scientific theory, and that the Kitzmiller

1206:

Asserting the need for a designer of complexity also raises the question "What designed the designer?" Intelligent design proponents say that the question is irrelevant to or outside the scope of intelligent design. Richard Wein counters that "...scientific explanations often create new unanswered

551:

opposition to teaching evolution and resulted in the origins of modern creationism. As a result, teaching of evolution was effectively suspended in U.S. public schools until the 1960s, and when evolution was then reintroduced into the curriculum, there was a series of court cases in which attempts

7353:

But there are also Jewish voices in the intelligent design camp. David Klinghoffer, a Discovery Institute fellow, is an ardent advocate of intelligent design. In an article in The Forward (August 12, 2005), he claimed that Jewish thinkers have largely ignored intelligent design and contended that

2079:

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

1844:

was open). Intelligent design is distinct because it asserts repeated miraculous interventions in addition to designed laws. This contrasts with other major religious traditions of a created world in which God's interactions and influences do not work in the same way as physical causes. The Roman

1773:

for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards. The Discovery Institute says that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals, but critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim and state intelligent design proponents

1287:

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

8910:

Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called 'flaws' in the theory of evolution or 'disagreements' within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific 'alternatives' to

3876:

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

2630:

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

1729:

For any theory, hypothesis, or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

1455:

Not all creationist organizations have embraced the intelligent design movement. According to Thomas Dixon, "Religious leaders have come out against ID too. An open letter affirming the compatibility of Christian faith and the teaching of evolution, first produced in response to controversies in

911:

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

1785:

definition. The characteristics of intelligence are assumed by intelligent design proponents to be observable without specifying what the criteria for the measurement of intelligence should be. Critics say that the design detection methods proposed by intelligent design proponents are radically

1616:

presents five such cases. The film contends that the mainstream science establishment, in a "scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation's laboratories and classrooms", suppresses academics who believe they see evidence of intelligent design in nature or criticize evidence of evolution.

2050:

and decision, ruling that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional, and barring intelligent design from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms. On November 8, 2005, there had been an election in which the eight Dover school board members who voted for the

933:

Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially. They argue that something that is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary as other components

3845:

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

2248:

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

1207:

questions. But, in assessing the value of an explanation, these questions are not irrelevant. They must be balanced against the improvements in our understanding which the explanation provides. Invoking an unexplained being to explain the origin of other beings (ourselves) is little more than

1007:

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

2237:). 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 787:

scientist, and thought, "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term." In two successive 1987 drafts of the book, over one hundred uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "Creation Science", were changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent design", while

1430:

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

1097:

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

840:(NCSE) has criticized the book for presenting all of the basic arguments of intelligent design proponents and being actively promoted for use in public schools before any research had been done to support these arguments. Although presented as a scientific textbook, philosopher of science 8266:

One spokesman comes close to articulating a thought about Intelligent Design: '"If you define evolution precisely, though, to mean the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection – that's a textbook definition of

1816:

In his conclusion to the Kitzmiller trial, Judge John E. Jones III wrote that "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." This same argument had been put forward to support creation science at the

873: 1523:. Others in the scientific community have denounced its tactics, accusing the ID movement of manufacturing false attacks against evolution, of engaging in misinformation and misrepresentation about science, and marginalizing those who teach it. More recently, in September 2012, 3328:... 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.' 3591:

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

2318:, declared that: "Catholic scientists already accepted the theory of evolution for a long time and that intelligent design and creationism doesn't belong in Flemish Catholic schools. It's not the tasks of the politics to introduce new ideas, that's task and goal of science." 1410:

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

1576:

commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support, these polls suffer from considerable flaws, such as having a low response rate (248 out of 16,000), being conducted on behalf of an organization with an expressed interest in the outcome of the poll, and containing

964:

when claiming that messages transmitted by DNA in the cell were specified by intelligence, and must have originated with an intelligent agent. The intelligent design concept of "specified complexity" was developed in the 1990s by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian

1738:". Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena and that supernatural explanations provide a simple and intuitive explanation for the origins of life and the universe. Many intelligent design followers believe that " 608:

design through God-given laws, intelligent design seeks scientific confirmation of repeated supposedly miraculous interventions in the history of life. "Creation science" prefigured the intelligent design arguments of irreducible complexity, even featuring the bacterial

1730:

Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not scientifically useful, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, progressive, or provisional.

2338:, raised the notion of intelligent design being taught in science classes. The public outcry caused the minister to quickly concede that the correct forum for intelligent design, if it were to be taught, is in religion or philosophy classes. The Australian chapter of 3369:

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

912:

design advocates assert that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selectable function is present only when all parts are assembled. Behe argued that irreducibly complex biological mechanisms include the bacterial flagellum of

489:, asserting that certain biological and informational features of living things are too complex to be the result of natural selection. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible. 998:

The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument has been discredited in the scientific and mathematical communities. Specified complexity has yet to be shown to have wide applications in other fields, as Dembski asserts. John Wilkins and

3745:

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

1116:

terms and intentionally avoids identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) they posit. Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene. Dembski, in

1271:

have been staged primarily in the United States, although efforts have been made in other countries to promote intelligent design. Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of

1146:

religion as a real-life example of an extraterrestrial intelligent designer view that "make many of the same bad arguments against evolutionary theory as creationists". The authoritative description of intelligent design, however, explicitly states that the

1789:

Among a significant proportion of the general public in the United States, the major concern is whether conventional evolutionary biology is compatible with belief in God and in the Bible, and how this issue is taught in schools. The Discovery Institute's

1620:

