Editing Intelligent design (section)

==History==

===Origin of the concept===
{{See also|Creation science|Teleological argument|Watchmaker analogy}}
In 1910, evolution was not a topic of major religious controversy in America, but in the 1920s, the [[fundamentalist–modernist controversy]] in [[theology]] resulted in [[Christian fundamentalism|fundamentalist Christian]] opposition to teaching evolution and resulted in the origins of modern creationism.<ref name="PM 09" /> As a result, teaching of evolution was effectively suspended in U.S. public schools until the 1960s, and when evolution was then reintroduced into the curriculum, there was a series of court cases in which attempts were made to get creationism taught alongside evolution in science classes. [[Young Earth creationism|Young Earth creationists]] (YECs) promoted "creation science" as "an alternative scientific explanation of the world in which we live". This frequently invoked the [[teleological argument|argument from design]] to explain complexity in nature as supposedly demonstrating the existence of God.<ref name="SM 07" />

The argument from design, also known as the teleological argument or "argument from intelligent design", has been presented by theologists for centuries.<ref name="Ayala 6">{{cite book |last=Ayala |first=Francisco J. |author-link=Francisco J. Ayala |year=2007 |title=Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=[[Joseph Henry Press]] |pages=6, 15–16, 138 |isbn=978-0-309-10231-5 |lccn=2007005821 |oclc=83609838 |ref=Ayala 2007}} Ayala writes that "Paley made the strongest possible case for intelligent design", and refers to "Intelligent Design: The Original Version" before discussing ID proponents reviving the argument from design under the pretense that it is scientific.</ref> [[Thomas Aquinas]] presented ID in his [[quinque viae|fifth proof]] of God's existence as a [[syllogism]].<ref name="kitzruling-IDandGod" group="n" /> In 1802, [[William Paley]]'s ''Natural Theology'' presented examples of intricate purpose in organisms. His version of the [[watchmaker analogy]] argued that a watch has evidently been designed by a craftsman and that it is supposedly just as evident that the complexity and [[adaptation]] seen in nature must have been designed. He went on to argue that the perfection and diversity of these designs supposedly shows the designer to be omnipotent and that this can supposedly only be the [[God in Christianity|Christian god]].<ref>[[#Pennock 1999|Pennock 1999]], pp. 60, 68–70, 242–245
* {{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy]], pp. 24–25.</ref> Like "creation science", intelligent design centers on Paley's religious argument from design,<ref name="SM 07" /> but while Paley's natural theology was open to [[deism|deistic]] design through God-given laws, intelligent design seeks scientific confirmation of repeated supposedly miraculous interventions in the history of life.<ref name="PM 09" /> "Creation science" prefigured the intelligent design arguments of irreducible complexity, even featuring the bacterial [[flagellum]]. In the United States, attempts to introduce "creation science" into schools led to court rulings that it is religious in nature and thus cannot be taught in public school science classrooms. Intelligent design is also presented as science and shares other arguments with "creation science" but avoids literal [[Bible|Biblical]] references to such topics as the biblical [[Genesis flood narrative|flood]] story or using [[Chronology of the Bible|Bible verses to estimate the age of the Earth]].<ref name="SM 07" />

[[Barbara Forrest]] writes that the intelligent design movement began in 1984 with the book ''The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories'', co-written by the creationist and chemist [[Charles Thaxton|Charles B. Thaxton]] and two other authors and published by Jon A. Buell's [[Foundation for Thought and Ethics]].<ref name="DarkSyde">{{cite interview |last=Forrest |first=Barbara C. |interviewer=Andrew Stephen |title=Know Your Creationists: Know Your Allies |url=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/03/11/193288/-Know-Your-Creationists-Know-Your-Allies |work=[[Daily Kos]] |publisher=Kos Media, LLC |location=Berkeley, Calif. |date=March 11, 2006 |oclc=59226519 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref>

