This is a featured article. Click here for more information.

Page semi-protected
Intelligent design
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about a form of creationism. For generic arguments from "intelli
gent design", see Teleological argument. For the movement, see Intelligent desig
n movement. For other uses of the phrase, see Intelligent design (disambiguation
).
Part of a series on
Intelligent design
Clockwork
Watchmaker analogy
Concepts
Irreducible complexity Specified complexity Fine-tuned universe Intelligent
designer Theistic science Neo-creationism
Movement
Timeline Wedge strategy Politics Kitzmiller v. Dover
Campaigns
Discovery Institute campaigns
"Teach the Controversy"
Organisations
Discovery Institute
Center for Science and Culture
Centre for Intelligent Design
International Society for Complexity,
Information, and Design (ISCID)
Intelligent Design and
Evolution Awareness Center
Physicians and Surgeons for
Scientific Integrity
Truth in Science
Reactions
Jewish Roman Catholic
Scientific bodies that explicitly
reject Intelligent design
Creationism
Wikipedia book Book Category Category
Portal Creationism portal
v t e
Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view[1][2] that "certain feature
s of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent caus
e, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[3] Educators, philosoph
ers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argum
ent, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable
or tenable hypotheses.[4][5][6] Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based s

cientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological natura
lism inherent in modern science,[7][8] while conceding that they have yet to pro
duce a scientific theory.[9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with th
e Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United
States.[n 1] Although they state that ID is not creationism and deliberately av
oid assigning a personality to the designer, many of these proponents express be
lief that the designer is the Christian deity.[n 2]
ID presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, and its positi
ve argument is an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts,[10] a ver
sion of the theological argument from design for the existence of God.[n 3] Both
irreducible complexity and specified complexity present detailed negative asser
tions that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too
complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents then conclude by anal
ogy that these features are evidence of design.[10][n 4] Detailed scientific exa
mination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate,
and this premise of intelligent design that evidence against evolution constitutes
evidence for design has been criticized as a false dichotomy.[11][12]
Though the phrase "intelligent design" had featured previously in theological di
scussions of the design argument,[13] the first publication of the term intellig
ent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of P
andas and People,[14][15] a 1989 textbook intended for high school biology class
es. The term was substituted into drafts of the book after the 1987 United State
s Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of cr
eation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.[16] From the mid-199
0s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,
[17] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricul
a.[4] This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in whi
ch U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not sc
ience, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,
antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated
the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constituti
on,[18] often described as the "wall of separation between church and state".
Contents
1 History
1.1 Origin of the concept
1.2 Origin of the term
1.2.1 Of Pandas and People
2 Concepts
2.1 Irreducible complexity
2.2 Specified complexity
2.3 Fine-tuned Universe
2.4 Intelligent designer
3 Movement
3.1 Religion and leading proponents
3.2 Reaction from other creationist groups
3.3 Reaction from the scientific community
3.4 Polls
3.5 Allegations of discrimination against ID proponents
4 Criticism
4.1 Scientific criticism
4.2 Arguments from ignorance
4.3 Possible theological implications
4.4 God of the gaps
5 Kitzmiller trial
5.1 Reaction
6 Status outside the United States

6.1 Europe
6.2 Relation to Islam
6.3 Relation to ISKCON
6.4 Australia
7 See also
8 Notes
9 References
10 Further reading
History
Origin of the concept
See also: Creation science, Teleological argument and Watchmaker analogy
By 1910 evolution was not a topic of major religious controversy in America, but
in the 1920s the Fundamentalist Modernist Controversy in theology resulted in Fun
damentalist Christian opposition to teaching evolution, and the origins of moder
n creationism.[19] Teaching of evolution was effectively suspended in U.S. publi
c schools until the 1960s, and when evolution was then reintroduced into the cur
riculum, there was a series of court cases in which attempts were made to get cr
eationism taught alongside evolution in science classes. Young Earth creationist
s (YEC) promoted creation science as "an alternative scientific explanation of t
he world in which we live." This frequently invoked the argument from design to
explain complexity in nature as demonstrating the existence of God.[10]
The argument from design, the teleological argument or "argument from intelligen
t design," has been advanced in theology for centuries.[20] It can be summarised
briefly as "Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; na
ture is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer."[n 3] T
homas Aquinas presented it in his fifth proof of God's existence as a syllogism.
In 1802, William Paley's Natural Theology presented examples of intricate purpo
se in organisms. His version of the watchmaker analogy argued that, in the same
way that a watch has evidently been designed by a craftsman, complexity and adap
tation seen in nature must have been designed, and the perfection and diversity
of these designs shows the designer to be omnipotent, the Christian God.[21] Lik
e creation science, intelligent design centers on Paley's religious argument fro
m design,[10] but while Paley's natural theology was open to deistic design thro
ugh God-given laws, intelligent design seeks scientific confirmation of repeated
miraculous interventions in the history of life.[19] Creation science prefigure
d the intelligent design arguments of irreducible complexity, even featuring the
bacterial flagellum. In the United States, attempts to introduce creation scien
ce in schools led to court rulings that it is religious in nature, and thus cann
ot be taught in public school science classrooms. Intelligent design is also pre
sented as science, and shares other arguments with creation science but avoids l
iteral Biblical references to such things as the Flood story from the Book of Ge
nesis or using Bible verses to age the Earth.[10]
Barbara Forrest writes that the intelligent design movement began in 1984 with t
he book The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, co-written b
y creationist Charles B. Thaxton, a chemist, with two other authors, and publish
ed by Jon A. Buell's Foundation for Thought and Ethics. Thaxton held a conferenc
e in 1988, "Sources of Information Content in DNA," which attracted creationists
such as Stephen C. Meyer.[22]
In March 1986, a review by Meyer used information theory to suggest that message
s transmitted by DNA in the cell show "specified complexity" specified by intell
igence, and must have originated with an intelligent agent.[23] In November of t
hat year, Thaxton described his reasoning as a more sophisticated form of Paley'
s argument from design.[24] At the "Sources of Information Content in DNA" confe
rence in 1988, he said that his intelligent cause view was compatible with both
metaphysical naturalism and supernaturalism.[25]

Intelligent design avoids identifying or naming the intelligent designer it merely

states that one (or more) must exist but leaders of the movement have said the de
signer is the Christian God.[26][n 5][n 6] Whether this lack of specificity abou
t the designer's identity in public discussions is a genuine feature of the conc
ept, or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religi
on from the teaching of science, has been a matter of great debate between suppo
rters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dis
trict court ruling held the latter to be the case.
Origin of the term
See also: Timeline of intelligent design
Since the Middle Ages, discussion of the religious "argument from design" or "te
leological 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 explanatio
ns, they have de-emphasized their religious antecedents and denied that ID is na
tural theology, while still presenting ID as supporting the argument for the exi
stence of God.[13][27]
While intelligent design proponents have pointed out past examples of the phrase
intelligent design which they said were not creationist and faith-based, they h
ave failed to show that these usages had any influence on those who introduced t
he label in the intelligent design movement.[27][28][29]
Variations on the phrase appeared in YEC publications: a 1967 book co-written by
Percival Davis referred to "design according to which basic organisms were crea
ted." In 1970, A. E. Wilder-Smith published The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic A
pproach to Evolution which defended Paley's design argument with computer calcul
ations of the improbability of genetic sequences, which he said could not be exp
lained by evolution but required "the abhorred necessity of divine intelligent a
ctivity behind nature," and that "the same problem would be expected to beset th
e 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
Edwards v. Aguillard, Dean H. Kenyon defended creation science by stating that "
biomolecular systems require intelligent design and engineering know-how," citin
g Wilder-Smith. Creationist Richard B. Bliss used the phrase "creative design" i
n Origins: Two Models: Evolution, Creation (1976), and in Origins: Creation or E
volution (1988) wrote that "while evolutionists are trying to find non-intellige
nt ways for life to occur, the creationist insists that an intelligent design mu
st have been there in the first place."[30][31] The first systematic use of the
term, defined in a glossary and claimed to be other than creationism, was in Of
Pandas and People, co-authored by Davis and Kenyon.[28]
Of Pandas and People
Main article: Of Pandas and People
Use of the terms "creationism" versus "intelligent design" in sequential drafts
of the book Of Pandas and People.[14]
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 1987 in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard that creationism is unconstitutiona
l in public school science curricula.[14]
A Discovery Institute report says that Charles B. Thaxton, editor of Pandas, had
picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought "That's just what I nee
d, it's a good engineering term."[32] In drafts of the book, over one hundred us
es of the root word "creation," such as "creationism" and "Creation Science," we
re changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent design,"[15] while "creati
onists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign propone
ntsists" [sic].[14] In June 1988, Thaxton held a conference titled "Sources of I

nformation Content in DNA" in Tacoma, Washington,[25] and in December decided to

use the label "intelligent design" for his new creationist movement.[22] Stephe
n C. Meyer was at the conference, and later recalled that "The term intelligent
design came up..."[33]
Of Pandas and People was published in 1989, and in addition to including all the
current arguments for ID, was the first book to make systematic use of the term
s "intelligent design" and "design proponents" as well as the phrase "design the
ory," defining the term intelligent design in a glossary and representing it as
not being creationism. It thus represents the start of the modern intelligent de
sign movement.[14][28][34] "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.[35] It was the first place wh
ere the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its primary present use, as stat
ed both by its publisher Jon A. Buell,[10][36] and by William A. Dembski in his
expert witness report for Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.[37]
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has criticized the book for pre
senting all of the basic arguments of intelligent design proponents and being ac
tively promoted for use in public schools before any research had been done to s
upport these arguments.[34] Although presented as a scientific textbook, philoso
pher of science Michael Ruse considers the contents "worthless and dishonest."[3
8] An American Civil Liberties Union lawyer described it as a political tool aim
ed at students who did not "know science or understand the controversy over evol
ution and creationism." One of the authors of the science framework used by Cali
fornia schools, Kevin Padian, condemned it for its "sub-text," "intolerance for
honest science" and "incompetence."[39]
Concepts
Irreducible complexity
Main article: Irreducible complexity
The concept of irreducible complexity was popularised by Michael Behe in his 199
6 book, Darwin's Black Box.
The term "irreducible complexity" was introduced by biochemist Michael Behe in h
is 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, though he had already described the concept in
his contributions to the 1993 revised edition of Of Pandas and People.[34] Behe
defines it as "a single system which is composed of several well-matched interac
ting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one
of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."[40]
Behe uses the analogy of a mousetrap to illustrate this concept. A mousetrap con
sists of several interacting pieces the base, the catch, the spring and the hammer a
ll of which must be in place for the mousetrap to work. Removal of any one piece
destroys the function of the mousetrap. Intelligent design advocates assert tha
t natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the se
lectable function is present only when all parts are assembled. Behe argued that
irreducibly complex biological mechanisms include the bacterial flagellum of E.
coli, the blood clotting cascade, cilia, and the adaptive immune system.[41][42
]
Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the nece
ssary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have
been added sequentially.[12] They argue that something that is at first merely a
dvantageous can later become necessary as other components change. Furthermore,
they argue, evolution often proceeds by altering preexisting parts or by removin
g 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 "irr
educibly complex" building until it is complete and able to stand on its own.[n
7] Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose," and that his "argument against Da
rwinism does not add up to a logical proof."[n 8] Irreducible complexity has rem

ained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the Dover tri
al, the court held that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has b
een refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scient
ific community at large."[11]
Specified complexity
Main article: Specified complexity
In 1986, Charles B. Thaxton, a physical chemist and creationist, used the term "
specified complexity" from information theory when claiming that messages transm
itted by DNA in the cell were specified by intelligence, and must have originate
d with an intelligent agent.[23] The intelligent design concept of "specified co
mplexity" was developed in the 1990s by mathematician, philosopher, and theologi
an William A. Dembski.[43] Dembski states that when something exhibits specified
complexity (i.e., is both complex and "specified," simultaneously), one can inf
er that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rat
her than being the result of natural processes. He provides the following exampl
es: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long
sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean s
onnet is both complex and specified."[44] He states that details of living thing
s can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequenc
es in functional biological molecules such as DNA.
William A. Dembski proposed the concept of specified complexity.[45]
Dembski defines complex specified information (CSI) as anything with a less than
1 in 10150 chance of occurring by (natural) chance. Critics say that this rende
rs the argument a tautology: complex specified information cannot occur naturall
y because Dembski has defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or n
ot CSI actually exists in nature.[46][n 9][47]
The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument has been
discredited in the scientific and mathematical communities.[48][49] Specified c
omplexity has yet to be shown to have wide applications in other fields, as Demb
ski asserts. John Wilkins and Wesley R. Elsberry characterize Dembski's "explana
tory filter" as eliminative because it eliminates explanations sequentially: fir
st regularity, then chance, finally defaulting to design. They argue that this p
rocedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because the asymmetric wa
y it treats the different possible explanations renders it prone to making false
conclusions.[50]
Richard Dawkins, another critic of intelligent design, argues in The God Delusio
n (2006) that allowing for an intelligent designer to account for unlikely compl
exity only postpones the problem, as such a designer would need to be at least a
s complex.[51] Other scientists have argued that evolution through selection is
better able to explain the observed complexity, as is evident from the use of se
lective evolution to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive system
s that are considered problems too complex for human "intelligent designers."[52
]
Fine-tuned Universe
Main article: Fine-tuned Universe
Intelligent design proponents have also occasionally appealed to broader teleolo
gical arguments outside of biology, most notably an argument based on the fine-t
uning of universal constants that make matter and life possible and which are ar
gued not to be solely attributable to chance. These include the values of fundam
ental physical constants, the relative strength of nuclear forces, electromagnet
ism, and gravity between fundamental particles, as well as the ratios of masses
of such particles. Intelligent design proponent and Center for Science and Cultu
re fellow Guillermo Gonzalez argues that if any of these values were even slight
ly different, the universe would be dramatically different, making it impossible
for many chemical elements and features of the Universe, such as galaxies, to f