The film portrays intelligent design as motivated by science, rather than religion, though it does not give a detailed definition of the phrase or attempt to explain it on a scientific level. Other than briefly addressing issues of irreducible complexity,

1547:

to present intelligent design as scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support, with Institute members continuing to cite the list through at least 2011. As part of a strategy to counter these claims, scientists organised

1691:

Advocates of intelligent design seek to keep God and the Bible out of the discussion, and present intelligent design in the language of science as though it were a scientific hypothesis. For a theory to qualify as scientific, it is expected to be:

1667:

has denounced the film's allegation that evolutionary theory influenced the Holocaust. The film includes interviews with scientists and academics who were misled into taking part by misrepresentation of the topic and title of the film. Skeptic

816:

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

1868:

Further, repeated interventions imply that the original design was not perfect and final, and thus pose a problem for any who believe that the Creator's work had been both perfect and final. Intelligent design proponents seek to explain the

1852:

The concept of direct miraculous intervention raises other potential theological implications. If such a Designer does not intervene to alleviate suffering even though capable of intervening for other reasons, some imply the designer is not

8822:

The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to 'teach the controversy.' There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity (cf. the ongoing events in Kansas), and it is a scientific

563:

The argument from design, also known as the teleological argument or "argument from intelligent design", has been presented by theologists for centuries. A sufficiently succinct summary of the argument from design shows its unscientific,

5240:

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

3213:

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

2367:, a notable Pakistani-Canadian Muslim, signed "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", a petition from the Discovery Institute. Ideas similar to intelligent design have been considered respected intellectual options among Muslims, and in 1733:

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

908:. Behe defines it as "a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". 2644:, "...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." 2051:

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.

8307: 469:

trial, which found that intelligent design was not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore violated the

1158:

Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science. For example,

1663:, was refused admission. The American Association for the Advancement of Science describes the film as dishonest and divisive propaganda aimed at introducing religious ideas into public school science classrooms, and the 848:

lawyer described it as a political tool aimed at students who did not "know science or understand the controversy over evolution and creationism". One of the authors of the science framework used by California schools,

2276:

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".

1769:

supporting ID in a scientific journal, and has failed to publish supporting peer-reviewed research or data. The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was

2802:

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

2292:, described as a "molecular geneticist, staunch atheist and opponent of intelligent design". As a reaction on this situation in the Netherlands, the Director General of the Flemish Secretariat of Catholic Education ( 1093:; 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 3500:

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

3537:, 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. 659:

as a more sophisticated form of Paley's argument from design. At a conference that Thaxton held in 1988 ("Sources of Information Content in DNA"), he said that his intelligent cause view was compatible with both

1932:. 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. 1831:

Intelligent design proponents often insist that their claims do not require a religious component. However, various philosophical and theological issues are naturally raised by the claims of intelligent design.

1276:. Intelligent design proponents allege that science should not be limited to naturalism and should not demand the adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that dismisses out-of-hand any explanation that includes a 8451:. Chapter 2 discusses the scientific method, including the principles of falsifiability, testability, progressive development of theory, dynamic self-correcting of hypotheses, and parsimony, or "Occam's razor". 4998: 5537: 3669:, 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, 3517:, 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). 726:

defended creation science by stating that "biomolecular systems require intelligent design and engineering know-how", citing Wilder-Smith. Creationist Richard B. Bliss used the phrase "creative design" in

12219: 5604: 3710:

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."

1538:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

973:

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.

2113:

responded, arguing that the decision was extremely well reasoned and spells the death knell for the intelligent design efforts to introduce creationism in public schools, while in the third, DeWolf,

1948:

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

600:

seen in nature must have been designed. He went on to argue that the perfection and diversity of these designs supposedly shows the designer to be omnipotent and that this can supposedly only be the

3935:

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

496:

inherent in modern science, though proponents concede that they have yet to produce a scientific theory. As a positive argument against evolution, ID proposes an analogy between natural systems and

2268:(DUP) – which has links to fundamentalist Christianity – has been campaigning to have intelligent design taught in science classes. A DUP former Member of Parliament, 3787:'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.' 5264: 4634: 4614: 3641: 3612: 2825: 2752: 4421:, "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 8267:

neo-Darwinism – biologists of the first rank have real questions... 'Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence.'

2375:

in 2007, public meetings promoting intelligent design were sponsored by the local government, and David Berlinski of the Discovery Institute was the keynote speaker at a meeting in May 2007.

2867:

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.

766:

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

6209: 1507:

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

2104:

The decision has been examined in a search for flaws and conclusions, partly by intelligent design supporters aiming to avoid future defeats in court. In its Winter issue of 2007, the

703:

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.

2245:

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.

2162:

of allegations of intimidation and retaliation found no evidence that it had occurred. The vast majority of the bills have been unsuccessful, with the one exception being Louisiana's

4363: 1423:], 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 568:, and thereby illogical reasoning, for example as follows: "Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex and therefore nature must have had an 308: 9038:, p. 484, "... probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed by the Creator." 4080: 2154:. Their aim has been to expose more students to articles and videos produced by advocates of intelligent design that criticise evolution. They have been presented as supporting " 392:

about life's origins". Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as

7430:: "Among Muslims involved with ID, the most notable is Muzaffar Iqbal, a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, a leading ID organization." 6966: 5644:

concludes that "objects" that "the great Author" has supplied in "the great store-house of nature" give "evidence of infinite skill and intelligent design in their adaptation".