In March 1986, [[Stephen C. Meyer]] published a review of this book, discussing how [[information theory]] could suggest that messages transmitted by [[DNA]] in the cell show "specified complexity" and must have been created by an intelligent agent.<ref name="meyermolo">{{cite magazine |last=Meyer |first=Stephen C. |date=March 1986 |title=We Are Not Alone |url=http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_notalone.htm |journal=Eternity |location=Philadelphia |publisher=Evangelical Foundation Inc. |issn=0014-1682 |access-date=2007-10-10}}</ref> He also argued that science is based upon "foundational assumptions" of naturalism that were as much a matter of faith as those of "creation theory".<ref name="Meyer Tenets 1986">{{cite journal | last=Meyer | first=Stephen C. | title=Scientific Tenets of Faith | journal=The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation |volume=38 |issue=1 | date=March 1986 | url=http://arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_scientifictenets.htm | access-date=31 May 2019}}</ref> In November of that year, Thaxton described his reasoning as a more sophisticated form of Paley's argument from design.<ref>{{cite conference |url=http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html |title=DNA, Design and the Origin of Life |last=Thaxton |first=Charles B. |author-link=Charles Thaxton |date=November 13–16, 1986 |conference=Jesus Christ: God and Man |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927203913/http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html |archive-date=September 27, 2007 |location=Dallas |access-date=2012-06-16}}</ref> At a conference that Thaxton held in 1988 ("Sources of Information Content in DNA"), he said that his intelligent cause view was compatible with both [[metaphysical naturalism]] and [[supernatural]]ism.<ref name="picshb" />

Intelligent design avoids identifying or naming the [[intelligent designer]]—it merely states that one (or more) must exist—but leaders of the movement have said the designer is the Christian God.<ref name="dembski_logos">{{cite magazine |last=Dembski |first=William A. |author-link=William A. Dembski |date=July–August 1999 |title=Signs of Intelligence: A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design |url=http://touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=49 |magazine=Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity |location=Chicago |publisher=Fellowship of St. James |volume=12 |issue=4 |issn=0897-327X |access-date=2014-02-28 |quote=...[I]ntelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.}}</ref><ref name="wedge2" group="n">''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'', [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy]], pages 26–27, "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Examples include:
* {{cite news |last=Nickson |first=Elizabeth |author-link=Elizabeth Nickson |date=February 6, 2004 |title=Let's Be Intelligent about Darwin |url=http://elizabethnickson.com/darwin.htm |newspaper=[[National Post]] |type=Reprint |location=Toronto |publisher=Postmedia Network |issn=1486-8008 |access-date=2014-02-28 |quote=Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools. |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131228190939/http://elizabethnickson.com/darwin.htm |archive-date=December 28, 2013 }} — [[Phillip E. Johnson]] (2003)
* {{cite magazine |last=Grelen |first=Jay |date=November 30, 1996 |title=Witnesses for the prosecution |url=http://www.worldmag.com/1996/11/witnesses_for_the_prosecution |magazine=World |location=Asheville, N.C. |publisher=God's World Publications |volume=11 |issue=28 |page=18 |issn=0888-157X |access-date=2014-02-16 |quote=This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy. }}
* [[#Johnson 2002|Johnson 2002]], "So the question is: How to win? That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the 'wedge' strategy: 'Stick with the most important thing'—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, 'Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?' and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do."</ref><ref group="n">{{cite episode |title=Doubting Darwin: The Marketing of Intelligent Design |url=http://digital.films.com/play/YTTF34 |access-date=2014-02-28 |series=[[Nightline]] |first=Koppel |last=Ted |author-link=Ted Koppel |network=[[American Broadcasting Company]] |location=New York |date=August 10, 2005 |quote=I think the designer is God&nbsp;...}} — [[Stephen C. Meyer]]
* [[#Pearcey 2004|Pearcey 2004]], pp. 204–205, "By contrast, design theory demonstrates that Christians can sit in the supernaturalist's chair, even in their professional lives, seeing the cosmos through the lens of a comprehensive biblical worldview. Intelligent Design steps boldly into the scientific arena to build a case based on empirical data. It takes Christianity out of the ineffectual realm of value and stakes out a cognitive claim in the realm of objective truth. It restores Christianity to its status as genuine knowledge, equipping us to defend it in the public arena."</ref> Whether this lack of specificity about the designer's identity in public discussions is a genuine feature of the concept – or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science – has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case.