orm.[53] Thus, proponents argue, an intelligent designer of life was needed to e

nsure that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular outcom
e.
Scientists have generally responded that these arguments are poorly supported by
existing evidence.[54][55] Victor J. Stenger and other critics say both intelli
gent design and the weak form of the anthropic principle are essentially a tauto
logy; in his view, these arguments amount to the claim that life is able to exis
t because the Universe is able to support life.[56][57][58] The claim of the imp
robability of a life-supporting universe has also been criticized as an argument
by lack of imagination for assuming no other forms of life are possible. Life a
s we know it might not exist if things were different, but a different sort of l
ife 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 mathe
maticians and physicists suggest that the emergence of a universe similar to our
s is quite probable.[59]
Intelligent designer
Main article: Intelligent designer
The contemporary intelligent design movement formulates its arguments in secular
terms and intentionally avoids identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) th
ey posit. Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is o
ften implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could i
ntervene. Dembski, in The Design Inference (1998), speculates that an alien cult
ure could fulfill these requirements. Of Pandas and People proposes that SETI il
lustrates an appeal to intelligent design in science. In 2000, philosopher of sc
ience Robert T. Pennock suggested the Ralian UFO religion as a real-life example
of an extraterrestrial intelligent designer view that "make[s] many of the same
bad arguments against evolutionary theory as creationists".[60] The authoritativ
e description of intelligent design,[n 10] however, explicitly states that the U
niverse displays features of having been designed. Acknowledging the paradox, De
mbski concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have p
resided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."[61] The leading
proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the design
er to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.[26]
Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of cri
tics argue that existing evidence makes the design hypothesis appear unlikely, i
rrespective of its status in the world of science. For example, Jerry Coyne asks
why a designer would "give us a pathway for making vitamin C, but then destroy
it by disabling one of its enzymes" (see pseudogene) and why a designer would no
t "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 near
est mainland, even when the environments are very different" as evidence that sp
ecies were not placed there by a designer.[62] Previously, in Darwin's Black Box
, Behe had argued that we are simply incapable of understanding the designer's m
otives, so such questions cannot be answered definitively. Odd designs could, fo
r example, "...have been placed there by the designer for a reason for artistic re
asons, for variety, to show off, for some as-yet-undetected practical purpose, o
r for some unguessable reason or they might not."[63] Coyne responds that in light
of the evidence, "either life resulted not from intelligent design, but from ev
olution; or the intelligent designer is a cosmic prankster who designed everythi
ng to make it look as though it had evolved."[62]
Intelligent design proponents such as Paul Nelson avoid the problem of poor desi
gn in nature by insisting that we have simply failed to understand the perfectio
n 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 necessari
ly produce the best design they can. Behe suggests that, like a parent not wanti

ng to spoil a child with extravagant toys, the designer can have multiple motive
s for not giving priority to excellence in engineering. He says that "Another pr
oblem with the argument from imperfection is that it critically depends on a psy
choanalysis of the unidentified designer. Yet the reasons that a designer would
or would not do anything are virtually impossible to know unless the designer te
lls you specifically what those reasons are."[63] This reliance on inexplicable
motives of the designer makes intelligent design scientifically untestable. Reti
red UC Berkeley law professor, author and intelligent design advocate Phillip E.
Johnson puts forward a core definition that the designer creates for a purpose,
giving the example that in his view AIDS was created to punish immorality and i
s not caused by HIV, but such motives cannot be tested by scientific methods.[64
]
Asserting the need for a designer of complexity also raises the question "What d
esigned the designer?"[65] Intelligent design proponents say that the question i
s irrelevant to or outside the scope of intelligent design.[n 11] Richard Wein c
ounters that "...scientific explanations often create new unanswered questions.
But, in assessing the value of an explanation, these questions are not irrelevan
t. They must be balanced against the improvements in our understanding which the
explanation provides. Invoking an unexplained being to explain the origin of ot
her beings (ourselves) is little more than question-begging. The new question ra
ised by the explanation is as problematic as the question which the explanation
purports to answer."[47] Richard Dawkins sees the assertion that the designer do
es not need to be explained as a thought-terminating clich.[66][67] In the absenc
e of observable, measurable evidence, the very question "What designed the desig
ner?" leads to an infinite regression from which intelligent design proponents c
an only escape by resorting to religious creationism or logical contradiction.[6
8]
Movement
Main article: Intelligent design movement
The Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture used ban
ners based on "The Creation of Adam" from the Sistine Chapel. Later it used a le
ss religious image, then was renamed the Center for Science and Culture.[69]
The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the
1980s.[4] The scientific and academic communities, along with a U.S. federal cou
rt, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct desce
ndant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism;[70][71][72][73][
74][75] and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creati
onism."[4][76][n 12][77][78]
The movement is headquartered in the Center for Science and Culture, established
in 1996 as the creationist wing of the Discovery Institute to promote a religio
us agenda[n 13] calling for broad social, academic and political changes. The Di
scovery Institute's intelligent design campaigns have been staged primarily in t
he United States, although efforts have been made in other countries to promote
intelligent design. Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the l
imitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of naturalism.
Intelligent design proponents allege that science should not be limited to natur
alism and should not demand the adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that dismi
sses out-of-hand any explanation that includes a supernatural cause. The overall
goal of the movement is to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist w
orldview" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonan
t with Christian and theistic convictions."[n 13]
Phillip E. Johnson stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creatio
nism as a scientific concept.[n 5][n 14] All leading intelligent design proponen
ts are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science an
d Culture.[79] Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movemen
t are the products of the Discovery Institute, which guides the movement and fol

lows its wedge strategy while conducting its "Teach the Controversy" campaign an
d their other related programs.
Leading intelligent design proponents have made conflicting statements regarding
intelligent design. In statements directed at the general public, they say inte
lligent design is not religious; when addressing conservative Christian supporte
rs, they state that intelligent design has its foundation in the Bible.[n 14] Re
cognizing the need for support, the Institute affirms its Christian, evangelisti
c orientation:
Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a
popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We w
ill do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage
and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as we
ll as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.[n 13]
Barbara Forrest, an expert who has written extensively on the movement, describe
s this as being due to the Discovery Institute's obfuscating its agenda as a mat
ter of policy. She has written that the movement's "activities betray an aggress
ive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, bu
t the religious worldview that undergirds it."[80]
Religion and leading proponents
Although arguments for intelligent design by the intelligent design movement are
formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of th
e designer,[n 15] the majority of principal intelligent design advocates are pub
licly religious Christians who have stated that, in their view, the designer pro
posed in intelligent design is the Christian conception of God. Stuart Burgess,
Phillip E. Johnson, William A. Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer are evangelical Pro
testants; Michael Behe is a Roman Catholic; and Jonathan Wells is a member of th
e Unification Church. Non-Christian proponents include David Klinghoffer, who is
Jewish,[81] Michael Denton and David Berlinski, who are agnostic,[82][83][84] a
nd Muzaffar Iqbal, a Pakistani-Canadian Muslim.[85][86] Phillip E. Johnson has s
tated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments that
are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary
first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the des
igner. Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate t
heir religious motivations so as to avoid having intelligent design identified "
as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message."[n 16] Johns
on emphasizes that "...the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible o
ut of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimpor
tant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have se
parated materialist prejudice from scientific fact."[87]
The strategy of deliberately disguising the religious intent of intelligent desi
gn has been described by William A. Dembski in The Design Inference.[88] In this
work, Dembski lists a god or an "alien life force" as two possible options for
the identity of the designer; however, in his book Intelligent Design: The Bridg
e Between Science and Theology (1999), Dembski states:
Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners
don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be su
re, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the t
heory can in the end only be located in Christ.[89]
Dembski also stated, "ID is part of God's general revelation [...]
intelligent design rid us of this ideology [ materialism ], which
e human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it
h for people to come to Christ."[90] Both Johnson and Dembski cite
ospel of John as the foundation of intelligent design.[26][n 14]

Not only does

suffocates th
opens the pat
the Bible's G

Barbara Forrest contends such statements reveal that leading proponents see inte
lligent design as essentially religious in nature, not merely a scientific conce
pt that has implications with which their personal religious beliefs happen to c
oincide.[n 17] She writes that the leading proponents of intelligent design are
closely allied with the ultra-conservative Christian Reconstructionism movement.
She lists connections of (current and former) Discovery Institute Fellows Phill
ip E. Johnson, Charles B. Thaxton, Michael Behe, Richard Weikart, Jonathan Wells
and Francis J. Beckwith to leading Christian Reconstructionist organizations, a
nd the extent of the funding provided the Institute by Howard Ahmanson, Jr., a l
eading figure in the Reconstructionist movement.[4]
Reaction from other creationist groups
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 e
volution, first produced in response to controversies in Wisconsin in 2004, has
now been signed by over ten thousand clergy from different Christian denominatio
ns across America. In 2006, the director of the Vatican Observatory, the Jesuit
astronomer George Coyne, condemned ID as a kind of 'crude creationism' which red
uced God to a mere engineer."[91] Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, a proponent o
f Old Earth creationism, believes that the efforts of intelligent design propone
nts to divorce the concept from Biblical Christianity make its hypothesis too va
gue. 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. I
ntroducing a biblically based, scientifically verifiable creation model represen
ts such a leap."[92]
Likewise, two of the most prominent YEC organizations in the world have attempte
d to distinguish their views from those of the intelligent design movement. Henr
y M. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (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 wo
n't work is because it is not the Biblical method." According to Morris: "The ev
idence 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
."[93] In 2002, Carl Wieland, then of Answers in Genesis (AiG), criticized desig
n advocates who, though well-intentioned, "'left the Bible out of it'" and there
by unwittingly aided and abetted the modern rejection of the Bible. Wieland expl
ained that "AiG's major 'strategy' is to boldly, but humbly, call the church bac
k to its Biblical foundations [so] we neither count ourselves a part of this move
ment nor campaign against it."[94]
Reaction from the scientific community
The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design
is not science and has no place in a science curriculum.[5] The U.S. National A
cademy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other c
laims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not s
cience because they are not testable by the methods of science."[95] The U.S. Na
tional Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advance
ment of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[71] Others in the scientific commu
nity 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.[96] More recently, in Septe
mber 2012, Bill Nye warned that creationist views threaten science education and
innovations in the United States.[97][98]
In 2001, the Discovery Institute published advertisements under the heading A Sc

ientific Dissent From Darwinism, with the claim that listed scientists had signe
d this statement expressing skepticism:
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural se
lection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the eviden
ce for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.[99]
The ambiguous statement did not exclude other known evolutionary mechanisms, and
most signatories were not scientists in relevant fields, but starting in 2004 t
he Institute claimed the increasing number of signatures indicated mounting doub
ts about evolution among scientists.[100] The statement formed a key component o
f Discovery Institute campaigns to present intelligent design as scientifically
valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support,[101][102] with
Institute members continued to cite the list through at least 2011.[103] As part
of a strategy to counter these claims, scientists organised Project Steve which
gained more signatories named Steve (or variants) than the Institute's petition
, and a counter-petition, A Scientific Support for Darwinism, which quickly gain
ed similar numbers of signatories.
Polls
Several surveys were conducted prior to the December 2005 decision in Kitzmiller
v. Dover School District, which sought to determine the level of support for in
telligent design among certain groups. According to a 2005 Harris poll, 10% of a
dults in the United States viewed human beings as "so complex that they required
a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them."[104] Although Zogby
polls commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support, these polls su
ffer from considerable flaws, such as having a very low response rate (248 out o
f 16,000), being conducted on behalf of an organization with an expressed intere
st in the outcome of the poll, and containing leading questions.[105][106][107]
A series of Gallup polls in the United States from 1982 through 2014 on "Evoluti
on, Creationism, Intelligent Design" found support for "human beings have develo
ped 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 prett
y 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" vari
ed from 9% to 19%. The polls also noted answers to a series of more detailed que
stions.[108]
Allegations of discrimination against ID proponents
Main article: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
There have been allegations that ID proponents have met discrimination, such as
being refused tenure or being harshly criticized on the Internet. In the documen
tary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, released in 2008, host Ben Stein pr
esents five such cases. The film contends that the mainstream science establishm
ent, in a "scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation's laboratories an
d classrooms," suppresses academics who believe they see evidence of intelligent
design in nature or criticize evidence of evolution.[109][110] Investigation in
to these allegations turned up alternative explanations for perceived persecutio
n.[n 18]
The film portrays intelligent design as motivated by science, rather than religi
on, though it does not give a detailed definition of the phrase or attempt to ex
plain it on a scientific level. Other than briefly addressing issues of irreduci
ble complexity, Expelled examines it as a political issue.[111][112] The scienti
fic theory of evolution is portrayed by the film as contributing to fascism, the
Holocaust, communism, atheism, and eugenics.[111][113]
Expelled has been used in private screenings to legislators as part of the Disco