2221:

had distributed DVDs produced by Illustra Media featuring Discovery Institute fellows making the case for design in nature, and claimed they were being used by 59 schools, the

9435: 3554:", 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. 2395:. The book included contributions from intelligent design advocates William A. Dembski, Jonathan Wells and Michael Behe as well as from Hindu creationists Leif A. Jensen and 2484: 251: 7332: 4376: 2117:, answer the points made by Irons. However, fear of a similar lawsuit has resulted in other school boards abandoning intelligent design "teach the controversy" proposals. 2272:, has sought assurances from the education minister that pupils will not lose marks if they give creationist or intelligent design answers to science questions. In 2007, 10558: 3809: 1216: 7384:, "In contrast to the other would-be pioneers of Intelligent Design, Denton describes himself as an agnostic, and his book was released by a secular publishing house." 1750:

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.

995:: 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. 10220: 14943: 5534: 2226: 1074:, 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. 9873: 4404: 4248: 9374: 8964: 8599: 6076: 5066: 4897: 4760: 3896: 3666: 3645: 3616: 3534: 2225:(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 4400:. 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. 1572:, 10% of adults in the United States viewed human beings as "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them." Although 1376:. Phillip E. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments that are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic 9756: 5941: 1999:

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

1877:

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.

7786: 5991: 5616: 400:

that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the

9716: 9670: 9572: 4846:

Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe: Papers Presented at a Conference Sponsored by the Wethersfield Institute, New York City, September 25, 1999

3130:. 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." 1471:

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

9849: 9821: 2828:, pages 26–27, "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Examples include: 2222: 2109:

decision will have no effect at all on the development and adoption of intelligent design as an alternative to standard evolutionary theory. In the second

429:, a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to 2807:'. Lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation of some phenomena (a 'gap' in scientific knowledge) is claimed to be evidence of an intelligent designer. 1034:

Intelligent design proponents have also occasionally appealed to broader teleological arguments outside of biology, most notably an argument based on the

5656: 4422: 2004: 1603:

There have been allegations that ID proponents have met discrimination, such as being refused tenure or being harshly criticized on the Internet. In the

1516: 456: 4318: 9394: 9049: 7059: 6958: 4764: 11033: 5879: 4255: 3145: 2464: 2308: 475: 260: 8777:

ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser

4900:, p. 68. "lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology." 14039: 12678: 12326: 10268: 4906: 2771: 2242: 2238: 1652: 1544: 1268: 269: 176: 167: 7517: 3846:

orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of 'peer review' that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows.

9829: 8980: 6258: 2384: 2058:

Moreover, ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the

6143: 4412:: List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism in the sciences. 604:. Like "creation science", intelligent design centers on Paley's religious argument from design, but while Paley's natural theology was open to 463:(IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute, advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula. This led to the 2005 15624: 9223: 8887: 6501: 1094: 8840: 8689: 5910: 11280: 11177: 7446:: "Muzaffar Iqbal, president of the Center for Islam and Science, has recently endorsed work by intelligent design theorist William Dembski." 6614: 4431:, "There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth." 2779: 2499: 2331: 2256:

lobbying group has the goal of "countering creationism within the UK" and has been involved in government lobbying in the UK in this regard.

1062:

argues that if any of these values were even slightly different, the universe would be dramatically different, making it impossible for many

13864: 9086: 6574: 16110: 10855: 10601: 10490: 10429: 8419: 3056: 1338: 360: 199: 6033: 5533:, and said "...it will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of Evolution may be guided by an intelligent design." 1435:

movement. She lists connections of (current and former) Discovery Institute Fellows Phillip E. Johnson, Charles B. Thaxton, Michael Behe,

938:

does not add up to a logical proof." Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the

16105: 6901: 4094: 3648:, p. 66. That intelligent design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that it violates a basic premise of science, naturalism. 2269: 556:(YECs) promoted "creation science" as "an alternative scientific explanation of the world in which we live". This frequently invoked the 10240: 7991: 2066:. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. 1774:

have set up their own journals with peer review that lack impartiality and rigor, consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.

14007: 11043: 9324: (United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania December 20, 2005). Memorandum and Order, July 27, 2005. 8802: 8335: 8165: 3720: 3271: 2424: 2261: 13980: 4945: 3683: 2356:, one of Australia's leading private schools, supported use of the DVD in the classroom at the discretion of teachers and principals. 13725: 12285: 12226: 10043: 3899:, p. 81. "For human artifacts, we know the designer's identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon 1659:. Review screenings were restricted to churches and Christian groups, and at a special pre-release showing, one of the interviewees, 9445: 5390: 2671: 15693: 13736: 11061: 9388: 9368: 9315: 8958: 8593: 7663: 7053: 6070: 5883: 5729: 5258: 5060: 4891: 4842:"The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories" 4754: 4628: 4608: 4370: 3890: 3660: 3635: 3606: 3566: 3528: 2746: 1975: 1132: 939: 540: 504:. ID proponents then conclude by analogy that the complex features, as defined by ID, are evidence of design. Critics of ID find a 465: 156: 4494: 13798: 12190: 11159: 10187: 4809: 1924:

The gap is filled with acts of God (or intelligent designer) and therefore proves the existence of God (or intelligent designer).

991:(CSI) as anything with a less than 1 in 10 chance of occurring by (natural) chance. Critics say that this renders the argument a 596:

argued that a watch has evidently been designed by a craftsman and that it is supposedly just as evident that the complexity and

13908: 7851: 7340: 7012: 5679: 773: 14110: 12719: 10926: 8217: 7354:

Jews, along with Christians, should adopt the theory because beliefs in God and in natural selection are fundamentally opposed.