===Origin of the term===
{{See also|Timeline of intelligent design}}

Since the [[Middle Ages]], discussion of the religious "argument from design" or "teleological argument" in theology, with its concept of "intelligent design", has persistently referred to the theistic Creator God. Although ID proponents chose this provocative label for their proposed alternative to evolutionary explanations, they have de-emphasized their religious antecedents and denied that ID is [[natural theology]], while still presenting ID as supporting the argument for the existence of God.<ref name="Haught Witness Report">{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/expert_reports/2005-04-01_Haught_expert_report_P.pdf |title=Report of John F. Haught, Ph. D |last=Haught |first=John F. |author-link=John F. Haught |date=April 1, 2005 |access-date=2013-08-29}} Haught's expert report in ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District''.</ref><ref name="Dao">{{cite news|last=Dao |first=James |date=December 25, 2005 |title=2005: In a Word; Intelligent Design |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A07E6D81530F936A15751C1A9639C8B63 |newspaper=The New York Times |access-date=2013-08-23 }} Dao states that the Discovery Institute said the 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 objections to "what has been called the Argument from Design" raised by [[natural selection]], and said "...it will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of Evolution may be guided by an intelligent design." [http://infomotions.com/etexts/archive/ia311518.us.archive.org/1/items/humanismphiloso00schiuoft/humanismphiloso00schiuoft_djvu.htm pp. 128, 141] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029184445/http://infomotions.com/etexts/archive/ia311518.us.archive.org/1/items/humanismphiloso00schiuoft/humanismphiloso00schiuoft_djvu.htm |date=October 29, 2013 }}</ref>

While intelligent design proponents have pointed out past examples of the phrase ''intelligent design'' that they said were not creationist and faith-based, they have failed to show that these usages had any influence on those who introduced the label in the intelligent design movement.<ref name="Dao" /><ref name="Matzke 007">{{cite web |url=http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/the-true-origin.html |title=The true origin of 'intelligent design' |last=Matzke |first=Nick |date=August 14, 2007 |website=[[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|The Panda's Thumb]] |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston |type=Blog |access-date=2012-07-03}}</ref><ref>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 needed "intelligent direction":
* {{cite journal |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=The Utility and Pleasures of Science |url=http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=scia;cc=scia;rgn=full%20text;idno=scia0002-48;didno=scia0002-48;view=image;seq=00383;node=scia0002-48%3A1 |journal=Scientific American |date=August 21, 1847 |volume=2 |issue=48 |page=[https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924097312866&view=1up&seq=383&size=125&q1=intelligent%20design 381] |issn=0036-8733 |access-date=2012-06-16 |doi=10.1038/scientificamerican08211847-381|url-access=subscription }} concludes that "objects" that "the great Author" has supplied in "the great store-house of nature" give "evidence of infinite skill and intelligent design in their adaptation".
* {{cite web |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-3154 |title=Darwin, C. R. to Herschel, J. F. W. |last=Darwin |first=Charles |author-link=Charles Darwin |date=May 23, 1861 |website=[[Correspondence of Charles Darwin#Darwin Correspondence Project website|Darwin Correspondence Project]] |publisher=[[Cambridge University Library]] |location=Cambridge, UK |id=Letter 3154 |access-date=2014-02-28}}, discussing a footnote Herschel had added in January 1861 to his ''Physical Geology'' (see footnotes to [http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=235&itemID=F1548.1&viewtype=side pp. 190–191] in Francis Darwin's ''Life and Letters''.)
* {{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/8931 |last=Luskin |first=Casey |date=September 8, 2008 |title=A Brief History of Intelligent Design |website=Center for Science and Culture |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2012-07-08}} Luskin quotes examples of use of the phrase by [[F. C. S. Schiller]] and [[Fred Hoyle]].</ref>