very Institute intelligent design campaign for Academic Freedom bills.[114] Revi
ew screenings were restricted to churches and Christian groups, and at a special
pre-release showing, one of the interviewees, PZ Myers, was refused admission.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science describes the film as di
shonest and divisive propaganda aimed at introducing religious ideas into public
school science classrooms,[115] and the Anti-Defamation League has denounced th
e film's allegation that evolutionary theory influenced the Holocaust.[116][117]
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 Mi
chael Shermer describes his experience of being repeatedly asked the same questi
on without context as "surreal."[118]
Criticism
Scientific criticism
Main article: Intelligent design and science
Advocates of intelligent design seek to keep God and the Bible out of the discus
sion, and present intelligent design in the language of science as though it wer
e a scientific hypothesis.[n 15][87] For a theory to qualify as scientific,[n 19
][119][n 20] it is expected to be:
Consistent
Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations; see Occam's
razor)
Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used in a pred
ictive manner)
Empirically testable and falsifiable (potentially confirmable or disprovable
by experiment or observation)
Based on multiple observations (often in the form of controlled, repeated ex
periments)
Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not s
upport it)
Progressive (refines previous theories)
Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not ass
ert certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must me
et most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the les
s scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be
treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections t
o defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[120] vio
lates the principle of parsimony,[n 21] is not scientifically useful,[n 22] is n
ot falsifiable,[n 23] is not empirically testable,[n 24] and is not correctable,
dynamic, progressive or provisional.[n 25][n 26][n 27]
Intelligent design proponents seek to change this fundamental basis of science[1
21] by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from science[122] and replacing i
t with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, c
alls "theistic realism."[n 28] Intelligent design proponents argue that naturali
stic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena and that supernatural explan
ations provide a very simple and intuitive explanation for the origins of life a
nd the universe.[n 29] Many intelligent design followers believe that "scientism
" is itself a religion that promotes secularism and materialism in an attempt to
erase theism from public life, and they view their work in the promotion of int
elligent design as a way to return religion to a central role in education and o
ther public spheres.
The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to
submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny have weighed ag
ainst intelligent design being accepted as valid science.[123] The intelligent d
esign movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article supporting ID

in a scientific journal, and has failed to publish supporting peer-reviewed rese

arch or data.[123] The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific jour
nal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publish
er for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.[124] The Discove
ry Institute says that a number of intelligent design articles have been publish
ed in peer-reviewed journals,[125] but critics, largely members of the scientifi
c community, reject this claim and state intelligent design proponents have set
up their own journals with peer review that lack impartiality and rigor,[n 30] c
onsisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.[n 31]
Further criticism stems from the fact that the phrase intelligent design makes u
se of an assumption of the quality of an observable intelligence, a concept that
has no scientific consensus definition. The characteristics of intelligence are
assumed by intelligent design proponents to be observable without specifying wh
at the criteria for the measurement of intelligence should be. Critics say that
the design detection methods proposed by intelligent design proponents are radic
ally 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 ve
ry distinction between natural/artificial design that allows scientists to compa
re complex designed artifacts against the background of the sorts of complexity
found in nature.[n 32]
Among a significant proportion of the general public in the United States, the m
ajor concern is whether conventional evolutionary biology is compatible with bel
ief in God and in the Bible, and how this issue is taught in schools.[43] The Di
scovery Institute's "Teach the Controversy" campaign promotes intelligent design
while attempting to discredit evolution in United States public high school sci
ence courses.[4][126][127][128][129][130] The scientific community and science e
ducation organizations have replied that there is no scientific controversy rega
rding the validity of evolution and that the controversy exists solely in terms
of religion and politics.[131][132]
Arguments from ignorance
Eugenie C. Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that man
y points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance. I
n the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously ar
gued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch sa
y that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies on a l
ack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain s
pecific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. They contend most sci
entists 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 th
e historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a false dichotomy, wh
ere either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived fail
ure of evolution becomes a victory for design. Scott and Branch also contend tha
t the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents h
ave not served as the basis for any productive scientific research.[133]
In his conclusion to the Kitzmiller trial, Judge John E. Jones III wrote that "I
D is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolu
tionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." This same argument had been put
forward to support creation science at the McLean v. Arkansas (1982) trial whic
h found it was "contrived dualism," the false premise of a "two model approach."
Behe's argument of irreducible complexity puts forward negative arguments again
st evolution but does not make any positive scientific case for intelligent desi
gn. 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.[134]
Possible theological implications
Intelligent design proponents often insist that their claims do not require a re
ligious component.[135] However, various philosophical and theological issues ar
e naturally raised by the claims of intelligent design.[136]
Intelligent design proponents attempt to demonstrate scientifically that feature
s such as irreducible complexity and specified complexity could not arise throug
h natural processes, and therefore required repeated direct miraculous intervent
ions by a Designer (often a Christian concept of God). They reject the possibili
ty of a Designer who works merely through setting natural laws in motion at the
outset,[19] in contrast to theistic evolution (to which even Charles Darwin was
open[137]). Intelligent design is distinct because it asserts repeated miraculou
s interventions in addition to designed laws. This contrasts with other major re
ligious traditions of a created world in which God's interactions and influences
do not work in the same way as physical causes. The Roman Catholic tradition ma
kes a careful distinction between ultimate metaphysical explanations and seconda
ry, natural causes.[13]
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
omnibenevolent (see problem of evil and related theodicy).[138]
Further, repeated interventions imply that the original design was not perfect a
nd final, and thus pose a problem for any who believe that the Creator's work ha
d been both perfect and final.[19] Intelligent design proponents seek to explain
the problem of poor design in nature by insisting that we have simply failed to
understand the perfection of the design (for example, proposing that vestigial
organs have unknown purposes), or by proposing that designers do not necessarily
produce the best design they can, and may have unknowable motives for their act
ions.[64]
God of the gaps
Intelligent design has also been characterized as a God-of-the-gaps argument,[13
9] which has the following form:
There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
The gap is filled with acts of God (or intelligent designer) and therefo
re proves the existence of God (or intelligent designer).[139]
A God-of-the-gaps argument is the theological version of an argument from ignora
nce. A key feature of this type of argument is that it merely answers outstandin
g questions with explanations (often supernatural) that are unverifiable and ult
imately themselves subject to unanswerable questions.[140] Historians of science
observe that the astronomy of the earliest civilizations, although astonishing
and incorporating mathematical constructions far in excess of any practical valu
e, proved to be misdirected and of little importance to the development of scien
ce because they failed to inquire more carefully into the mechanisms that drove
the heavenly bodies across the sky.[141] It was the Greek civilization that firs
t practiced science, although not yet a mathematically oriented experimental sci
ence, but nevertheless an attempt to rationalize the world of natural experience
without recourse to divine intervention.[142] In this historically motivated de
finition of science any appeal to an intelligent creator is explicitly excluded
for the paralysing effect it may have on the scientific progress.
Kitzmiller trial
Main article: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was the first direct challenge brought
in the United States federal courts against a public school district that requir
ed the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. The pl
aintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, a
nd that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the Fi
rst Amendment to the United States Constitution.[143]
Eleven parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania, sued the Dover Area School Di
strict over a statement that the school board required be read aloud in ninth-gr
ade science classes when evolution was taught. The plaintiffs were represented b
y the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of
Church and State (AU) and Pepper Hamilton LLP. The National Center for Science E
ducation acted as consultants for the plaintiffs. The defendants were represente
d by the Thomas More Law Center.[144] The suit was tried in a bench trial from S
eptember 26 to November 4, 2005, before Judge John E. Jones III. Kenneth R. Mill
er, Kevin Padian, Brian Alters, Robert T. Pennock, Barbara Forrest and John F. H
aught served as expert witnesses for the plaintiffs. Michael Behe, Steve Fuller
and Scott Minnich served as expert witnesses for the defense.
On December 20, 2005, Judge Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decis
ion, ruling that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional, and barring intelligent
design from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school scienc
e classrooms. The eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent
design requirement were all defeated in a November 8, 2005, election by challen
gers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class, and the
current school board president stated that the board does not intend to appeal t
he ruling.[145]
In his finding of facts, Judge Jones made the following condemnation of the "Tea
ch the Controversy" strategy:
...Moreover, ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which
we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controve
rsy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at bes
t disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage c
ritical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary th
eory with ID.[146]
Reaction
Judge Jones himself anticipated that his ruling would be criticized, saying in h
is decision that:
...Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of
an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an act
ivist Court.
Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informe
d faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager
to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to
adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inan
ity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backd
rop 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 dragg
ed into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and per
sonal resources. ...[147]
As Jones had predicted, John G. West, Associate Director of the Center for Scien
ce and Culture, said:

The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the sp

read of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution t
hrough government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work.
He has conflated Discovery Institute's position with that of the Dover school b
oard, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the
scientists who research it.[148]
Newspapers have noted with interest that the judge is "a Republican and a church
goer."[149][150][151]
Subsequently, the decision has been examined in a search for flaws and conclusio
ns, partly by intelligent design supporters aiming to avoid future defeats in co
urt. In the Winter of 2007, the Montana Law Review published three articles.[152
] In the first, David K. DeWolf, John G. West and Casey Luskin, all of the Disco
very Institute, argued that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, the
Jones court should not have addressed the question of whether it was a scientif
ic theory, and that the Kitzmiller decision will have no effect at all on the de
velopment and adoption of intelligent design as an alternative to standard evolu
tionary theory.[153] In the second Peter H. Irons responded, arguing that the de
cision was extremely well reasoned and spells the death knell for the intelligen
t design efforts to introduce creationism in public schools,[154] while in the t
hird, DeWolf, et al., answer the points made by Irons.[155] However, fear of a s
imilar lawsuit has resulted in other school boards abandoning intelligent design
"teach the controversy" proposals.[4]
In April 2010, the American Academy of Religion issued Guidelines for Teaching A
bout Religion in K-12 Public Schools in the United States, which included guidan
ce that creation science or intelligent design should not be taught in science c
lasses, as "Creation science and intelligent design represent worldviews that fa
ll 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 spec
ific 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 o
r social sciences courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of worl
dviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and mu
st avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others."[156]
Status outside the United States
Europe
In June 2007, the Council of Europe's Committee on Culture, Science and Educatio
n issued a report, The dangers of creationism in education, which states "Creati
onism 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 inadequa
te for science classes."[157] In describing the dangers posed to education by te
aching creationism, it described intelligent design as "anti-science" and involv
ing "blatant scientific fraud" and "intellectual deception" that "blurs the natu
re, objectives and limits of science" and links it and other forms of creationis
m to denialism. On October 4, 2007, the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assemb
ly approved a resolution stating that schools should "resist presentation of cre
ationist ideas in any discipline other than religion," including "intelligent de
sign," 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 ten
dencies to pass off a belief as science."[158]
In the United Kingdom, public education includes religious education as a compul
sory subject, and there are many faith schools that teach the ethos of particula
r denominations. When it was revealed that a group called Truth in Science had d
istributed DVDs produced by Illustra Media[n 33] featuring Discovery Institute f

ellows making the case for design in nature,[159] and claimed they were being us
ed by 59 schools,[160] the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) stated tha
t "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools
, and are not specified in the science curriculum" (part of the National Curricu
lum, which does not apply to independent schools or to education in Scotland).[1
61][162] The DfES subsequently stated that "Intelligent design is not a recognis
ed 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 t
o different beliefs, as part of a syllabus set by a local Standing Advisory Coun
cil on Religious Education.[163] In 2006, the Qualifications and Curriculum Auth
ority produced a "Religious Education" model unit in which pupils can learn abou
t religious and nonreligious views about creationism, intelligent design and evo
lution by natural selection.[164][165]
On June 25, 2007, the UK Government responded to an e-petition by saying that cr
eationism and intelligent design should not be taught as science, though teacher
s would be expected to answer pupils' questions within the standard framework of
established scientific theories.[166] Detailed government "Creationism teaching
guidance" for schools in England was published on September 18, 2007. It states
that "Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science," has no underpinning s
cientific principles, or explanations, and is not accepted by the science commun
ity 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 a
s a result of media coverage, could provide the opportunity to explain or explor
e why they are not considered to be scientific theories and, in the right contex
t, why evolution is considered to be a scientific theory." However, "Teachers of
subjects such as RE, history or citizenship may deal with creationism and intel
ligent design in their lessons."[n 4]
The British Centre for Science Education lobbying group has the goal of "counter
ing creationism within the UK" and has been involved in government lobbying in t
he UK in this regard.[157] Northern Ireland's Department for Education says that
the curriculum provides an opportunity for alternative theories to be taught. T
he Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) which has links to fundamentalist Christianity ha
s been campaigning to have intelligent design taught in science classes. A DUP f
ormer Member of Parliament, David Simpson, has sought assurances from the educat
ion minister that pupils will not lose marks if they give creationist or intelli
gent design answers to science questions.[167][168] In 2007, Lisburn city counci
l 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, int
elligent design and other theories of origin."[169]
Plans by Dutch Education Minister Maria van der Hoeven to "stimulate an academic
debate" on the subject in 2005 caused a severe public backlash.[170] After the
2006 elections, she was succeeded by Ronald Plasterk, described as a "molecular
geneticist, staunch atheist and opponent of intelligent design."[171] As a react
ion on this situation in the Netherlands, the Director General of the Flemish Se
cretariat of Catholic Education (VSKO) in Belgium, Mieke Van Hecke, declared tha
t: "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."[172]
Relation to Islam
Muzaffar Iqbal, a notable Pakistani-Canadian Muslim, signed the A Scientific Dis
sent From Darwinism petition of the Discovery Institute.[173] Ideas similar to i
ntelligent design have been considered respected intellectual options among Musl
ims, and in Turkey many intelligent design books have been translated. In Istanb
ul in 2007, public meetings promoting intelligent design were sponsored by the l
ocal government,[174] and David Berlinski of the Discovery Institute was the key

note speaker at a meeting in May 2007.[175]