3914: 3457: 2293: 1984: 294: 9335: 6821: 3036:, showed that gradual evolutionary mechanisms can produce complex protein-protein interaction systems from simpler precursors. 15698: 11384: 10659: 10570: 9905: 7016: 6829: 5217: 4857: 3829: 3193: 2580: 2230: 1512: 837: 8086: 5283: 2011:. The National Center for Science Education acted as consultants for the plaintiffs. The defendants were represented by the 1058:, as well as the ratios of masses of such particles. Intelligent design proponent and Center for Science and Culture fellow 1038:

that make matter and life possible and that are argued not to be solely attributable to chance. These include the values of

30:

This article is about a specific pseudoscientific form of creationism. For generic arguments from "intelligent design", see

14479: 12319: 11636: 10162: 6991:...for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience. 6058:"This paper was originally presented in the Summer of 1994 at the meeting of the C.S. Lewis Society, Cambridge University." 3481: 3311: 2692: 2648: 2253: 1836:

reject the possibility of a Designer who works merely through setting natural laws in motion at the outset, in contrast to

1456:

Wisconsin in 2004, has now been signed by over ten thousand clergy from different Christian denominations across America."

9546: 8993: 7313: 3448: 2093:

Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.

1211:. The new question raised by the explanation is as problematic as the question which the explanation purports to answer." 10137: 9180: 8931: 8865:

model lesson plan is a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label.

4833: 4384: 2504: 1531: 1223:

from which intelligent design proponents can only escape by resorting to religious creationism or logical contradiction.

39: 5099: 3048:. This article draws from the following exchange of letters in which Behe admits to sloppy prose and non-logical proof: 1263:

The movement is headquartered in the Center for Science and Culture, established in 1996 as the creationist wing of the

15642: 14437: 13881: 13859: 12611: 12594: 12239: 11038: 10794: 10752: 10711: 9151: 8573: 7561: 6191: 4390: 1553: 1188: 438: 17: 8055: 4425:

voted on a motion calling upon member states to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline."

15652: 13138: 9792: 8363: 8227: 7732: 5503: 4041: 2574: 2298: 2143: 1770: 1608: 1598: 810:

came up..." In December 1988 Thaxton decided to use the label "intelligent design" for his new creationist movement.

640: 299: 9857: 9833: 9768: 7314:"The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream" 2836: 1284:" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". 15883: 15502: 14176: 14105: 11614: 11411: 10848: 10345: 7794: 4955: 2353: 2098: 353: 182: 10129: 9983: 9736: 9690: 9622: 9592: 7882:"Doubts Over Evolution Mount With Over 300 Scientists Expressing Skepticism With Central Tenet of Darwin's Theory" 1568:, which sought to determine the level of support for intelligent design among certain groups. According to a 2005 1552:, which gained more signatories named Steve (or variants) than the Institute's petition, and a counter-petition, " 1388:

of deliberately disguising the religious intent of intelligent design has been described by William A. Dembski in

1140: 13765: 13423: 13336: 12312: 12264: 12206: 11922: 11739: 11401: 9881: 8658:"Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)" 7630: 6861: 6217: 6084: 4224:"CSC – Frequently Asked Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design?" 4132: 2514: 2459: 2206: 2163: 1625:

examines it as a political issue. The scientific theory of evolution is portrayed by the film as contributing to

1476: 1059: 1039: 13970: 12535: 9281: 8998:

Covalence: The Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science and Technology

8138: 8119: 1873:

by insisting that we have simply failed to understand the perfection of the design (for example, proposing that

15647: 15005: 11258: 10593: 9880:(Resolution). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. October 4, 2007. Resolution 1580. Archived from 7999: 6352: 6125:"This is a pre-publication copy of an article that appeared in 'Debating Design from Darwin to DNA,' edited by 6007: 4405:"...urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science." 4228: 3200: 3073: 2653: 2474: 2469: 2000: 1686: 1569: 1252: 845: 683: 240: 150: 140: 10063: 6931: 4572: 2054:

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

1443:

to leading Christian Reconstructionist organizations, and the extent of the funding provided the Institute by

15718: 15271: 14794: 14371: 14361: 14065: 13715: 13548: 13341: 13200: 13051: 12059: 8735: 8657: 8387: 8026:"Sandia National Laboratories says that the Intelligent Design Network (IDNet-NM/Zogby) 'Lab Poll' is BOGUS!" 7525: 7013:"National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush" 5948: 5487:...ntelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory. 4331: 3937: 3728: 3248: 2937: 2344: 988: 245: 10112:

The inter-relationship of Science and Religious Education in a cultural context: Teaching the origin of life

10083: 9112: 6975: 2062:, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a 1300:

the Bible. Recognizing the need for support, the Institute affirms its Christian, evangelistic orientation:

1219:. In the absence of observable, measurable evidence, the question "What designed the designer?" leads to an 1195:

puts forward a core definition that the designer creates for a purpose, giving the example that in his view

15524: 15507: 15229: 15069: 14504: 14420: 14393: 13690: 12271: 11526: 9408: 5661: 4719: 2434: 2339: 2285: 2170: 1504: 960:

In 1986, Charles B. Thaxton, a physical chemist and creationist, used the term "specified complexity" from

8893:. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006. Archived from 8503: 7908: 5887: 3769: 1098:

mathematicians and physicists suggest that the emergence of a universe similar to ours is quite probable.