Variations on the phrase appeared in Young Earth creationist publications: a 1967 book co-written by [[Percival Davis]] referred to "design according to which basic organisms were created". In 1970, [[A. E. Wilder-Smith]] published ''The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution''. The book defended Paley's design argument with computer calculations of the improbability of genetic sequences, which he said could not be explained by evolution but required "the abhorred necessity of divine intelligent activity behind nature", and that "the same problem would be expected to beset the relationship between the designer behind nature and the intelligently designed part of nature known as man."<ref name="Elsberry Dec96">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Enterprising.cfm |title=Enterprising Science Needs Naturalism |last=Elsberry |first=Wesley R. |author-link=Wesley R. Elsberry |date=December 5, 1996 |website=Talk Reason |access-date=2013-08-23}}</ref> 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", citing Wilder-Smith. Creationist Richard B. Bliss used the phrase "creative design" in ''Origins: Two Models: Evolution, Creation'' (1976), and in ''Origins: Creation or Evolution'' (1988) wrote that "while evolutionists are trying to find non-intelligent ways for life to occur, the creationist insists that an intelligent design must have been there in the first place."<ref name="Forrest expert report">{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/expert_reports/2005_04_01_Forrest_expert_report_P.pdf |title=Expert Witness Report |last=Forrest |first=Barbara |date=April 1, 2005 |access-date=2013-05-30}} Forrest's expert report in ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District''.</ref>

====''Of Pandas and People''====
{{Main|Of Pandas and People}}
[[File:Pandas text analysis.png|thumb|upright=1.5|Use of the terms "creationism" versus "intelligent design" in sequential drafts of the 1989 book ''Of Pandas and People''<ref name="Matzke" />]]
The most common modern use of the words "intelligent design" as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry began after the United States Supreme Court ruled in June 1987 in the case of ''[[Edwards v. Aguillard]]'' that it is [[Constitutionality#Unconstitutional laws in the United States|unconstitutional]] for a state to require the teaching of creationism in public school science curricula.<ref name="Matzke" />

A Discovery Institute report says that Charles B. Thaxton, editor of ''Pandas'', had picked the phrase up from a [[NASA]] scientist.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/post_6001764.html |title=Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design |last=Witt |first=Jonathan |date=December 20, 2005 |website=Evolution News & Views |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2012-06-16}}</ref> In two successive 1987 drafts of the book, over one hundred uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "Creation Science", were changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent design",<ref name=kitz31/> while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "[[cdesign proponentsists]]"{{sic}}.<ref name="Matzke">{{cite journal |last=Matzke |first=Nick |author-link=Nick Matzke |date=January–April 2006 |title=Design on Trial: How NCSE Helped Win the ''Kitzmiller'' Case |url=http://ncse.com/rncse/26/1-2/design-trial |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |volume=26 |issue=1–2 |pages=37–44 |issn=2158-818X |access-date=2009-11-18 |ref=Matzke 2006a}}
* {{cite web |url=http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?p=80 |title=Missing Link discovered! |last=Matzke |first=Nick |date=November 7, 2005 |website=Evolution Education and the Law |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, Calif. |type=Blog |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070114121029/http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?p=80 |archive-date=January 14, 2007 |access-date=2009-11-18}}</ref> In June 1988, Thaxton held a conference titled "Sources of Information Content in DNA" in [[Tacoma, Washington|Tacoma]], [[Washington (state)|Washington]].<ref name=picshb>{{cite conference |url=http://www.leaderu.com/offices/thaxton/docs/inpursuit.html |title=In Pursuit of Intelligent Causes: Some Historical Background |last=Thaxton |first=Charles B. |date=June 24–26, 1988 |conference=Sources of Information Content in DNA |location=Tacoma, Wash. |oclc=31054528 |access-date=2007-10-06}} Revised July 30, 1988, and May 6, 1991.</ref> Stephen C. Meyer was at the conference, and later recalled that "The term ''intelligent design'' came up..."<ref name="Safire 05">{{cite news |last=Safire |first=William |author-link=William Safire |date=August 21, 2005 |title=Neo-Creo |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/magazine/21ONLANGUAGE.html |newspaper=The New York Times |access-date=2012-06-16}}</ref> In December 1988 Thaxton decided to use the label "intelligent design" for his new creationist movement.<ref name="DarkSyde" />