Relation to ISKCON
In 2011, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) Bhaktiveda
nta Book Trust published an intelligent design book titled Rethinking Darwin: A
Vedic Study of Darwinism and Intelligent Design. The book included contributions
from intelligent design advocates William A. Dembski, Jonathan Wells and Michae
l Behe as well as from Hindu creationists Leif A. Jensen and Michael Cremo.[176]
Australia
The status of intelligent design in Australia is somewhat similar to that in the
UK (see Education in Australia). In 2005, the Australian Minister for Education
, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, raised the notion of intelligent design
being taught in science classes. The public outcry caused the minister to quickl
y concede that the correct forum for intelligent design, if it were to be taught
, is in religion or philosophy classes.[177][178] The Australian chapter of Camp
us Crusade for Christ distributed a DVD of the Discovery Institute's documentary
Unlocking the Mystery of Life (2002) to Australian secondary schools.[179] The
head of one of Australia's leading private schools supported use of the DVD in t
he classroom at the discretion of teachers and principals.[180]
See also
Book icon
Book: Creationism and Intelligent Design
Portal icon

Creationism portal

Abiogenesis
Buddhism and evolution
Clockwork universe
Creation and evolution in public education
Day-age creationism
Evolution as fact and theory
Gap creationism
Haldane's dilemma
Hindu views on evolution
History of evolutionary thought
History of the creation evolution controversy
Intelligent design in politics
Intelligent falling
International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design
Islamic views on evolution
List of works on intelligent design
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
Jainism and non-creationism
Materialism
Modern evolutionary synthesis
Naturalism (philosophy)
Natural philosophy
Neo-creationism
Neo-Darwinism
Objections to evolution
Philosophy of science
Progressive creationism
Ralian intelligent design
Santorum Amendment
Scientific method
Social Darwinism
Sternberg peer review controversy
"Strengths and weaknesses of evolution"

The eclipse of Darwinism

Unintelligent design
Young Earth creationism (YEC)
Notes
"Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), P
M Session, Part 1". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation
, Inc. Retrieved 2012-06-16. "Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in th
e intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Scie
nce and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with
the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All
of the leaders are, yes."
Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v.
Dover Area School District trial.
Wilgoren 2005, "...the institute's Center for Science and Culture has emerge
d in recent months as the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption
of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the co
untry."
"Frequently Asked Questions About 'Intelligent Design'". American Civil Libe
rties Union. New York: American Civil Liberties Union. September 16, 2005. Who i
s behind the ID movement?. Retrieved 2012-06-16.
Kahn, Joseph P. (July 27, 2005). "The evolution of George Gilder". The Bosto
n Globe (New York: The New York Times Company). Retrieved 2014-02-28.
"WHO's WHO: Intelligent Design Proponents" (PDF). Science & Theology News (D
urham, NC: Science & Theology News, Inc.). November 2005. ISSN 1530-6410. Retrie
ved 2007-07-20.
Attie, et al. 2006, "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Inst
itute."
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Contex
t, pp. 25 26. " ID s 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is G
od", "...[T]he writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postul
ated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Context, p. 35. "defense exp
erts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism".
Williams, Devon (December 14, 2007). "Friday Five: William A. Dembski". Citi
zenLink.com. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family Action, Inc. Archived fro
m the original on 2007-12-17. Retrieved 2014-02-28. "I believe God created the w
orld for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Chris
tian God." William A. Dembski, a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Cent
er for Science and Culture, when asked in an interview whether his research conc
luded that God is the Intelligent Designer.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Contex
t, 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 bac
k to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a s
yllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; natur
e is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. ...
...[T]his argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th centu
ry by Reverend Paley... [the teleological argument] The only apparent difference
between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by def
ense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's 'official position' does no
t acknowledge that the designer is God."
"Guidance on the place of creationism and intelligent design in science lessons"
. Teachernet. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families. Archived fr
om the original (DOC) on 2008-01-08. Retrieved 2007-10-01. "The intelligent desi
gn 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 scientific

ally testable and should therefore be taught in science lessons. Intelligent des
ign lies wholly outside of science. Sometimes examples are quoted that are said
to require an 'intelligent designer'. However, many of these have subsequently b
een shown to have a scientific explanation, for example, the immune system and b
lood clotting mechanisms.
Attempts to establish an idea of the 'specified complexity' needed for intellige
nt design are surrounded by complex mathematics. Despite this, the idea seems to
be essentially a modern version of the old idea of the 'God-of-the-gaps'. Lack
of a satisfactory scientific explanation of some phenomena (a 'gap' in scientifi
c knowledge) is claimed to be evidence of an intelligent designer."
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, pages 26 27, "the writings of leading ID
proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of
Christianity." Examples include:
Nickson, Elizabeth (February 6, 2004). "Let's Be Intelligent about Darwin".
National Post (Reprint) (Toronto, Ontario: Postmedia Network). ISSN 1486-8008. R
etrieved 2014-02-28. "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 G
od, before the academic world and into the schools." Phillip E. Johnson (2003)
Grelen, Jay (November 30, 1996). "Witnesses for the prosecution". World (Ash
eville, NC: God's World Publications) 11 (28): 18. ISSN 0888-157X. Retrieved 201
4-02-16. "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's ab
out religion and philosophy."
Johnson 2002, "So the question is: 'How to win?' That's when I began to deve
lop 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 a
nd 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 religio
us dissenters. That means concentrating on, 'Do you need a Creator to do the cre
ating, or can nature do it on its own?' and refusing to get sidetracked onto oth
er issues, which people are always trying to do."
Ted, Koppel (Host) (August 10, 2005). "Doubting Darwin: The Marketing of Intelli
gent Design". Nightline. American Broadcasting Company. Retrieved 2014-02-28. "I
think the designer is God ..."
Stephen C. Meyer
Pearcey 2004, pp. 204 205, "By contrast, design theory demonstrates that Chris
tians can sit in the supernaturalist's 'chair' even in their professional lives,
seeing the cosmos through the lens of a comprehensive biblical worldview. Intel
ligent Design steps boldly into the scientific arena to build a case based on em
pirical data. It takes Christianity out of the ineffectual realm of value and st
akes out a cognitive claim in the realm of objective truth. It restores Christia
nity to its status as genuine knowledge, equipping us to defend it in the public
arena."
Bridgham, Jamie T.; Carroll, Sean M.; Thornton, Joseph W. (April 7, 2006). "Evol
ution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation". Science (Washin
gton, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science) 312 (5770): 97 10
1. Bibcode:2006Sci...312...97B. doi:10.1126/science.1123348. PMID 16601189. Retr
ieved 2014-02-28. Bridgham, et al., showed that gradual evolutionary mechanisms
can produce complex protein-protein interaction systems from simpler precursors.
Orr 2005. This article draws from the following exchange of letters in which Beh
e admits to sloppy prose and non-logical proof:
Behe, Michael; Dembski, William A.; Wells, Jonathan; Nelson, Paul A.; Berlin
ski, David (March 26, 2003). "Has Darwin Met His Match? - Letters: An Exchange O
ver ID". Center for Science and Culture (Reprint). Seattle, WA: Discovery Instit
ute. Retrieved 2014-02-28.

Dembski, William A. (2001). "Another Way to Detect Design?". Metanexus. New York
: Metanexus Institute. Retrieved 2012-06-16. This is a "three part lecture serie
s entitled 'Another Way to Detect Design' which contains William Dembski's respo
nse to Fitelson, Stephens, and Sober whose article 'How Not to Detect Design' ra
n on Metanexus:Views (2001.09.14, 2001.09.21, and 2001.09.28). These lectures we
re first made available online at Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Sc
ience http://www.metanexus.net. This is from three keynote lectures delivered Oc
tober 5 6, 2001 at the Society of Christian Philosopher's meeting at the Universit
y of Colorado, Boulder."
"CSC - Top Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of
intelligent design?". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Ins
titute. Retrieved 2012-06-16. "The theory of Intelligent Design holds that certa
in features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intell
igent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
"FAQ: Who designed the designer?". Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Ce
nter (Short answer). Seattle, WA: Casey Luskin; IDEA Center. Retrieved 2014-02-2
8. "One need not fully understand the origin or identity of the designer to dete
rmine that an object was designed. Thus, this question is essentially irrelevant
to intelligent design theory, which merely seeks to detect if an object was des
igned. ...Intelligent design theory cannot address the identity or origin of the
designer it is a philosophical / religious question that lies outside the domain
of scientific inquiry. Christianity postulates the religious answer to this ques
tion 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 cas
e (akin to Aristotle's 'unmoved mover') as a religious answer to the origin of t
he designer."
Pennock 2001, "Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski," pp. 645 667, "Dembski chides me f
or never using the term 'intelligent design' without conjoining it to 'creationi
sm'. He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his move
ment 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) misrepre
senting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biol
ogical evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to
be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability..."
"The Wedge" (PDF). Seattle, WA: Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. 1
999. Retrieved 2014-05-31. "The social consequences of materialism have been dev
astating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However,
we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its
source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy.
If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy i
s intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the
trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, t
he 'thin edge of the wedge,' was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun i
n 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeati
ng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black B
ox followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wed
ge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories,
which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory
promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to
replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
Johnson, Phillip E. "How The Evolution Debate Can Be Won". Coral Ridge Ministrie
s. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge Ministries. Archived from the original on 20
07-11-07. Retrieved 2014-02-28. "I have built an intellectual movement in the un
iversities 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 t
his. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It'
s falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize t

hat, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the trut
h? [...] 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 materia
list scientists are deluding themselves."
Johnson, "Reclaiming America for Chris
t Conference" (1999)
"Does intelligent design postulate a "supernatural creator?". Discovery Institut
e. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Truth Sheet # 09-05. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
"...intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions suc
h as the nature or identity of the designer. [...] '...the nature, moral charact
er and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and mu
st be left to religion and philosophy.'"
Johnson, Phillip E. (April 1999). "Keeping the Darwinists Honest". Citizen (Colo
rado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family). ISSN 1084-6832. Retrieved 2014-02-28. "I
D is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are
seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. [...] T
he evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them
some doors that have been closed."
"Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), P
M Session, Part 2". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation
, Inc. Retrieved 2014-02-28. "What I am talking about is the essence of intellig
ent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Jo
hnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm a
lso talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Log
os theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own. [...] Intelligent design,
as it is understood by the proponents that we are discussing today, does involve
a supernatural creator, and that is my objection. And I am objecting to it as t
hey have defined it, as Professor Johnson has defined intelligent design, and as
Dr. Dembski has defined intelligent design. And both of those are basically rel
igious. They involve the supernatural." Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.
Geoffroy, Gregory (June 1, 2007). "Statement from Iowa State University Presiden
t Gregory Geoffroy". News Service: Iowa State University. Ames, OH: Iowa State U
niversity. Retrieved 2007-12-16.
Rennie, John; Mirsky, Steve (April 16, 2008). "Six Things in Expelled That B
en Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...". Scientific American. Stuttgart, Germany:
Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group. ISSN 0036-8733. Retrieved 2014-06-24.
Vedantam, Shankar (February 5, 2006). "Eden and Evolution". The Washington P
ost. p. W08. Retrieved 2008-02-16. "GMU spokesman Daniel Walsch denied that the
school had fired Crocker. She was a part-time faculty member, he said, and was l
et go at the end of her contract period for reasons unrelated to her views on in
telligent design."
Gauch 2003, Chapters 5 8. Discusses principles of induction, deduction and probabi
lity related to the expectation of consistency, testability, and multiple observ
ations. Chapter 8 discusses parsimony (Occam's razor).
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Whether I
D Is Science, p. 64. The ruling discusses central aspects of expectations in the
scientific community that a scientific theory be testable, dynamic, correctible
, progressive, based upon multiple observations, and provisional.
See, e.g., Fitelson, Stephens & Sober 2001, "How Not to Detect Design Critical Not
ice: William A. Dembski The Design Inference," pp. 597 616. Intelligent design fai
ls to pass Occam's razor. Adding entities (an intelligent agent, a designer) to
the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events.
See, e.g., Schneider, Jill E. "Professor Schneider's thoughts on Evolution and I
ntelligent Design". Department of Biological Sciences. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh Uni
versity. Archived from the original on 2006-09-02. Retrieved 2014-02-28. "Q: Why
couldn't intelligent design also be a scientific theory? A: The idea of intelli
gent design might or might not be true, but when presented as a scientific hypot
hesis, it is not useful because it is based on weak assumptions, lacks supportin

g data and terminates further thought."