16100: 16072: 14821: 14383: 13854: 13844: 13791: 13102: 13059: 12589: 12579: 12292: 11882: 11599: 11152: 10841: 10651: 10197: 9856:(Report). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. September 17, 2007. Doc. 11375. Archived from 9215: 7935: 7368:, "Michael Denton, an agnostic, argues for intelligent design in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 326–343." 5564: 2974: 2494: 1432: 1232: 822: 460: 346: 334: 130: 58: 35: 16016: 9171: 6856: 2210: 16058: 15888: 15750: 15662: 15032: 14571: 14123: 14055: 13064: 12729: 12694: 12490: 12278: 12009: 11952: 11476: 10898: 9493: 9184:. Stanford, Calif.: The Metaphysics Research Lab. Section 4.3, The "Intelligent Design" (ID) Movement. 7395:"CSC – Frequently Asked Questions: General Questions: Is Discovery Institute a religious organization?" 6763: 6094: 4276: 4125:"Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience" 2700: 2489: 2126: 2040: 1996: 1143: 821:

in a glossary and representing it as not being creationism. It thus represents the start of the modern

9926: 9321: 1781:

design makes use of an assumption of the quality of an observable intelligence, a concept that has no

15845: 15514: 15129: 15124: 15054: 14799: 14784: 14595: 14511: 14138: 13283: 12744: 11892: 11339: 11055: 10744: 10434: 8699: 8051: 6157: 6045: 6041: 5600:'s view that the overlapping changes of species found in geology had needed "intelligent direction": 4778: 4223: 3060: 2265: 1870: 1402: 1334: 1183: 1179: 706:

Variations on the phrase appeared in Young Earth creationist publications: a 1967 book co-written by

493: 10157: 8894: 7163: 4920: 4388:

petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 700 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. The four-day

2284:

to "stimulate an academic debate" on the subject in 2005 caused a severe public backlash. After the

1077:

Scientists have generally responded that these arguments are poorly supported by existing evidence.

539:

In 1910, evolution was not a topic of major religious controversy in America, but in the 1920s, the

15850: 15607: 15519: 15281: 14995: 14968: 14898: 14759: 14615: 14526: 14400: 13401: 13331: 13152: 12917: 12846: 12841: 12540: 11850: 11744: 11710: 11594: 10278: 8848: 8703: 8249: 8222: 7460: 5918: 4033: 2586: 2454: 2388: 1672:

describes his experience of being repeatedly asked the same question without context as "surreal".

1617:

Investigation into these allegations turned up alternative explanations for perceived persecution.

1220: 548: 10397: 10300:

Enserink, Martin (June 3, 2005). "Evolution Politics: Is Holland Becoming the Kansas of Europe?".

7246: 6625: 5265:

s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy

4635:

s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy

4615:

s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy

3642:

s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy

3613:

s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy

3383:"Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 2" 3105: 2903:

This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy.

2826:

s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy

2753:

s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy

2612:"Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 1" 2075:

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

1082: 904:, though he had already described the concept in his contributions to the 1993 revised edition of 16002: 15815: 15780: 15708: 15667: 15619: 15477: 15296: 15254: 15219: 15199: 14963: 14118: 14085: 13827: 13776: 13598: 13313: 13253: 13245: 12942: 12937: 12724: 12709: 12574: 12257: 12175: 11927: 11609: 11548: 11319: 11017: 11007: 10936: 10703: 10158:"The UK [government's] position on creationism and Intelligent Design in science classes" 9515: 9090: 9060: 8468: 8312: 8003: 7829: 7577: 6585: 5529:

for June 1897, evaluated objections to "what has been called the Argument from Design" raised by

5525: 4790: 2544: 2534: 2519: 1929: 1810: 1585: 1457: 1280:

cause. The overall goal of the movement is to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist

1273: 798:]. In June 1988, Thaxton held a conference titled "Sources of Information Content in DNA" in 759:

Use of the terms "creationism" versus "intelligent design" in sequential drafts of the 1989 book

660: 622: 618: 553: 16030: 11574: 8427: 5818: 2879: 1288:

movement are the products of the Discovery Institute, which guides the movement and follows its

15335: 15204: 15169: 14620: 14521: 14494: 14432: 13985: 13928: 13923: 13784: 13195: 13014: 12631: 12626: 12335: 12089: 11957: 11870: 11845: 11835: 11693: 11396: 11263: 11145: 10903: 10382: 7581: 7158: 6439: 5559: 4684: 3140: 2414: 2327: 2139: 2012: 1664: 1656: 1527:

warned that creationist views threaten science education and innovations in the United States.

1248: 877: 867: 789: 482: 95: 9409:"Dover Intelligent Design Decision Criticized as a Futile Attempt to Censor Science Education" 7698: 7381: 7139:"Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism" 6909: 6108: 5849: 4124: 3957: 3236:

worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

2657:. New York: American Civil Liberties Union. September 16, 2005. Who is behind the ID movement? 1241:

The Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture used banners based on

970: 15800: 15683: 15497: 15303: 15276: 15266: 15234: 15224: 15189: 15104: 15049: 15044: 15027: 14973: 14811: 14764: 14625: 14489: 14410: 14266: 14080: 14012: 14002: 13943: 13849: 13837: 13730: 13685: 13623: 13613: 12952: 12816: 12661: 12651: 12636: 12584: 12094: 12079: 11972: 11604: 11543: 11538: 11431: 11067: 11002: 9141: 8763: 8563: 7551: 7443: 7427: 5422: 3943: 3425: 3417: 2564: 2539: 2234: 1791: 1503:

is that intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science curriculum. The U.S.