''Of Pandas and People'' was published in 1989, and in addition to including all the current arguments for ID, was the first book to make systematic use of the terms "intelligent design" and "design proponents" as well as the phrase "design theory", defining the term ''intelligent design'' in a glossary and representing it as not being creationism. It thus represents the start of the modern [[intelligent design movement]].<ref name="Matzke" /><ref name="Matzke 007" /><ref name="pandafounds">{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/critique-pandas-people |title=Critique: 'Of Pandas and People' |last=Matzke |first=Nick |date=November 23, 2004 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, Calif. |type=Blog |access-date=2007-09-24}}</ref> "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.<ref name="Aulie">{{cite web|url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/design/aulie_of-pandas.html |title=A Reader's Guide to Of Pandas and People |last=Aulie |first=Richard P. |author-link=Richard P. Aulie |year=1998 |publisher=[[National Association of Biology Teachers]] |location=McLean, Va. |access-date=2007-10-05 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140306082532/http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/design/aulie_of-pandas.html |archive-date=March 6, 2014 }}</ref> It was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its primary present use, as stated both by its publisher Jon A. Buell,<ref name="SM 07">{{cite journal |last1=Scott |first1=Eugenie C. |author-link1=Eugenie Scott |last2=Matzke |first2=Nicholas J. |author-link2=Nick Matzke |date=May 15, 2007 |title=Biological design in science classrooms |journal=[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America]] |volume=104 |issue=Suppl 1 |pages=8669–8676 |bibcode=2007PNAS..104.8669S |doi=10.1073/pnas.0701505104 |pmc=1876445 |pmid=17494747 |doi-access=free }} [http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8669.abstract abstract]</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/i_guess_id_real.html |title=I guess ID really was 'Creationism's Trojan Horse' after all |last=Matzke |first=Nick |date=October 13, 2005 |website=The Panda's Thumb |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston |type=Blog |access-date=2009-06-02 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080624124225/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/i_guess_id_real.html |archive-date=June 24, 2008 }}</ref> and by [[William A. Dembski]] in his expert witness report for ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District''.<ref name="Dembski Witness Report">{{cite web |last=Dembski |first=William A. |url=http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.09.Expert_Report_Dembski.pdf |archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20050930230119/http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.09.Expert_Report_Dembski.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=September 30, 2005 |title=Expert Witness Report: The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design |date=March 29, 2005 |access-date=2009-06-02 }} Dembski's expert report in ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District''.</ref>

The [[National Center for Science Education]] (NCSE) has criticized the book for presenting all of the basic arguments of intelligent design proponents and being actively promoted for use in public schools before any research had been done to support these arguments.<ref name=pandafounds/> Although presented as a scientific textbook, philosopher of science [[Michael Ruse]] considers the contents "worthless and dishonest".<ref>[[#Hughes 1992|Ruse 1992]], p. 41</ref> An [[American Civil Liberties Union]] lawyer described it as a political tool aimed at students who did not "know science or understand the controversy over evolution and creationism". One of the authors of the science framework used by California schools, [[Kevin Padian]], condemned it for its "sub-text", "intolerance for honest science" and "incompetence".<ref name="RethinkingSchools">{{cite magazine |last=Lynn |first=Leon |date=Winter 1997–1998 |title=Creationists Push Pseudo-Science Text |url=http://www.rethinkingschools.org/restrict.asp?path=archive/12_02/panda.shtml |magazine=Rethinking Schools |location=Milwaukee |publisher=Rethinking Schools, Ltd. |volume=12 |issue=2 |issn=0895-6855 |access-date=2009-02-08 |archive-date=2016-08-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160826233505/http://www.rethinkingschools.org/restrict.asp?path=archive%2F12_02%2Fpanda.shtml |url-status=dead }}</ref>