See, e.g., Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)
. Context, p. 22 and Whether ID Is Science, p. 77. The designer is not falsifiab
le, since its existence is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to a
llow a falsifying observation. The designer being beyond the realm of the observ
able, claims about its existence can be neither supported nor undermined by obse
rvation, making intelligent design and the argument from design analytic a poste
riori arguments.
See, e.g., Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)
. Context, p. 22 and Whether ID Is Science, p. 66. That intelligent design is no
t empirically testable stems from the fact that it violates a basic premise of s
cience, naturalism.
See, e.g., the brief explanation in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04
cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Whether ID Is Science, p. 66. Intelligent design p
rofesses to offer an answer that does not need to be defined or explained, the i
ntelligent agent, designer. By asserting a conclusion that cannot be accounted f
or scientifically, the designer, intelligent design cannot be sustained by any f
urther 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 t
hat a conclusion that need not be accounted for has been established, there is s
imply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of
scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexpl
ainable data.
"Nobel Laureates Initiative" (PDF) (Letter). The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Huma
nity. September 9, 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2005-10-07. Retriev
ed 2014-02-28. The September 2005 statement by 38 Nobel laureates stated that: "
...intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scie
ntific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervent
ion of a supernatural agent."
"Intelligent Design is not Science: Scientists and teachers speak out". Faculty
of Science. Sydney: University of New South Wales. October 2005. Archived from t
he original on 2006-06-14. Retrieved 2009-01-09. The October 2005 statement, by
a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teac
hers said: "intelligent design is not science" and "urge all Australian governme
nts and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science."
Johnson 1996b, "My colleagues and I speak of 'theistic realism' or sometimes, 'mer
e creation' as the defining concept of our [the ID] movement. This means that we a
ffirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is ta
ngibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology."
Watanabe, Teresa (March 25, 2001). "Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints o
f a Creator". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2014-02-28. "'We are taking an intuit
ion most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. ...'We
are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God
as creator.'"
Phillip E. Johnson
Brauer, Matthew J.; Forrest, Barbara; Gey, Steven G. (2005). "Is It Science Yet?
: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution" (PDF). Washington Univers
ity Law Review (St. Louis, MO: Washington University School of Law) 83 (1): 79 80.
ISSN 2166-7993. Retrieved 2014-02-28. "ID leaders know the benefits of submitti
ng their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedl
y 'peer-reviewed' journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want
of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly
philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of 'peer review'
that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows.
"
Isaak, Mark (ed.). "CI001.4: Intelligent Design and peer review". TalkOrigins Ar
chive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014-02-28. "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 des
ign. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant

omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are
uncritical."
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Whether I
D Is Science, p. 81. "For human artifacts, we know the designer's identity, huma
n, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evide
nce 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 t
hey refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer's identity, do not propose a me
chanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, de
fense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and ob
jects, 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, P
rofessor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designe
r 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 seemi
ngly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in s
cience fiction movies."
"WIRED Magazine response". Illustra Media. La Habra, CA: Illustra Media. Arc
hived from the original on 2008-12-20. Retrieved 2007-07-13. "It's also importan
t that you read a well developed rebuttal to Wired's misleading accusations. Lin
ks to both the article and a response by the Discovery Institute (our partners i
n the production of Unlocking the Mystery of Life and The Privileged Planet) are
available below."
Ratliff, Evan (October 2004). "The Crusade Against Evolution". Wired (Ne
w York: Cond Nast) (12.10). Retrieved 2014-02-28.
"Wired magazine reporter criticized for agenda driven reporting". Center
for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. October 13, 2004. Re
trieved 2014-02-28.
References
Boudry, Maarten; Blancke, Stefaan; Braeckman, Johan (December 2010). "Irreducibl
e Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Ps
eudoscience". The Quarterly Review of Biology (Chicago, IL: University of Chicag
o Press) 85 (4): 473 482. doi:10.1086/656904. PMID 21243965. Article available fro
m Universiteit Gent
Pigliucci 2010
"CSC - Top Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of
intelligent design?". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Ins
titute. Retrieved 2012-06-16.
"Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell" (PDF). Seattle, WA: Intelligent De
sign and Evolution Awareness Center. 2004. Retrieved 2012-06-16.
"Intelligent Design". Intelligent Design network. Shawnee Mission, KS: Intel
ligent Design network, inc. Retrieved 2012-06-16.
Forrest, Barbara (May 2007). "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist M
ovement: Its True Nature and Goals" (PDF). Center for Inquiry. Washington, D.C.:
Center for Inquiry. Retrieved 2007-08-06.
See:
List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Wh
ether ID Is Science, p. 83
The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun
in 2001 has been signed by "over 700 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. The fou
r-day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7,733 signatories from
scientists opposing ID.
AAAS 2002. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), t

he largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firml
y rejects ID.
More than 70,000 Australian scientists "...urge all Australian governments a
nd educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science."
National Center for Science Education: List of statements from scientific pr
ofessional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of cre
ationism in the sciences.
Nature Methods 2007, "Long considered a North American phenomenon, pro-ID in
terest groups can also be found throughout Europe. ...Concern about this trend i
s now so widespread in Europe that in October 2007 the Council of Europe voted o
n a motion calling upon member states to firmly oppose the teaching of creationi
sm as a scientific discipline."
Dean 2007, "There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolu
tion as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth."
"An intelligently designed response". Nature Methods (Editorial) (London: Nature
Publishing Group) 4 (12): 983. December 2007. doi:10.1038/nmeth1207-983. ISSN 1
548-7091. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Meyer, Stephen C. (December 1, 2005). "Not by chance". National Post (Don Mills,
Ontario: CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.). Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Meyer, Stephen C.; Nelson, Paul A. (May 1, 1996). "Getting Rid of the Unfair Rul
es". Origins & Design (Book review) (Colorado Springs, CO: Access Research Netwo
rk). Retrieved 2007-05-20.
Johnson, Phillip E. (May June 1996). "Third-Party Science". Books & Culture (B
ook review) 2 (3). Retrieved 2012-06-16. The review is reprinted in full by Acce
ss Research Network [archived 10 February 1999].
Meyer, Stephen C. (2000). "The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The
Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories
". Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe: Papers Presented at a Confer
ence Sponsored by the Wethersfield Institute, New York City, September 25, 1999.
Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute 9. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press.
ISBN 0-89870-809-5. LCCN 00102374. OCLC 45720008. Retrieved 2014-12-01.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Wh
ether ID Is Science, p. 66
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Wh
ether ID Is Science, p. 68. Lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his
broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also include astro
logy.
See also Hanna, John (February 13, 2007). "Kansas Rewriting Science Standard
s". Guardian Unlimited (London: Guardian Media Group). Associated Press. Archive
d from the original on 2007-02-16. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Giberson, Karl W. (April 21, 2014). "My Debate With an 'Intelligent Design' Theo
rist". The Daily Beast (New York: The Newsweek Daily Beast Company). Retrieved 2
014-05-14.
Scott, Eugenie C.; Matzke, Nicholas J. (May 15, 2007). "Biological design in sci
ence classrooms". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences) 104 (Suppl 1)
: 8669 8676. Bibcode:2007PNAS..104.8669S. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701505104. PMC 1876445
. PMID 17494747. Retrieved 2009-06-02. abstract
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Whethe
r ID Is Science, p. 64.
McDonald, John H. "A reducibly complex mousetrap". Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Ussery, David (December 1997). "A Biochemist's Response to 'The Biochemical
Challenge to Evolution'" (Book review). Retrieved 2014-02-28. Originally publish
ed in Bios (July 1998) 70:40 45.
Haught, John F. (April 1, 2005). "Report of John F. Haught, Ph. D" (PDF). Retrie

ved 2013-08-29. Haught's expert report in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Distri
ct.
Matzke, Nick (January April 2006). "Design on Trial: How NCSE Helped Win the Kitzm
iller Case". Reports of the National Center for Science Education (Berkeley, CA:
National Center for Science Education) 26 (1 2): 37 44. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved 2
009-11-18.
Matzke, Nick (November 7, 2005). "Missing Link discovered!". Evolution Educa
tion and the Law (Blog). Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. Ar
chived from the original on 2007-01-14. Retrieved 2009-11-18.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Contex
t, pp. 31 33.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Contex
t, p. 32 ff, citing Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).
"Media Backgrounder: Intelligent Design Article Sparks Controversy". Center for
Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. September 7, 2004. Retrie
ved 2014-02-28.
Johnson, Phillip E. (June 2002). Berkeley's Radical. Touchstone: A Journal o
f Mere Christianity 15 (5). Interview with James M. Kushiner (Chicago, IL: Fello
wship of St. James). ISSN 0897-327X. Retrieved 2012-06-16. Johnson interviewed i
n November 2000.
Wilgoren, Jodi (August 21, 2005). "Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the
Defensive". The New York Times. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Downey 2006
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Whethe
r ID Is Science, p. 69 and Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 136.
Padian, Kevin; Matzke, Nicholas J. (January 1, 2009). "Darwin, Dover, Intelligent
Design and textbooks" (PDF). Biochemical Journal (London: Portland Press) 417 (1
): 29 42. doi:10.1042/bj20081534. ISSN 0264-6021. PMID 19061485. Retrieved 2015-11
-10.
Ayala, Francisco J. (2007). Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion. Washington, D
.C.: Joseph Henry Press. pp. 6, 15 16, 138. ISBN 978-0-309-10231-5. LCCN 200700582
1. OCLC 83609838. Ayala writes that "Paley made the strongest possible case for
intelligent design," and refers to "Intelligent Design: The Original Version" be
fore discussing ID proponents reviving the argument from design with the pretenc
e that it is scientific.
Pennock 1999, pp. 60, 68 70, 242 245
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Co
ntext, pp. 24 25.
Forrest, Barbara C. (March 11, 2006). Know Your Creationists: Know Your Allies.
Daily Kos. Interview with Andrew Stephen (Berkeley, CA: Kos Media, LLC). OCLC 59
226519. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Meyer, Stephen C. (March 1986). "We Are Not Alone". Eternity (Philadelphia, PA:
Evangelical Foundation Inc.). ISSN 0014-1682. Retrieved 2007-10-10.
Thaxton, Charles B. (November 13 16, 1986). DNA, Design and the Origin of Life. Je
sus Christ: God and Man. Dallas, TX. Archived from the original on 2007-09-27. R
etrieved 2012-06-16.
Thaxton, Charles B. (June 24 26, 1988). In Pursuit of Intelligent Causes: Some His
torical Background. Sources of Information Content in DNA. Tacoma, WA. OCLC 3105
4528. Retrieved 2007-10-06. Revised July 30, 1988, and May 6, 1991.
Dembski, William A. (July August 1999). "Signs of Intelligence: A Primer on the Di
scernment of Intelligent Design". Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity (Ch
icago, IL: Fellowship of St. James) 12 (4). ISSN 0897-327X. Retrieved 2014-02-28
. "...[I]ntelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated
in the idiom of information theory."