1465: 1397: 1293: 1124: 942:, the court held that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in 900: 886: 557: 530: 74: 31: 14128: 8339: 4650: 3732: 3281: 2264:

says that the curriculum provides an opportunity for alternative theories to be taught. The

1267:

to promote a religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes. The

15970: 15825: 15785: 15539: 15492: 15313: 15261: 15184: 15174: 15074: 15037: 15017: 14948: 14938: 14346: 14336: 14293: 14271: 14226: 14169: 14022: 13997: 13960: 13938: 13876: 13871: 13822: 13720: 13165: 13097: 13040: 13024: 13009: 12989: 12947: 12821: 12666: 12656: 12641: 12606: 12601: 12569: 12084: 12044: 11715: 11626: 11521: 11314: 11243: 11126: 11049: 10640: 10011: 8725: 7150: 7085: 6668: 6320: 5624: 5007: 4644: 3690: 3440: 2992: 2591: 2449: 2281: 2217:

that teach the ethos of particular denominations. When it was revealed that a group called

1809:

and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are

1782: 1500: 1496: 1444: 1243: 1208: 1119: 1107: 992: 955: 768: 750: 671: 569: 486: 471: 443: 425: 420: 110: 100: 13933: 13363: 8827: 7138: 3403:— Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. 2978: 2783: 2756:

a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. ...

1725:

Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

1706:

Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used in a predictive manner)

1534:", with the claim that listed scientists had signed this statement expressing skepticism: 8: 15765: 15688: 15597: 15482: 15330: 15308: 15214: 15194: 15059: 14918: 14903: 14816: 14583: 14536: 14317: 14143: 14133: 14100: 13975: 13918: 13891: 13705: 13406: 13278: 13157: 12826: 12749: 12739: 12616: 12500: 12495: 12180: 12014: 11324: 11108: 11093: 11083: 10992: 9440: 9340: 8810: 7518:"Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris" 6296: 5788: 5588: 5396: 5151: 4689: 4233: 3486: 3452: 3413: 3349: 3113: 3078: 2616: 2549: 2479: 2429: 2326:

The status of intelligent design in Australia is somewhat similar to that in the UK (see

2147: 2135: 1992: 1958: 1949: 1881: 1440: 1322: 1264: 1086: 1055: 1035: 1029: 601: 452: 423:, its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in 401: 235: 105: 10520: 9282:"Intelligent Design on Trial: Kitzmiller v. Dover National Center for Science Education" 8552:. Johnson positions himself as a "theistic realist" against "methodological naturalism". 8280: 7673: 7154: 7089: 6672: 5044: 5011: 3578: 2996: 1135:

illustrates an appeal to intelligent design in science. In 2000, philosopher of science

853:, condemned it for its "sub-text", "intolerance for honest science" and "incompetence". 16120: 16115: 15878: 15830: 15244: 15079: 15064: 14923: 14739: 14610: 14556: 14288: 14075: 14060: 14034: 14027: 13913: 13832: 13695: 13653: 13563: 13528: 13303: 13268: 13170: 13112: 13074: 13069: 12905: 12895: 12699: 12671: 12621: 12412: 12250: 12149: 12124: 11962: 11787: 11621: 11569: 11456: 11436: 11191: 11088: 11012: 10893: 10878: 10327: 9487: 8826:

Dembski's response to Eugenie Scott's February 12, 2001, essay published by Metanexus,

8463: 8338:. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Archived from 7762: 7727: 7668: 7589: 7184: 7109: 6959:"Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design" 6866: 6464: 6377: 6250: 6242: 5758: 5459: 5209: 5201: 5030: 4993: 4814: 4805: 4724: 4326: 4175: 3900: 3267: 3101: 3016: 2871: 2554: 2419: 2313: 2151: 1933: 1837: 1819: 1484: 1461: 1416: 1370: 1342: 1200: 1192: 1000: 980: 966: 961: 826: 803: 799: 776:

for a state to require the teaching of creationism in public school science curricula.

711: 651: 593: 565: 534: 209: 204: 79: 46: 13458: 13411: 11589: 7394: 5762: 4819: 4319:"Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals" 4032:(Expanded ed., 1st Harvard University Press pbk. ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: 1719:

Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)

1716:

Based on multiple observations (often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments)

15985: 15955: 15760: 15713: 15569: 15559: 15380: 15375: 15370: 15340: 15179: 15164: 15119: 15109: 15094: 15089: 15022: 14958: 14953: 14856: 14691: 14588: 14566: 14516: 14474: 14464: 14378: 14256: 14196: 13992: 13948: 13901: 13755: 13751: 13633: 13618: 13288: 13235: 13215: 13117: 13107: 13034: 12863: 12853: 12646: 12434: 12354: 12212: 12185: 12114: 11782: 11770: 11722: 11678: 11584: 11226: 11216: 10982: 10956: 10808: 10800: 10790: 10778: 10766: 10758: 10748: 10725: 10717: 10707: 10673: 10665: 10655: 10636: 10532: 10458: 10331: 10319: 10302: 10192: 9728: 9682: 9641: 9584: 9520: 9232: 9185: 9147: 9005: 8694: 8632: 8624: 8569: 8525: 8477: 8368: 8191: 7859: 7767: 7749: 7634: 7593: 7557: 7468: 7176: 7113: 7101: 6686: 6610: 6570: 6511: 6468: 6456: 6381: 6369: 6234: 6080: 5999: 5709: 5628: 5530: 5520: 5471: 5428: 5330: 5293: 5231: 5223: 5213: 5176: 5168: 5035: 4871: 4863: 4853: 4698: 4552: 4467: 4167: 4159: 4055: 4047: 4037: 4023: 3859: 3821: 3774: 3574: 3461: 3382: 3353: 3242: 3008: 2983: 2887: 2846: 2832: 2705: 2559: 2191: 2032: 2024: 2020: 1761:

of science well done: the God explanation is the least parsimonious, so according to

1508: 1346: 1136: 1090: 1078: 497: 393: 389: 13258: 9345: 9050:"Making the Task of Theodicy Impossible? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evil" 8087:"'Intelligent Design'-ers launch new assault on curriculum using lies and deception" 7188: 7020: 6435:"The Advantages of Theft over Toil: The Design Inference and Arguing from Ignorance" 6254: 5519:

Dao states that the Discovery Institute said the phrase may have first been used by

5463: 5356: 4179: 3922: 3689:(Letter). The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity. September 9, 2005. Archived from 2886:. Vol. 11, no. 28. Asheville, N.C.: God's World Publications. p. 18. 2611: 15960: 15925: 15900: 15613: 15587: 15549: 15355: 15291: 15239: 15144: 15134: 15114: 15000: 14990: 14908: 14861: 14831: 14806: 14774: 14734: 14674: 14605: 14444: 14017: 13955: 13808: 13658: 13521: 13491: 13481: 13476: 13373: 13358: 13004: 12900: 12734: 12554: 12525: 12464: 12402: 12154: 11855: 11814: 11776: 11698: 11668: 11663: 11466: 10972: 10786: 10738: 10315: 10311: 8517: 8504:"Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection" 7790: 7757: 7741: 7168: 7093: 6833: 6768: 6676: 6659: 6448: 6361: 6340: 6226: 5875: 5620: 5160: 5025: 5015: 4916: 4457: 4149: 4141: 4076: 4028: 3962: 3276: 3020: 3000: 2953: 2676: 2569: 2257: 2218: 2155: 2047: 1892:, set out theological reasons for accepting evolution in an August 2005 article in 1885: 1762: 1735: 1700: 1604: 1578: 1325:. Stuart Burgess, Phillip E. Johnson, William A. Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer are 1063: 1047: 1016: 914: 693: 647: 526: 501: 448: 385: 381: 277: 219: 115: 8781:

heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former

2175:

Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K–12 Public Schools in the United States

560:

to explain complexity in nature as supposedly demonstrating the existence of God.

15950: 15930: 15910: 15905: 15895: 15790: 15425: 15415: 15400: 15360: 15325: 15318: 15249: 15209: 14978: 14851: 14841: 14749: 14706: 14686: 14415: 14366: 14162: 14095: 14090: 14070: 13665: 13648: 13603: 13593: 13538: 13511: 13448: 13443: 13428: 13353: 13089: 13079: 12714: 12704: 12505: 12382: 12170: 12138: 12024: 11999: 11688: 11653: 11648: 11564: 11496: 11416: 11389: 11379: 11374: 11309: 10997: 10977: 10913: 10697: 9211: 9175: 8508: 8096: 8091: 7719: 7618: 6408: 6148: 5541: 5386: 4950: 4314: 4120: 3801: 3064: 2804: 2635: 2524: 2444: 2439: 2289: 2008: 1914: 1858: 1854: 1669: 1472: 1436: 1400:" as two possible options for the identity of the designer; however, in his book 1358: 1330: 1309: 1212: 1011: 699:

While intelligent design proponents have pointed out past examples of the phrase

696:, while still presenting ID as supporting the argument for the existence of God. 636: 628: 505: 120: 8758: 7622: 7073: 6288:"Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates: A critique of William Dembski's book 5322: 2772:"Guidance on the place of creationism and intelligent design in science lessons" 1260:

and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism".

16084: 15975: 15920: 15873: 15855: 15657: 15405: 15395: 15390: 15365: 15159: 15139: 15012: 14983: 14933: 14866: 14836: 14826: 14789: 14711: 14669: 14664: 14546: 14541: 14531: 14449: 14427: 14261: 14251: 13638: 13628: 13568: 13516: 13453: 13348: 13273: 13230: 13210: 12999: 12875: 12836: 12530: 12520: 12515: 12439: 12144: 12119: 12109: 12104: 12069: 12064: 12039: 11732: 11673: 11506: 11471: 11269: 11211: 11201: 10951: 10468: 10463: 9666: 9013: 8803:"Teaching Intelligent Design – What Happened When? A Response to Eugenie Scott" 8730: 8063: 7723: 7715: 7317: 7172: 7134: 6434: 5814: 5648: 5593: 4999:

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

4849: 4579:(Blog). Berkeley, Calif.: National Center for Science Education. Archived from 4490: 4448: 4116: 3341: 2364: 2349: 2335: 2132: 2110: 2036: 1953: 1902: 1841: 1710: 1424: 1385: 1366: 1354: 1326: 1289: 723: 710:

referred to "design according to which basic organisms were created". In 1970,

707: 573: 145: 16037: 10110: 8336:"New AAAS Statement Decries 'Profound Dishonesty' of Intelligent Design Movie" 7817: 7283: 7097: 6452: 6287: 6088: 5292:(Interview). Interviewed by Andrew Stephen. Berkeley, Calif.: Kos Media, LLC. 16094: 15980: 15965: 15945: 15868: 15770: 15602: 15592: 15420: 15410: 15385: 15350: 14913: 14846: 14769: 14744: 14696: 14681: 14388: 14308: 13886: 13608: 13533: 13416: 13396: 13308: 13263: 12474: 12233: 12029: 11860: 11804: 11683: 11631: 11579: 11426: 11364: 11359: 11221: 11206: 11168: 10946: 10931: 10883: 10812: 10729: 10677: 10536: 10407: 9732: 9686: 9645: 9588: 9524: 9236: 9189: 8923: 8786: 8778: 8628: 8529: 8481: 8372: 8194:(Press release). Los Angeles: Motive Entertainment; Premise Media Corporation 7753: 7711: 7472: 7242: 7180: 7105: 6764:"The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name" 6690: 6515: 6506: 6460: 6238: 6205: 6003: 5632: 5597: 5475: 5334: 5172: 5143: 5103: 4985: 4702: 4556: 4471: 4185: 4163: 4085: 3825: 3465: 3357: 2891: 2850: 2841: 2709: 2529: 2396: 2063: 1802: 1630: 1549: 1530:

In 2001, the Discovery Institute published advertisements under the heading "

1520: 1237: 1043: 946:

research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."

927: 585: 16023: 16009: 12220:

An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural

10820: 10770: 9510: 9009: 7638: 7597: 6090:"The Collapse of Intelligent Design: Will the Next Monkey Trial be in Ohio?" 5652: 5432: 5297: 5235: 5020: 4875: 4536: 4059: 3004: 806:. Stephen C. Meyer was at the conference, and later recalled that "The term 552:

were made to get creationism taught alongside evolution in science classes.

15863: 15840: 15810: 15795: 15084: 14701: 14642: 14454: 14405: 14356: 14331: 14283: 14276: 13553: 13543: 13506: 13496: 13486: 13378: 13293: 13225: 13122: 12786: 12510: 12459: 12099: 12019: 11977: 11917: 11809: 11760: 11643: 11461: 11406: 11354: 11344: 11334: 11304: 11233: 11098: 10921: 10323: 9988: 9764: 9618: 8927: 8636: 8124: 7992:"Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God" 7771: 7659: 6373: 6344: 6126: 6029: 5180: 5139: 5083: 5039: 4911: 4271: 4171: 3953: 3444: 3052: 3012: 2214: 2085: 2028: 1941: 1889: 1874: 1806: 1480: 1277: 895: 881: 850: 841: 664: 577: 214: 9461: 8521: 7728:"Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action" 5464:"Signs of Intelligence: A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design" 4462: 4443: 4154: 2638:, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. 15940: 15935: 15915: 15835: 15755: 15564: 15469: 14779: 14754: 14726: 14655: 14600: 14578: 14326: 14303: 14298: 14241: 14236: 13573: 13558: 13438: 13433: 12979: 12912: 12831: 12796: 12776: 12444: 12304: 12004: 11765: 11491: 11481: 11349: 11299: 10888: 10864: 10693: 10459:"Brendan Nelson suggests 'intelligent design' could be taught in schools" 10273: 9466: 8392: 6759: 6650: 6404: 4989: 4848:. Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute. Vol. 9. San Francisco: 4697:(5). Interviewed by James M. Kushiner. Chicago: Fellowship of St. James. 4532: 3810:"Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution" 3707: 2854: 2509: 2409: 2016: 1945: 1846: 1420: 1377: 1362: 1160: 1112:

The contemporary intelligent design movement formulates its arguments in

1051: 943: 919: 689: 592:

presented examples of intricate purpose in organisms. His version of the

416: 397: 320: 12365: 9671:"Disaster In Dover: The Trials (And Tribulations) Of Intelligent Design" 3164:'s 'unmoved mover') as a religious answer to the origin of the designer. 1215:

sees the assertion that the designer does not need to be explained as a

788:"creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, " 631:

writes that the intelligent design movement began in 1984 with the book

15554: 15149: 14928: 14650: 14630: 14484: 14322: 13965: 13501: 13298: 13220: 13205: 12994: 12964: 12927: 12885: 12880: 12811: 12449: 12244: 12074: 12054: 12049: 11937: 11932: 11907: 11902: 11792: 11727: 11658: 11533: 11501: 11441: 11238: 10516: 10141: 9471: 6365: 5713: 5164: 4409: 3805: 2927: 2923: 1894: 1743: 1573: 1305:

the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.

1281: 1168: 755: 597: 405: 16079: 10221:"Tussle of Biblical proportions over creationism in Ulster classrooms" 6246: 5077: 5075: 3721:"Intelligent Design is not Science: Scientists and teachers speak out" 1592: 1564:

Several surveys were conducted prior to the December 2005 decision in

15820: 15544: 15529: 15487: 15099: 14659: 14499: 13643: 13368: 13190: 13019: 12984: 12969: 12932: 12349: 12129: 11947: 11897: 11865: 11840: 11705: 11511: 11486: 11451: 11253: 11196: 10377: 9117: 8612: 8397: 7825: 7745: 6153: 5789:"Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design" 5288: 5100:"A Biochemist's Response to 'The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution'" 3219:

wedge,' was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in

3161: 2932: 2199: 1937: 1739: 1713:(potentially confirmable or disprovable by experiment or observation) 1634: 1613: 1164: 935: 779:

A Discovery Institute report says that Charles B. Thaxton, editor of

610: 581: 509: 10373:

Katholieke wetenschappers hebben de evolutietheorie al lang aanvaard

8861:

Nick Matzke's analysis shows how teaching the controversy using the

8613:"Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington" 6681: 6654: 5942:"Expert Witness Report: The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design" 3567:"Professor Schneider's thoughts on Evolution and Intelligent Design" 2979:"Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation" 2393:

Rethinking Darwin: A Vedic Study of Darwinism and Intelligent Design

1699:

Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations; see

976: 15154: 14201: 13710: 13700: 13185: 13180: 13175: 13127: 12974: 12890: 12858: 12771: 12763: 12454: 12429: 12397: 12392: 11887: 11446: 11421: 11369: 11329: 11248: 11103: 10783:

The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us

10016: 9375: