Editing Intelligent design movement (section)

== Purpose ==
The overall goal of the intelligent design movement is to overthrow [[materialism]] and [[atheism]]. Its proponents believe that society has suffered "devastating" cultural consequences from adopting materialism and that science is the cause of the decay into materialism because it seeks only natural explanations, and is therefore atheistic. They believe that the [[scientific theory]] of [[evolution]] implies that humans have no spiritual nature, no moral purpose, and no intrinsic meaning. They seek to "reverse the stifling dominance of the [[Materialism|materialist]] [[world view|worldview]]", represented by the theory of evolution, in favor of "a science consonant with [[Christianity|Christian]] and [[Theism|theistic]] convictions."<ref name="wedge_strategy" />

To achieve their goal of defeating a materialistic world view, advocates of intelligent design take a two-pronged approach. Alongside the promotion of intelligent design, proponents also seek to "[[Teach the Controversy]]"; discredit evolution by emphasizing perceived flaws in the theory of evolution, or disagreements within the [[scientific community]] and encourage teachers and students to explore non-scientific alternatives to evolution, or to critically analyze evolution and the controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution. But the world's largest general scientific society, the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]], has stated that "There is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of evolution." and that "Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science."<ref name="ttc_aaas">{{cite web |url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml |title=AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws as Hundreds of K-12 Teachers Convene for 'Front Line' Event |last=Pinholster |first=Ginger |date=February 19, 2006 |publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science |location=Washington, D.C. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060421193306/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml |archive-date=2006-04-21 |access-date=2014-05-29}}</ref> The ruling in the 2005 [[Dover, Pennsylvania]], trial, ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', where the claims of intelligent design proponents were considered by a [[Federal judiciary of the United States|United States federal court]], stated that "evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is 'overwhelmingly accepted' by the scientific community."<ref name="kitzmillerpg70">{{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/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 70 of 139|Whether ID is Science, p. 70]]</ref><ref name="kitzmillerpg83">{{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/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 83 of 139|Whether ID is Science, p. 83]]</ref>

The [[Discovery Institute]] (DI) is a religious [[think tank]] that drives the intelligent design movement.<ref name="ReferenceA">[[#Attie, et al. 2006|Attie, et al. 2006]]</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Intelligent Design: Creationism's Trojan Horse - A Conversation With Barbara Forrest |date=February 2005 |url=https://www.au.org/church-state/february-2005-church-state/featured/intelligent-design-creationism%E2%80%99s-trojan-horse-a |journal=Church & State |location=Washington, D.C. |type=Unabridged interview |publisher=[[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] |issn=2163-3746 |access-date=2014-05-29 |quote=Patricia O'Connell Killen, a religion professor at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma whose work centers around the regional religious identity of the Pacific Northwest, recently wrote that 'religiously inspired think tanks such as the conservative evangelical Discovery Institute' are part of the 'religious landscape' of that area. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140517153210/https://www.au.org/church-state/february-2005-church-state/featured/intelligent-design-creationism%E2%80%99s-trojan-horse-a |archive-date=2014-05-17 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The Institute's [[Center for Science and Culture]] (CSC) counts most of the leading intelligent design advocates among its membership, most notably its former program advisor the now deceased [[Phillip E. Johnson]]. Johnson was the architect of the movement's key strategies, the [[wedge strategy]] and the "Teach the Controversy" campaign. The Discovery Institute and leading proponents represent intelligent design as a revolutionary scientific theory.<ref name="wedge_strategy" /><ref>[[#Dembski 2004|Dembski 2004]]</ref><ref name="Than">{{cite news |last=Than |first=Ker |date=September 23, 2005 |title=Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design' |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna9452500 |work=[[NBCNews.com|MSNBC.com]] |access-date=2014-05-29}}</ref><ref name="Talbot">{{cite magazine |last=Talbot |first=Margaret |author-link=Margaret Talbot |date=December 5, 2005 |title=Darwin on Trial |url=http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/05/051205on_onlineonly01?currentPage=all |magazine=[[The New Yorker]] |publisher=[[Condé Nast]] |location=New York |issn=0028-792X |access-date=2014-05-29}}</ref> The overwhelming majority of the scientific community,<ref name="kitzmillerpg83"/> as represented by the American Association for the Advancement of Science,<ref name="AAAS_2002">{{cite web |url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml |title=AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=October 18, 2002 |publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science |location=Washington, D.C. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20021113213410/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml |archive-date=2002-11-13 |access-date=2014-05-29}}</ref> the [[National Academy of Sciences]]<ref name="nas_25">[[#National Academy of Sciences 1999|National Academy of Sciences 1999]], [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25 p. 25]</ref> and nearly all scientific professional organizations, firmly reject these claims, and insist that intelligent design is not valid science, its proponents having failed to conduct an actual scientific research program.<ref name="kitzmillerpg83"/> This has led the movement's critics to state that intelligent design is merely a [[public relations]] campaign and a political campaign.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/11/dis-new-talking-point/#more |title=DI's New Talking Point |last=Brayton |first=Ed |date=December 11, 2006 |website=Dispatches from the Creation Wars |publisher=[[ScienceBlogs|ScienceBlogs LLC]] |type=Blog |access-date=2014-05-29}}</ref>

According to critics of the intelligent design movement, the movement's purpose is political rather than scientific or educational. They claim the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious worldview that undergirds it."<ref name="Forrest_2001" /> Intelligent design is an attempt to recast religious dogma in an effort to reintroduce the teaching of [[Book of Genesis|biblical]] [[creationism]] to [[State school#United States|public school]] science classrooms; the intelligent design movement is an effort to reshape American society into a [[theocracy]], primarily through education.<ref name="ForrestGross2007"/> As evidence, critics cite the Discovery Institute's political activities, its wedge strategy and statements made by leading intelligent design proponents. The scientific community's position, as represented by the National Academy of Sciences and the [[National Center for Science Education]] (NCSE), is that intelligent design is not science, but creationist [[pseudoscience]]. [[Richard Dawkins]], a biologist and professor at [[Oxford University]], compares the intelligent design movement's demand to "teach the controversy" with the demand to teach [[flat Earth]]ism; acceptable in terms of history, but not in terms of science. "If you give the idea that there are two schools of thought within science--one that says the earth is round and one that says the earth is flat--you are misleading children."<ref>{{cite news |last=Wallis |first=Claudia |date=August 7, 2005 |title=The Evolution Wars |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909-3,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070114131252/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909-3,00.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 14, 2007 |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |location=New York |publisher=[[Time Inc.]] |access-date=2014-05-29}}</ref><!--TIME Magazine, 15 August 2005, page 32-->