Dao, James (December 25, 2005). "2005: In a Word; Intelligent Design". The New Y
ork Times. Retrieved 2013-08-23. Dao states that the Discovery Institute said th
e phrase may have first been used by F. C. S. Schiller: his essay "Darwinism and
Design," published in The Contemporary Review for June 1897, evaluated objectio
ns to the teleological argument raised by natural selection, and said "...it wil
l not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of Evolution may
be guided by an intelligent design." pp. 128, 141
Matzke, Nick (August 14, 2007). "The true origin of 'intelligent design'". The P
anda's Thumb (Blog). Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 201
2-07-03.
Matzke gives as examples the August 21, 1847, issue of Scientific American, and
an 1861 letter in which Charles Darwin uses "intelligent Design" to denote John
Herschel's view that the overlapping changes of species found in geology had nee
ded "intelligent direction":
"The Utility and Pleasures of Science". Scientific American (New York) 2 (48
): 381. August 21, 1847. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican08211847-381. ISSN 0036-8
733. Retrieved 2012-06-16.
Darwin, Charles (May 23, 1861). "Darwin, C. R. to Herschel, J. F. W.". Darwi
n Correspondence Project. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Library. Letter 31
54. Retrieved 2014-02-28., discussing a footnote Herschel had added in January 1
861 to his Physical Geology (see footnotes to pp. 190 191 in Francis Darwin's Life
and Letters.)
Luskin, Casey (September 8, 2008). "A Brief History of Intelligent Design".
Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2012
-07-08. Luskin quotes examples of use of the phrase by F. C. S. Schiller and Fre
d Hoyle.
Forrest, Barbara (April 1, 2005). "Expert Witness Report" (PDF). Retrieved 201305-30. Forrest's expert report in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
Elsberry, Wesley R. (December 5, 1996). "Enterprising Science Needs Naturalism".
Talk Reason. Retrieved 2013-08-23.
Witt, Jonathan (December 20, 2005). "Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological Histo
ry of Intelligent Design". Evolution News & Views. Seattle, WA: Discovery Instit
ute. Retrieved 2012-06-16.
Safire, William (August 21, 2005). "Neo-Creo". The New York Times. Retrieved 201
2-06-16.
Matzke, Nick (November 23, 2004). "Critique: 'Of Pandas and People'". National C
enter for Science Education (Blog). Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Ed
ucation. Retrieved 2007-09-24.
Aulie, Richard P. (1998). "A Reader's Guide to Of Pandas and People". McLean, VA
: National Association of Biology Teachers. Retrieved 2007-10-05.
Matzke, Nick (October 13, 2005). "I guess ID really was 'Creationism's Trojan Ho
rse' after all". The Panda's Thumb (Blog). Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundati
on, Inc. Retrieved 2009-06-02.
Dembski, William A. (March 29, 2005). "Expert Witness Report: The Scientific Sta
tus of Intelligent Design" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-06-02. Dembski's expert report
in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
Ruse 1992, p. 41
Lynn, Leon (Winter 1997 1998). "Creationists Push Pseudo-Science Text". Rethinking
Schools (Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools, Ltd.) 12 (2). ISSN 0895-6855. Retri
eved 2009-02-08.
Behe, Michael (1997). "Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design I
nference". Apologetics.org. Trinity, FL: The Apologetics Group;Trinity College o
f Florida. Retrieved 2014-02-28. "This paper was originally presented in the Sum
mer of 1994 at the meeting of the C.S. Lewis Society, Cambridge University."
Irreducible complexity of these examples is disputed; see Kitzmiller v. Dover Ar
ea School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Whether ID Is Science, pp. 7
6 78, and Kenneth R. Miller's January 3, 2006, lecture at Case Western Reserve Uni
versity's Strosacker Auditorium, "The Collapse of Intelligent Design: Will the N

ext Monkey Trial be in Ohio?" on YouTube.

Miller, Kenneth R. "The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of 'Irreducible Complexit
y'". Biology by Miller & Levine. Rehoboth, MA: Miller and Levine Biology. Retrie
ved 2014-02-28. "This is a pre-publication copy of an article that appeared in '
Debating Design from Darwin to DNA,' edited by Michael Ruse and William Dembski.
"
Wallis, Claudia (August 7, 2005). "The Evolution Wars". Time (New York: Time Inc
.). Retrieved 2011-10-22.
Dembski 1999, p. 47
Photograph of William A. Dembski by Wesley R. Elsberry, taken at lecture given a
t University of California, Berkeley, March 17, 2006.
Fitelson, Branden; Stephens, Christopher; Sober, Elliott (September 1999). "How
Not to Detect Design" (PDF). Philosophy of Science (Book review) (Chicago, IL: U
niversity of Chicago Press) 66 (3): 472 488. doi:10.1086/392699. ISSN 0031-8248. J
STOR 188598. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Wein, Richard (2002). "Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates: A critique of W
illiam Dembski's book No Free Lunch". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The Talk
Origins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2012-06-16.
Baldwin, Rich (July 14, 2005). "Information Theory and Creationism: William Demb
ski". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retriev
ed 2012-06-16.
Rosenhouse, Jason (Fall 2001). "How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics" (P
DF). The Mathematical Intelligencer (Berlin; New York: Springer Science+Business
Media) 23 (4): 3 8. doi:10.1007/bf03024593. OCLC 3526661. Retrieved 2012-06-16.
Perakh, Mark (March 18, 2005). "Dembski 'displaces Darwinism' mathematically
or
does he?". Talk Reason. Retrieved 2012-06-16.
Wilkins, John S.; Elsberry, Wesley R. (November 2001). "The Advantages of Theft
over Toil: The Design Inference and Arguing from Ignorance". Biology and Philoso
phy (Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media) 16 (5): 709 722. doi:10.1023/A:10
12282323054. ISSN 0169-3867. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Dawkins 2006
Marks, Paul (July 28, 2007). "Evolutionary algorithms now surpass human designer
s". New Scientist (London: Reed Business Information) (2614): 26 27. ISSN 0262-407
9. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Gonzalez 2004
Stenger 2011, p. 243
Susskind 2005
Stenger, Victor J. "Is The Universe Fine-Tuned For Us?" (PDF). Victor J. Stenger
. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Stenger, Victor J. "The Anthropic Principle" (PDF). Victor J. Stenger. Boulder,
CO: University of Colorado. Retrieved 2012-06-16.
Silk, Joseph (September 14, 2006). "Our place in the Multiverse". Nature (London
: Nature Publishing Group) 443 (7108): 145 146. Bibcode:2006Natur.443..145S. doi:1
0.1038/443145a. ISSN 0028-0836. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Feinberg & Shapiro 1993, "A Puddlian Fable," pp. 220 221
Pennock 1999, pp. 229 229, 233 242
Dembski, William A. (August 10, 1998). "The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcende
nce and Immanence". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Insti
tute. Retrieved 2014-02-28. "Presented at Millstatt Forum, Strasbourg, France, 1
0 August 1998."
Coyne, Jerry (August 22, 2005). "The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith
That Dare Not Speak Its Name". The New Republic. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Behe 1996, p. 221
Pennock 1999, pp. 245 249, 265, 296 300
Simanek, Donald E. (February 2006). "Intelligent Design: The Glass is Empty". Do
nald Simanek's Pages. Lock Haven, PA: Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania. Ret
rieved 2012-06-16.
Rosenhouse, Jason (November 3, 2006). "Who Designed the Designer?". Committee fo

r Skeptical Inquiry. Intelligent Design Watch. Amherst, NY: Center for Inquiry.
Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Dawkins 1986, p. 141
See for example Manson, Joseph (September 27, 2005). "Intelligent design is pseu
doscience". UCLA Today. Retrieved 2014-05-14.
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus (July August 2006). "The Incredibly Strange Story of
Intelligent Design". New Dawn (Melbourne, Victoria: NGCI Pty Ltd) (97). Retrieve
d 2014-02-28.
"Evolving Banners at the Discovery Institute". National Center for Science Educa
tion. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. August 28, 2002. Retr
ieved 2007-10-07.
Mu, David (Fall 2005). "Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the D
ebate over Intelligent Design" (PDF). Harvard Science Review (Cambridge, MA: Har
vard Science Review, Inc.) 19 (1): 22 25. Retrieved 2014-02-28. "...for most membe
rs of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a
creationist pseudoscience."
See:
Workosky, Cindy (August 3, 2005). "National Science Teachers Association Dis
appointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush" (Press relea
se). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association. Retrieved 2014-01-14.
"'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 c
lassroom,' said NSTA President Mike Padilla. 'Nonscientific viewpoints have litt
le value in increasing students' knowledge of the natural world.'"
Mu 2005
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Curric
ulum, Conclusion, p. 136.
Wise, Donald U. (January 2001). "Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time a
nd Evolution". Journal of Geoscience Education (Bellingham, WA: National Associa
tion of Geoscience Teachers) 49 (1): 30 35. ISSN 1089-9995. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Ross, Marcus R. (May 2005). "Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intel
ligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism" (PDF). Journal of Geoscience Educatio
n (Bellingham, WA: National Association of Geoscience Teachers) 53 (3): 319 323. I
SSN 1089-9995. Retrieved 2012-06-16.
Numbers 2006
Forrest & Gross 2004
Pennock 1999
Scott, Eugenie C. (July August 1999). "The Creation/Evolution Continuum". Reports
of the National Center for Science Education (Berkeley, CA: National Center for
Science Education) 19 (4): 16 17, 23 25. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Scott 2004
"Discovery Institute - Fellows". Discovery Institute. Seattle, WA: Discovery Ins
titute. Retrieved 2014-02-28. Discovery Institute fellows and staff.
"CSC - Center for Science and Culture". Center for Science and Culture. Seat
tle, WA: Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2014-02-28. Center for Science and Cultu
re fellows and staff.
Forrest 2001, "The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging
Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream"
Kippley-Ogman, Emma. "Judaism & Intelligent Design". MyJewishLearning.com. New Y

ork: MyJewishLearning, Inc. Retrieved 2010-11-13. "But there are also Jewish voi
ces in the intelligent design camp. David Klinghoffer, a Discovery Institute fel
low, is an ardent advocate of intelligent design. In an article in The Forward (
August 12, 2005), he claimed that Jewish thinkers have largely ignored intellige
nt design and contended that Jews, along with Christians, should adopt the theor
y because beliefs in God and in natural selection are fundamentally opposed."
Meyer 2009, "Michael Denton, an agnostic, argues for intelligent design in Evolu
tion: A Theory in Crisis, 326 43."
Frame 2009, p. 291, "In contrast to the other would-be pioneers of Intelligent D
esign, Denton describes himself as an agnostic, and his book was released by a s
ecular publishing house."
"CSC - Top Questions: General Questions: Is Discovery Institute a religious orga
nization?". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Re
trieved 2010-11-13. "Discovery Institute is a secular think tank, and its Board
members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, including mainl
ine Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic. Until re
cently the Chairman of Discovery's Board of Directors was former Congressman Joh
n Miller, who is Jewish. Although it is not a religious organization, the Instit
ute 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 prog
ram for several years for college students to teach them the importance of relig
ious liberty and the separation of church and state."
Edis 2004, "Grand Themes, Narrow Constituency," p. 12: "Among Muslims involved w
ith ID, the most notable is Muzaffar Iqbal, a fellow of the International Societ
y for Complexity, Information, and Design, a leading ID organization."
Shanks 2004, p. 11: "Muzaffar Iqbal, president of the Center for Islam and Scien
ce, has recently endorsed work by intelligent design theorist William Dembski."
Johnson, Phillip E. (July August 1999). "The Wedge: Breaking the Modernist Monopol
y on Science". Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity (Chicago, IL: Fellowsh
ip of St. James) 12 (4). ISSN 0897-327X. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Dembski 1998
Dembski 1999, p. 210
Dembski, William (February 1, 2005). "Intelligent Design's Contribution to the D
ebate Over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris". DesignInference.com. Pella, IA:
William Dembski. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Dixon 2008, p. 82
Ross, Hugh (July 2002). "More Than Intelligent Design". Facts for Faith (Glendor
a, CA: Reasons to Believe) (10). OCLC 52894856. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Morris, Henry M. (July 1999). "Design Is Not Enough!". Back to Genesis (Santee,
CA: Institute for Creation Research) (127). OCLC 26390403. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Wieland, Carl (August 30, 2002). "AiG's views on the Intelligent Design Movement
". Answers in Genesis. Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis Ministries International.
Archived from the original on 2002-10-15. Retrieved April 25, 2007.
National Academy of Sciences 1999, p. 25
Attie, Alan D.; Sober, Elliott; Numbers, Ronald L.; Amasino, Richard M.; Cox, Be
th; Berceau, Terese; Powell, Thomas; Cox, Michael M. (May 1, 2006). "Defending s
cience education against intelligent design: a call to action". Journal of Clini
cal Investigation (Ann Arbor, MI: American Society for Clinical Investigation) 1
16 (5): 1134 1138. doi:10.1172/JCI28449. ISSN 0021-9738. PMC 1451210. PMID 1667075
3. Retrieved 2012-06-16.
Lovan, Dylan (September 24, 2012). "Bill Nye Warns: Creation Views Threaten US S
cience". Associated Press. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Fowler, Jonathan; Rodd, Elizabeth (August 23, 2012). "Bill Nye: Creationism Is N
ot Appropriate For Children". YouTube. New York: Big Think. Retrieved 2014-02-28
.
"Sign - Dissent from Darwin". dissentfromdarwin.org. Seattle, WA: Discovery Inst
itute. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
"Doubts Over Evolution Mount With Over 300 Scientists Expressing Skepticism With
Central Tenet of Darwin's Theory". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA:
Discovery Institute. April 1, 2004. Retrieved 2014-01-02.

Evans, Skip (April 8, 2002). "Doubting Darwinism Through Creative License". Nati
onal Center for Science Education (Blog). Berkeley, CA: National Center for Scie
nce Education. Retrieved 2011-04-25.
Chang, Kenneth (February 21, 2006). "Few Biologists But Many Evangelicals Sign A
nti-Evolution Petition". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-01-04.
Luskin, Casey (June 1, 2011). "A Scientific Analysis of Karl Giberson and Franci
s Collins' The Language of Science and Faith". Evolution News & Views. Seattle,
WA: Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2014-01-02.
"Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God". The
Harris Poll. Rochester, NY: Harris Interactive. July 6, 2005. #52. Archived fro
m the original on 2005-12-17. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
"Sandia National Laboratories says that the Intelligent Design Network (IDNet-NM
/Zogby) 'Lab Poll' is BOGUS!". New Mexicans for Science and Reason. Peralta, NM:
NMSR. Retrieved 2007-07-13.
Mooney, Chris (September 11, 2003). "Polling for ID". Committee for Skeptical In
quiry (Blog). Amherst, NY: Center for Inquiry. Archived from the original on 200
8-03-27. Retrieved 2007-02-16.
Harris, David (July 30, 2003). "'Intelligent Design'-ers launch new assault on c
urriculum using lies and deception". Salon (Blog). San Francisco, CA: Salon Medi
a Group. Archived from the original on 2003-08-16. Retrieved 2007-07-13.
"In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins". Gallup.Com. Omaha, NE:
Gallup, Inc. Retrieved 2016-01-30.
Dean, Cornelia (September 27, 2007). "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's
Origin". The New York Times. Retrieved 2014-05-14.
Burbridge-Bates, Lesley (August 14, 2007). "What Happened to Freedom of Speech?"
(PDF) (Press release). Los Angeles, CA: Motive Entertainment; Premise Media Cor
poration. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-12-01. Retrieved 2014-05-14.
Whipple, Dan (December 16, 2007). "Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to th
e Movies". The Colorado Independent (Blog) (Washington, D.C.: American Independe
nt News Network). Retrieved 2014-05-14.
Emerson, Jim (December 17, 2008). "Ben Stein: No argument allowed". RogerEbert.c
om (Blog). Chicago, IL: Ebert Digital LLC. Retrieved 2014-05-14. "One spokesman
comes close to articulating a thought about Intelligent Design: 'If you define e
volution 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 tex
tbook definition of neo-Darwinism -- biologists of the first rank have real ques
tions... 'Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best ex
plained as a result of intelligence.'"
Catsoulis, Jeannette (April 18, 2008). "Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Do
cumentary". The New York Times (Movie review). Retrieved 2014-05-14.
Simon, Stephanie (May 2, 2008). "Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools"
. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2014-05-14.
Lempinen, Edward W. (April 18, 2008). "New AAAS Statement Decries 'Profound Dish
onesty' of Intelligent Design Movie". Washington, D.C.: American Association for
the Advancement of Science. Archived from the original on 2008-04-25. Retrieved
2008-04-20.
Frankowski, Nathan (Director) (2008). Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Motion
picture). Premise Media Corporation; Rampant Films. OCLC 233721412.
Mosher, Dave (April 3, 2008). "New Anti-Evolution Film Stirs Controversy". LiveS
cience. New York: Space Holdings Corp. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Josh Timonen, "Expelled Overview," The Richard Dawkins Center for Reason and Sci
ence," 24 March 2008. Retrieved 13 March 2015.
Elmes, Kantowitz & Roediger 2006. Chapter 2 discusses the scientific method, inc
luding the principles of falsifiability, testability, progressive development of
theory, dynamic self-correcting of hypotheses, and parsimony, or "Occam's razor
."
See, e.g., Perakh, Mark (2005). "The Dream World of William Dembski's Creationis
m". Skeptic (Altadena, CA: The Skeptics Society) 11 (4): 54 65. ISSN 1063-9330. Re
trieved 2014-02-28.
Forrest, Barbara (Fall Winter 2000). "Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical

Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection". Philo (Amherst, NY: Center for Inquiry)
3 (2): 7 29. doi:10.5840/philo20003213. ISSN 1098-3570. Retrieved 2007-07-27.
Johnson 1995. Johnson positions himself as a "theistic realist" against "methodo
logical naturalism."
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Whether I
D is Science, p. 87
"Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington". Proceeding
s of the Biological Society of Washington (Washington, D.C.: Biological Society
of Washington) 117 (3): 241. 2004. ISSN 0006-324X. OCLC 1536434. Retrieved 201402-28.
"Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of In
telligent Design (Annotated)". Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Disc
overy Institute. February 1, 2012. Retrieved 2014-02-28. The July 1, 2007, versi
on of page is Archived August 4, 2007 at the Wayback Machine.
Shaw, Linda (March 31, 2005). "Does Seattle group 'teach controversy' or contrib
ute to it?". The Seattle Times (The Seattle Times Company). Retrieved 2014-02-28
.
"Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate". World News To
night (New York: American Broadcasting Company). November 9, 2005. Retrieved 201
4-02-28.
Mooney, Chris (December 2002). "Survival of the Slickest". The American Prospect
(Washington, D.C.) 13 (22). Retrieved 2014-02-28. "ID's home base is the Center
for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer di
rects the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute
, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner
George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd h
as pushed a 'teach the controversy' approach to evolution that closely influence
d the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which
would require students to learn how scientists 'continue to investigate and cri
tically analyze' aspects of Darwin's theory."
Dembski, William A. (February 27, 2001). "Teaching Intelligent Design -- What Ha
ppened When? A Response to Eugenie Scott". Metanexus. New York: Metanexus Instit
ute. Retrieved 2014-02-28. "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 controversy." Dembski's response to Eugenie Scott's Fe
bruary 12, 2001, essay published by Metanexus, "The Big Tent and the Camel's Nos
e."
Matzke, Nick (July 11, 2006). "No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists ". The Pa
nda's Thumb (Blog). Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2014
-02-28. Nick Matzke's analysis shows how teaching the controversy using the Crit
ical Analysis of Evolution model lesson plan is a means of teaching all the inte
lligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label.
Annas 2006, "That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents
of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the contro
versy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in
science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned."
"Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: American Assoc
iation for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006. Archived from the orig
inal (PDF) on 2006-02-21. Retrieved 2014-02-28. "Some bills seek to discredit ev
olution by emphasizing so-called 'flaws' in the theory of evolution or 'disagree
ments' within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolut
e freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-sci
entific 'alternatives' to 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 v
alidity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teac
hing of evolution is not a scientific one."
Scott, Eugenie C.; Branch, Glenn (August 12, 2002) [Reprinted with permission fr
om School Board News, August 13, 2002]. "'Intelligent Design' Not Accepted by Mo

st Scientists". National Center for Science Education (Blog). Berkeley, CA: Nati
onal Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2009-11-18.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Whethe
r ID Is Science, pp. 71 74.
Merriman 2007, p. 26
Murphy, George L. (2002). "Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem". Covalen
ce: The Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Fait
h, Science and Technology (Chicago, IL: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,
Division for Ministry) IV (2). OCLC 52753579. Retrieved 2014-02-28. Reprinted wi
th permission.
Darwin 1860, p. 484, "...probably all the organic beings which have ever lived o
n this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was f
irst breathed by the Creator."
Dembski, William A. (Spring 2003). "Making the Task of Theodicy Impossible? Inte
lligent Design and the Problem of Evil" (PDF). DesignInference.com. Pella, IA: W
illiam Dembski. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Ratzsch, Del (October 3, 2010). "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence". In
Zalta, Edward N. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, CA: The Met
aphysics Research Lab. Section 4.3, The "Intelligent Design" (ID) Movement. ISSN
1095-5054. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
See, for instance: Bube, Richard H. (Fall 1971). "Man Come Of Age: Bonhoeffer's
Response To The God-Of-The-Gaps" (PDF). Journal of the Evangelical Theological S
ociety (Louisville, KY: Evangelical Theological Society) 14 (4): 203 220. ISSN 036
0-8808. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Ronan, p. 61
Ronan, p. 123
"Intelligent Design on Trial: Kitzmiller v. Dover National Center for Science Ed
ucation". National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center f
or Science Education. October 17, 2008. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Matzke 2006a
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (United States District Cou
rt for the Middle District of Pennsylvania December 20, 2005). Memorandum and Or
der, July 27, 2005.
Powell, Michael (December 21, 2005). "Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design'".
The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2007-09-28. Retrieved 2007-0
9-03.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Whethe
r ID Is Science, p. 89
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Curric
ulum, Conclusion, pp. 137 138
Crowther, Robert (December 20, 2005). "Dover Intelligent Design Decision Critici
zed as a Futile Attempt to Censor Science Education". Evolution News & Views. Se
attle, WA: Discovery Institute. Retrieved 2007-09-03.
Raffaele, Martha (December 20, 2005). "Intelligent design policy struck down". D
allas Morning News. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2007-09-30.
Retrieved 2014-02-28.
"Judge rules against 'intelligent design'". NBCNews.com. Contributions by Al
an Boyle. Associated Press. December 20, 2005. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Provonsha, Matthew (September 21, 2006). "Godless: The Church of Liberalism". eS
keptic (Book review). ISSN 1556-5696. Retrieved 2007-09-03.
Padian, Kevin; Matzke, Nick (January 4, 2006). "Discovery Institute tries to "sw
ift-boat" Judge Jones". National Center for Science Education (Blog). Berkeley,
CA: National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2009-11-18.
"Editor's Note: Intelligent Design Articles" (PDF). Montana Law Review (Missoula
, MT: University of Montana School of Law) 68 (1): 1 5. Winter 2007. ISSN 0026-997
2. Retrieved 2014-02-28.

DeWolf, David K.; West, John G.; Luskin, Casey (Winter 2007). "Intelligent Desig
n Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover" (PDF). Montana Law Review (Missoula, MT: Uni
versity of Montana School of Law) 68 (1): 7 57. ISSN 0026-9972. Retrieved 2014-0228.
Irons, Peter (Winter 2007). "Disaster In Dover: The Trials (And Tribulations) Of
Intelligent Design" (PDF). Montana Law Review (Missoula, MT: University of Mont
ana School of Law) 68 (1): 59 87. ISSN 0026-9972. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
DeWolf, David K.; West, John G.; Luskin, Casey (Winter 2007). "Rebuttal to Irons
" (PDF). Montana Law Review (Missoula, MT: University of Montana School of Law)
68 (1): 89 94. ISSN 0026-9972. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Brayton, Ed (June 7, 2007). "Irons Responds to West, Luskin and DeWolf". Dis
patches from the Creation Wars (Blog). ScienceBlogs LLC. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
"American Academy of Religion on teaching creationism". National Center for Scie
nce Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. July 23, 201
0. Retrieved 2010-08-09.
"The dangers of creationism in education". Committee on Culture, Science and Edu
cation (Report). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. June 8, 2007.
Doc. 11297. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
"The dangers of creationism in education". Committee on Culture, Science and
Education (Report). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. September
17, 2007. Doc. 11375. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
"The dangers of creationism in education". Committee on Culture, Science and
Education (Resolution). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Octobe
r 4, 2007. Resolution 1580. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
"Council of Europe approves resolution against creationism". National Center for
Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. Retriev
ed 2009-11-18.
Reilhac, Gilbert (October 4, 2007). "Council of Europe firmly opposes creati
onism in school". Reuters. Retrieved 2007-10-05.
Meyer, Stephen C.; Allen, W. Peter (July 15, 2004). "Unlocking the Mystery of Li
fe". Center for Science and Culture (Preview). Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute.
Retrieved 2007-07-13.
Randerson, James (November 26, 2006). "Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schoo
l". The Guardian (London: Guardian Media Group). Retrieved 2008-10-17.
"'Design' attack on school science". BBC News (London: BBC). September 29, 2006.
Retrieved 2014-02-28.
"Truth in Science". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons. November
1, 2006. col. 455W 456W.
"Schools: Intelligent Design". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Lords.
December 18, 2006. col. WA257 WA258.
"Guidance on creationism for British teachers". National Center for Science Educ
ation. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. February 2, 2007. Re
trieved 2009-11-18.
"How can we answer questions about creation and origins?" (PDF). Qualifications
and Curriculum Authority. 2006. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
"nocrescied - epetition response". Number10.gov.uk. London: Her Majesty's Statio
nery Office. June 21, 2007. Archived from the original on 2008-10-15. Retrieved
2014-02-28.
"The UK [government's] position on creationism and Intelligent Design in sci
ence classes". British Centre for Science Education. British Centre for Science
Education. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
"The creation of a new Giant's Causeway row". Belfast Telegraph (Dublin: Indepen

dent News & Media). November 30, 2007. Retrieved 2014-02-28.

Henry, Lesley-Anne (September 26, 2007). "Tussle of Biblical proportions over cr
eationism in Ulster classrooms". Belfast Telegraph (Dublin: Independent News & M
edia). Retrieved 2014-02-28.
"Viewpoint: The world, according to Lisburn folk". Belfast Telegraph (Dublin
: Independent News & Media). September 27, 2007. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
"Dup Call For Schools To Teach Creation Passed By Council". Ulster Star (Edinbur
gh: Johnston Publishing Ltd.). September 26, 2007. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Enserink, Martin (June 3, 2005). "Evolution Politics: Is Holland Becoming the Ka
nsas of Europe?". Science (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advanc
ement of Science) 308 (5727): 1394. doi:10.1126/science.308.5727.1394b. PMID 159
33170.
"Cabinet ministers announced (update 2)". DutchNews.nl (Amsterdam: Dutch News BV
). February 13, 2007. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
"Katholieke wetenschappers hebben de evolutietheorie al lang aanvaard". De Morge
n (Brussels: De Persgroep Nederland). May 23, 2005.
Edis, Taner (November December 1999). "Cloning Creationism in Turkey". Reports of
the National Center for Science Education (Berkeley, CA: National Center for Sci
ence Education) 19 (6): 30 35. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved 2009-11-18.
Edis, Taner (January 2008). "Islamic Creationism: A Short History". Newsletter (
Notre Dame, IN: History of Science Society) 37 (1). Retrieved 2011-04-20.
Jones, Dorian L. (March 12, 2008). "Turkey's survival of the fittest". Security
Watch. Zurich: International Relations and Security Network. Retrieved 2014-02-2
8.
Jensen 2011
Wroe, David (August 11, 2005). "'Intelligent design' an option: Nelson". The Age
(Sydney: Fairfax Media). Retrieved 2014-03-02.
Smith, Deborah (October 21, 2005). "Intelligent design not science: experts". Th
e Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney: Fairfax Media). Retrieved 2007-07-13.
Kruger, Paula (August 26, 2005). "Brendan Nelson suggests 'intelligent design' c
ould be taught in schools". PM (Transcript) (Sydney: ABC Radio National). Retrie
ved 2011-10-22.
Green, Shane (October 28, 2005). "School backs intelligent design DVD". The
Age (Sydney: Fairfax Media). Retrieved 2011-10-22.
Further reading
Books
Behe, Michael J. (1996). Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Ev
olution. New York: Free Press. ISBN 0-684-82754-9. LCCN 96000695. OCLC 34150540.
Bliss, Richard B. (1976). Gish, Duane T.; Moore, John N., eds. Origins: Two
Models: Evolution, Creation. San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers. ISBN 0-890
510-27-X. LCCN 76020178. OCLC 2597773.
Bliss, Richard B. (1988). Unfred, David W., ed. Origins: Creation or Evoluti
on. El Cajon, CA: Master Books. ISBN 0-890511-32-2. LCCN 92190747. OCLC 29517556
.
Coyne, Jerry A. (2009). Why Evolution is True. Oxford; New York: Oxford Univ
ersity Press. ISBN 978-0-19-923084-6. LCCN 2008042122. OCLC 259716035.
Darwin, Charles (1860). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selecti
on, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (Fifth Thousa
nd [2nd] ed.). London: John Murray. LCCN 05016315. OCLC 1184673. The book is ava
ilable in the PDF format from The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online.
Davis, Percival; Kenyon, Dean H. (1993) [Originally published 1989]. Thaxton
, Charles B., ed. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origi
ns (2nd ed.). Dallas, TX: Haughton Publishing Co. ISBN 0-914513-40-0. LCCN 00711
376. OCLC 27973099.

Dawkins, Richard (1986). The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution
Reveals a Universe without Design. Illustrations by Liz Pyle (1st American ed.)
. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-02216-1. LCCN 85004960. OCLC 8026
16493.
Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Comp
any. ISBN 978-0-618-68000-9. LCCN 2006015506. OCLC 68965666.
Dembski, William A. (1998). The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through
Small Probabilities. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-52
1-62387-1. LCCN 98003020. OCLC 38551103.
Dembski, William A. (1999). Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science &
Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-2314-X. LCCN 99037
141. OCLC 41628252.
Dixon, Thomas (2008). Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction. New Y
ork: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-929551-7. LCCN 2008023565. OCLC 2696
22437.
Elmes, David G.; Kantowitz, Barry H.; Roediger, Henry L. (2006). Research Me
thods in Psychology (8th ed.). Australia; Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. ISBN 0
-534-60976-7. LCCN 2005925207. OCLC 61721527.
Forrest, Barbara; Gross, Paul R. (2004). Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wed
ge of Intelligent Design. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-5
15742-7. LCCN 2002192677. OCLC 50913078.
Frame, Tom (2009). Evolution in the Antipodes: Charles Darwin and Australia.
Sydney: UNSW Press. ISBN 978-1-921410-76-5. LCCN 2009286878. OCLC 271821761.
Gauch, Jr., Hugh G. (2003). Scientific Method in Practice. New York: Cambrid
ge University Press. ISBN 0-521-01708-4. LCCN 2002022271. OCLC 49225684.
Gonzalez, Guillermo; Richards, Jay W. (2004). The Privileged Planet: How Our
Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publis
hing. ISBN 978-0-89526-065-9. LCCN 2004000421. OCLC 54046478.
Huchingson, James E., ed. (1993). Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Ran
ge of Engagement. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
ISBN 0-030522-53-6. LCCN 92081266. OCLC 27833414.
Humes, Edward (2007). Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the B
attle for America's Soul (1st ed.). New York: Ecco. ISBN 978-0-06-088548-9. LCCN
2006050263. OCLC 71223542.
Jensen, Leif A. (2011). Rethinking Darwin: A Vedic Study of Darwinism and In
telligent Design. Contributors: Wells, Jonathan; Dembski, William A.; Behe, Mich
ael J.; Cremo, Michael A. Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Johnson, Phillip E. (1991). Darwin on Trial. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gatew
ay. ISBN 0-8952-6535-4. LCCN 90026218. OCLC 22906277.
Johnson, Phillip E. (1995). Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturali
sm in Science, Law & Education. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-83
0-81610-0. LCCN 95012620. OCLC 32384818.
Johnson, Phillip E. (1997). Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Downers Gr
ove, IL: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-1360-8. LCCN 97012916. OCLC 36621960.
Johnson, Phillip E. (2000). The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of
Naturalism. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-2267-4. LCCN 000
39586. OCLC 43903750.
Merriman, Scott A. (2007). Religion and the Law in America: An Encyclopedia
of Personal Belief and Public Policy 1. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-185109-863-7. LCCN 2007002579. OCLC 163590129.
Meyer, Stephen C. (2009). Signature in the Cell (1st ed.). New York: HarperO
ne. ISBN 978-0-06-147278-7. LCCN 2008051773. OCLC 232978147.
Numbers, Ronald L. (2006) [Originally published 1992 as The Creationists: Th
e Evolution of Scientific Creationism; New York: Alfred A. Knopf]. The Creationi
sts: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (Expanded ed., 1st Harvar
d University Press pbk. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-67
4-02339-0. LCCN 2006043675. OCLC 69734583.
Pearcey, Nancy (2004). Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultura
l Captivity. Foreword by Phillip E. Johnson. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. ISBN 1
-58134-458-9. LCCN 2003019514. OCLC 52980609.

Pennock, Robert T. (1999). Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Crea
tionism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-16180-X. LCCN 98027286. OCLC 44966
044.
Pennock, Robert T, ed. (2001). Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critic
s: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT P
ress. ISBN 0-262-66124-1. LCCN 2001031276. OCLC 46729201.
Pigliucci, Massimo (2010). "Science in the Courtroom: The Case against Intel
ligent Design" (PDF). Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. Chicago
, IL: University of Chicago Press. pp. 160 186. ISBN 978-0-226-66786-7. LCCN 20090
49778. OCLC 457149439.
Ronan, Colin A. (1983). The Cambridge Illustrated History of the World's Sci
ence. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-25844-8. LCCN
87673896. OCLC 10411883.
Ruse, Michael (1992). "Of Pandas and People". In Hughes, Liz Rank. Reviews o
f Creationist Books (Book review) (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: National Center for S
cience Education. ISBN 0-939873-52-4. OCLC 29343847.
Scott, Eugenie C. (2004). Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Forewo
rd by Niles Eldredge. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-32122-1. LCCN 20
04044214. OCLC 54752786.
Shanks, Niall (2004). God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent
Design Theory. Foreword by Richard Dawkins. Oxford; New York: Oxford University
Press. ISBN 0-19-516199-8. LCCN 2003042916. OCLC 51769083.
Shermer, Michael (2006). Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent De
sign (1st ed.). New York: Times Books. ISBN 978-0-8050-8121-3. LCCN 2006041243.
OCLC 64511220.
Slack, Gordy (2007). The Battle over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, I
ntelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Ba
ss. ISBN 978-0-7879-8786-2. LCCN 2007005825. OCLC 84903217.
Stenger, Victor J. (2011). The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is N
ot Designed for Us. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-61614-443-2. LCCN
2010049901. OCLC 679931691.
Susskind, Leonard (2005). The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusi
on of Intelligent Design (1st ed.). New York: Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 0316-15579-9. LCCN 2005018796. OCLC 60798474.
Thaxton, Charles B.; Bradley, Walter L.; Olsen, Roger L. (1984). The Mystery
of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. Foreword by Dean H. Kenyon. New
York: Philosophical Library ; Copyright 1984 by Foundation for Thought and Ethi
cs. ISBN 0-8022-2447-4. LCCN 83017463. OCLC 9895509.
Wells, Jonathan (2000). Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much of Wh
at We Teach About Evolution is Wrong. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing. ISBN
0-89526-276-2. LCCN 00062544. OCLC 44768911.
Young, Matt; Edis, Taner, eds. (2004). Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scien
tific Critique of the New Creationism. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Pre
ss. ISBN 0-8135-3433-X. JSTOR 40072957. LCCN 2003020100. OCLC 59717533.
Zimmer, Carl (2001). Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea. Introduction by Step
hen Jay Gould; foreword by Richard Hutton (1st ed.). New York: HarperCollins. IS
BN 0-06-019906-7. LCCN 2001024077. OCLC 46359440. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
ID perspectives
Center for Science and Culture A program of the Discovery Institute
Non-ID perspectives
"AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory". Washington, D.C.: Amer
ican Association for the Advancement of Science. October 18, 2002. Archived from
the original on 2002-11-13. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
ACLU site on Intelligent Design
"Are There Any Important Differences between Intelligent Design and Creation
ism?" (PDF) by Jason Rosenhouse for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, Februar

y 24, 2006
"The Design Argument" (PDF) by Elliott Sober, 2004
"Design Arguments for the Existence of God" An entry in the Internet Encyclo
pedia of Philosophy (ISSN 2161-0002), founded by James Fieser
"Intelligent Design?" Special report prepared by Richard Milner and Vittorio
Maestro for Natural History magazine
"Kitzmiller: An Intelligent Ruling on 'Intelligent Design'" by JURIST guest
columnist Stephen G. Gey, December 29, 2005
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (PDF) A 139-page in-depth opinion o
f intelligent design, irreducible complexity, and the book Of Pandas and People
by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III
National Academy of Sciences (1999). Science and Creationism: A View from th
e National Academy of Sciences (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Pre
ss. ISBN 0-309-06406-6. LCCN 99006259. OCLC 43803228.
"Natural 'Knowledge' and Natural 'Design'" by Richard Dawkins, May 15, 2006
TalkOrigins Archive Archive of the Usenet discussion group talk.origins
Texas Citizens for Science
"What Is Intelligent Design Creationism?" National Center for Science Educat
ion, October 17, 2008
Media articles and audio video resources
Adler, Margot (Host) (September 5, 2005). "Intelligent Design: Scientific In
quiry or Religious Indoctrination?". Justice Talking (Podcast). Annenberg Public
Policy Center. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Annas, George J. (May 25, 2006). "Intelligent Judging
Evolution in the Class
room and the Courtroom". The New England Journal of Medicine (Waltham, MA: Massa
chusetts Medical Society) 354 (21): 2277 2281. doi:10.1056/NEJMlim055660. ISSN 002
8-4793. PMID 16723620. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Baynton, Douglas (December 17, 2005). "'Intelligent Design' Deja Vu". The Wa
shington Post. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
"Debating Evolution in the Classroom". NPR (Story archive) (Washington, D.C.
: National Public Radio, Inc.). Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Downey, Roger (February 1, 2006). "Discovery's Creation". Seattle Weekly (Ph
oenix, AZ: Village Voice Media). Retrieved 2014-02-28.
"Evolution - Charles Darwin's 200th Birthday". The New York Times. February
10, 2009. Retrieved 2014-02-28. Articles, opinions, and features commemorating t
he birth of Charles Darwin
Grier, Peter; Burek, Josh (December 21, 2005). "Banned in biology class: int
elligent design". Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA: Christian Science Publi
shing Society). ISSN 0882-7729. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Johnstone, Gary (Director); McMaster, Joseph (Director) (November 13, 2007).
"Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial". Nova. Season 35. PBS. Retrieved 20
14-02-28.
"Kitzmiller in the York Daily Record". National Center for Science Education
. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. September 11, 2015. Retri
eved 2015-10-22.
Lemonick, Michael (December 20, 2005). "Darwin Victorious". Time (New York:
Time Inc.). Retrieved 2014-02-28.
Orr, H. Allen (May 30, 2005). "Devolution". The New Yorker (New York: Cond Na
st). Retrieved 2014-02-28.
[show]
Links to related articles
Categories:
Intelligent designCreationist objections to evolutionDenialismPseudoscienceA
rguments for the existence of GodCreationism
Navigation menu

Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
View source
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Afrikaans
???????
?????
?????????
Catal
Ce tina
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
????????
Espaol

Esperanto
Euskara
?????
Franais
Galego
???
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
?????
???????
Latvie u
Ltzebuergesch
Lietuviu
Magyar
??????????
??????
Nederlands
???
Norsk bokml
Polski
Portugus
Romna
???????
Simple English
Slovencina
Sloven cina
?????? / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / ??????????????
Suomi
Svenska
?????
Trke
??????????
Ti?ng Vi?t
??????
??
Edit links
This page was last modified on 1 February 2016, at 05:01.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use a
nd Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundatio
n, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki