Editing Intelligent design (section)

==Movement==
{{Main|Intelligent design movement}}
[[Image:Creación de Adám.jpg|thumb|The Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture used banners based on ''[[The Creation of Adam]]'' from the [[Sistine Chapel ceiling|Sistine Chapel]]. Later it used a less religious image, then was renamed the [[Center for Science and Culture]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/evolving-banners-at-discovery-institute |title=Evolving Banners at the Discovery Institute |date=August 28, 2002 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, Calif. |access-date=2007-10-07}}</ref>]]

The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /> The scientific and academic communities, along with a U.S. federal court, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism;<ref name="harvard">{{cite journal |last=Mu |first=David |date=Fall 2005 |title=Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design |url=http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/wp-content/themes/hsr/pdf/fall2005/mu.pdf |journal=[[List of Harvard College undergraduate organizations#Publications and media|Harvard Science Review]] |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=22–25 |access-date=2014-02-28 |ref=Mu 2005 |quote=...for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience. |archive-date=2020-01-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200112175016/http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/wp-content/themes/hsr/pdf/fall2005/mu.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="NSTA" /><ref>{{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#H. Conclusion]] p. 136.</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Wise |first=Donald U. |date=January 2001 |title=Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution |url=http://nagt.org/nagt/jge/abstracts/jan01.html |journal=Journal of Geoscience Education |volume=49 |issue=1 |pages=30–35 |issn=1089-9995 |access-date=2014-02-28|bibcode=2001JGeEd..49...30W |doi=10.5408/1089-9995-49.1.30 |s2cid=152260926 |url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>
{{cite journal |last=Ross |first=Marcus R. |author-link=Marcus R. Ross |date=May 2005 |title=Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism |url=https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/bio_chem_fac_pubs/79 |journal=Journal of Geoscience Education |volume=53 |issue=3 |pages=319–323 |issn=1089-9995 |access-date=2012-06-16|bibcode=2005JGeEd..53..319R |doi=10.5408/1089-9995-53.3.319 |citeseerx=10.1.1.404.1340 |s2cid=14208021 }}</ref><ref>[[#Numbers 2006|Numbers 2006]]</ref> and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism".<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" /><ref>[[#Forrest & Gross 2004|Forrest & Gross 2004]]</ref><ref group="n">
[[#Pennock 2001|Pennock 2001]], "Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski", pp. 645–667, "Dembski chides me for never using the term 'intelligent design' without conjoining it to 'creationism'. He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to 'rally the troops'. (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski's movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability..."</ref><ref>[[#Pennock 1999|Pennock 1999]]</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Scott |first=Eugenie C. |author-link=Eugenie Scott |date=July–August 1999 |title=The Creation/Evolution Continuum |url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |volume=19 |issue=4 |pages=16–17, 23–25 |access-date=2014-02-28}}
* [[#Scott 2004|Scott 2004]]</ref>

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 religious agenda<ref name=wedge_doc group="n">{{cite web |url=http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070422235718/http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf |url-status=usurped |archive-date=April 22, 2007 |title=The Wedge |year=1999 |publisher=[[Center for Science and Culture|Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture]] |location=Seattle |quote=The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is ''scientific'' materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The beginning of this strategy, the 'thin edge of the wedge,' was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in ''Darwinism on Trial'', and continued in ''Reason in the Balance'' and ''Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds''. Michael Behe's highly successful ''Darwin's Black Box'' followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. |access-date=2014-05-31}}</ref> calling for broad social, academic and political changes. The [[Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns|Discovery Institute's intelligent design campaigns]] have been staged primarily in the United States, although efforts have been made in other countries to promote intelligent design. Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy and of the secular philosophy of [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]]. Intelligent design proponents allege that science should not be limited to naturalism and should not demand the adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that dismisses out-of-hand any explanation that includes a [[supernatural]] cause. The overall goal of the movement is to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist [[World view|worldview]]" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".<ref name=wedge_doc group="n" />

[[Phillip E. Johnson]] stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept.<ref name=wedge2 group="n" /><ref name=PJC group="n">{{cite web |url=http://www.coralridge.org/specialdocs/evolutiondebate.asp |title=How The Evolution Debate Can Be Won |last=Johnson |first=Phillip E |author-link=Phillip E. Johnson |website=[[D. James Kennedy|Coral Ridge Ministries]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071107005414/http://www.coralridge.org/specialdocs/evolutiondebate.asp |publisher=Coral Ridge Ministries |location=Fort Lauderdale, Fla. |archive-date=November 7, 2007 |access-date=2014-02-28 |quote=I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science. ... Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? ... I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves.}} — Johnson, "Reclaiming America for Christ Conference" (1999)</ref> All leading intelligent design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.discovery.org/id/about/fellows/ |title=Fellows |website=Center for Science and Culture |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2018-07-15}}</ref> Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement are the products of the Discovery Institute, which guides the movement and follows its [[wedge strategy]] while conducting its "[[teach the controversy]]" campaign and their other related programs.

Leading intelligent design proponents have made conflicting statements regarding intelligent design. In statements directed at the general public, they say intelligent design is not religious; when addressing conservative Christian supporters, they state that intelligent design has its foundation in the Bible.<ref name=PJC group="n" /> Recognizing the need for support, the Institute affirms its Christian, evangelistic orientation:

{{Blockquote|Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.<ref name=wedge_doc group="n" />}}

[[Barbara Forrest]], an expert who has written extensively on the movement, describes this as being due to the Discovery Institute's obfuscating its agenda as a matter of policy. She has written that the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious worldview that undergirds it."<ref>[[#Forrest 2001|Forrest 2001]], {{cite web |url=http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Wedge.cfm |title=The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140905230611/http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Wedge.cfm |archive-date=September 5, 2014 }}</ref>

===Religion and leading proponents===
Although arguments for intelligent design by the intelligent design movement are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer,<ref name=IDstatementOnCreator group="n">{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=565 |title=Does intelligent design postulate a "supernatural creator? |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |id=Truth Sheet # 09-05 |access-date=2007-07-19 |quote=... intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer. ... '... the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy.'}}</ref> the majority of principal intelligent design advocates are publicly religious Christians who have stated that, in their view, the designer proposed in intelligent design is the [[God in Christianity|Christian conception of God]]. Stuart Burgess, Phillip E. Johnson, William A. Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer are [[Evangelicalism|evangelical Protestants]]; Michael Behe is a [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]]; [[Paul Nelson (creationist)|Paul Nelson]] supports young Earth creationism; and [[Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)|Jonathan Wells]] is a member of the [[Unification Church]]. Non-Christian proponents include [[David Klinghoffer]], who is [[Judaism|Jewish]],<ref name="Judaism">{{cite web |url=http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Science/Creationism_and_Evolution/ID_Prn.shtml |title=Judaism & Intelligent Design |last=Kippley-Ogman |first=Emma |website=MyJewishLearning.com |publisher=MyJewishLearning, Inc. |location=New York |access-date=2010-11-13 |quote=But there are also Jewish voices in the intelligent design camp. David Klinghoffer, a Discovery Institute fellow, is an ardent advocate of intelligent design. In an article in The Forward (August 12, 2005), he claimed that Jewish thinkers have largely ignored intelligent design and contended that Jews, along with Christians, should adopt the theory because beliefs in God and in natural selection are fundamentally opposed. |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140306170150/http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Science/Creationism_and_Evolution/ID_Prn.shtml |archive-date=March 6, 2014 }}</ref> [[Michael Denton]] and [[David Berlinski]], who are [[Agnosticism|agnostic]],<ref name="Agnostic1">[[#Meyer 2009|Meyer 2009]], "Michael Denton, an agnostic, argues for intelligent design in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 326–343."</ref><ref name="Agnostic2">[[#Frame 2009|Frame 2009]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=o-c1IZtSnoIC&pg=PA291 p. 291], "In contrast to the other would-be pioneers of Intelligent Design, Denton describes himself as an agnostic, and his book was released by a secular publishing house."</ref><ref name="Representation">{{cite web |url=https://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/#generalQuestions |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=CSC – Frequently Asked Questions: General Questions: Is Discovery Institute a religious organization? |website=Center for Science and Culture |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2018-07-15 |quote=Discovery Institute is a secular think tank, and its Board members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, including mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic. Until recently the Chairman of Discovery's Board of Directors was former Congressman John Miller, who is Jewish. Although it is not a religious organization, the Institute has a long record of supporting religious liberty and the legitimate role of faith-based institutions in a pluralistic society. In fact, it sponsored a program for several years for college students to teach them the importance of religious liberty and the separation of church and state.}}</ref> and [[Muzaffar Iqbal]], a [[Pakistani Canadian|Pakistani-Canadian]] [[Muslim]].<ref name="Muslim1">[[#Young & Edis 2004|Edis 2004]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=hYLKdtlVeQgC&pg=PA12 "Grand Themes, Narrow Constituency", p. 12]: "Among Muslims involved with ID, the most notable is Muzaffar Iqbal, a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, a leading ID organization."</ref><ref name="Muslim2">[[#Shanks 2004|Shanks 2004]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=mWn-AE6XLXIC&pg=PA11 p. 11]: "Muzaffar Iqbal, president of the Center for Islam and Science, has recently endorsed work by intelligent design theorist William Dembski."</ref> Phillip E. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments that are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic [[creationism]] is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the designer. Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having intelligent design identified "as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message."<ref group="n">{{cite magazine |last=Johnson |first=Phillip E. |date=April 1999 |title=Keeping the Darwinists Honest |url=http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/citmag99.htm |magazine=Citizen |location=Colorado Springs, Colo. |publisher=[[Focus on the Family]] |issn=1084-6832 |access-date=2014-02-28 |quote=ID is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. ... The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed.}}</ref> Johnson emphasizes that "...the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact."<ref name="Johnson-Touchstone">{{cite magazine |last=Johnson |first=Phillip E. |date=July–August 1999 |title=The Wedge: Breaking the Modernist Monopoly on Science |url=http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-04-018-f |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}}</ref>

The [[wedge strategy|strategy]] of deliberately disguising the religious intent of intelligent design has been described by William A. Dembski in ''The Design Inference''.<ref>[[#Dembski 1998|Dembski 1998]]</ref> In this work, Dembski lists a [[god]] or an "[[extraterrestrial life|alien life force]]" as two possible options for the identity of the designer; however, in his book ''[[Intelligent Design (book)|Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology]]'' (1999), Dembski states:

{{Blockquote|Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ.<ref>[[#Dembski 1999|Dembski 1999]], p. 210</ref>}}

Dembski also stated, "ID is part of God's [[general revelation]] ... Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology &#91;[[materialism]]&#93;, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120729035206/http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm |url-status=dead |archive-date=July 29, 2012 |title=Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris |last=Dembski |first=William |date=February 1, 2005 |website=DesignInference.com |publisher=William Dembski |location=Pella, Iowa |access-date=2014-02-28 }}</ref> Both Johnson and Dembski cite the Bible's [[Gospel of John]] as the foundation of intelligent design.<ref name=dembski_logos/><ref name=PJC group="n" />

Barbara Forrest contends such statements reveal that leading proponents see intelligent design as essentially religious in nature, not merely a scientific concept that has implications with which their personal religious beliefs happen to coincide.<ref group="n">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6pm2.html |title=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 2 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston |access-date=2014-02-28 |quote=What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own. ... Intelligent design, as it is understood by the proponents that we are discussing today, does involve a supernatural creator, and that is my objection. And I am objecting to it as they have defined it, as Professor Johnson has defined intelligent design, and as Dr. Dembski has defined intelligent design. And both of those are basically religious. They involve the supernatural.}} — Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.</ref> 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 Phillip E. Johnson, Charles B. Thaxton, Michael Behe, [[Richard Weikart]], Jonathan Wells and [[Francis J. Beckwith]] to leading Christian Reconstructionist organizations, and the extent of the funding provided the Institute by [[Howard Ahmanson, Jr.]], a leading figure in the Reconstructionist movement.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper" />

===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 evolution, first produced in response to controversies in Wisconsin in 2004, has now been signed by over ten thousand clergy from different Christian denominations across America."<ref name=Dixon82/> [[Hugh Ross (creationist)|Hugh Ross]] of [[Reasons to Believe]], a proponent of [[Old Earth creationism]], believes that the efforts of intelligent design proponents to divorce the concept from Biblical Christianity make its hypothesis too vague. In 2002, he wrote: "Winning the argument for design without identifying the designer yields, at best, a sketchy origins model. Such a model makes little if any positive impact on the community of scientists and other scholars. ... the time is right for a direct approach, a single leap into the origins fray. Introducing a biblically based, scientifically verifiable creation model represents such a leap."<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Ross |first=Hugh |author-link=Hugh Ross (creationist) |date=July 2002 |title=More Than Intelligent Design |url=http://www.reasons.org/articles/more-than-intelligent-design |magazine=Facts for Faith |location=Glendora, Calif. |publisher=[[Reasons to Believe]] |issue=10 |oclc=52894856 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref>

Likewise, two of the most prominent YEC organizations in the world have attempted to distinguish their views from those of the intelligent design movement. [[Henry 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 won't work is because it is not the Biblical method." According to Morris: "The evidence of intelligent design ... must be either followed by or accompanied by a sound presentation of true Biblical creationism if it is to be meaningful and lasting."<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Morris |first=Henry M. |author-link=Henry M. Morris |date=July 1999 |title=Design Is Not Enough! |url=http://www.icr.org/article/design-not-enough/ |magazine=Back to Genesis |location=Santee, Calif. |publisher=[[Institute for Creation Research]] |issue=127 |oclc=26390403 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> In 2002, [[Carl Wieland]], then of [[Answers in Genesis]] (AiG), criticized design advocates who, though well-intentioned, "'left the Bible out of it'" and thereby unwittingly aided and abetted the modern rejection of the Bible. Wieland explained that "AiG's major 'strategy' is to boldly, but humbly, call the church back to its Biblical foundations ... [so] we neither count ourselves a part of this movement nor campaign against it."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp |title=AiG's views on the Intelligent Design Movement |last=Wieland |first=Carl |author-link=Carl Wieland |date=August 30, 2002 |website=[[Answers in Genesis]] |location=Hebron, Ky. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20021015010305/http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp |archive-date=October 15, 2002 |access-date=April 25, 2007}}</ref>

===Reaction from the scientific community===
The unequivocal [[scientific consensus|consensus]] in the [[scientific community]] is that intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science curriculum.<ref name="consensus">''See:''
* [[List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting intelligent design]]
* {{Cite court|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|vol=04|reporter=cv|opinion=2688|date=December 20, 2005}} [[wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4._Whether_ID_Is_Science|s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science]] p. 83
* The Discovery Institute's ''[[A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism]]'' petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 700 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. The four-day ''[[A Scientific Support for Darwinism]]'' petition gained 7,733 signatories from scientists opposing ID.
* [[Intelligent design#AAAS 2002|AAAS 2002]]. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID.
* More than 70,000 Australian scientists [https://www.science.org.au/supporting-science/science-policy/submissions-government/letter%E2%80%94intelligent-design-not-science "...urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science."]
* [http://ncse.com/media/voices/science National Center for Science Education]: List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism in the sciences.
* [[Intelligent design#Nature Methods 2007|''Nature Methods'' 2007]], "Long considered a North American phenomenon, pro-ID interest groups can also be found throughout Europe. ...Concern about this trend is now so widespread in Europe that in October 2007 the [[Creation and evolution in public education#Council of Europe|Council of Europe]] voted on a motion calling upon member states to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline."
* [[Intelligent design#Dean 2007|Dean 2007]], "There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth."</ref> The U.S. [[National Academy of Sciences]] has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the [[scientific method|methods of science]]."<ref>[[#National Academy of Sciences 1999|National Academy of Sciences 1999]], [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25 p. 25]</ref> The U.S. [[National Science Teachers Association]] and the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] have termed it [[pseudoscience]].<ref name="NSTA">''See:''
* {{cite press release |last=Workosky |first=Cindy |date=August 3, 2005 |title=National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush |url=http://old.nsta.org/about/pressroom.aspx?id=50794 |location=Arlington, Va. |publisher=[[National Science Teachers Association]] |access-date=2014-01-14 |quote='We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists ... in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom,' said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director. ... 'It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom,' said NSTA President Mike Padilla. 'Nonscientific viewpoints have little value in increasing students' knowledge of the natural world.' |archive-date=2021-09-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210908170615/https://old.nsta.org/about/pressroom.aspx?id=50794 |url-status=dead }}
* [[#Mu 2005|Mu 2005]]</ref> Others in the scientific community have denounced its tactics, accusing the ID movement of manufacturing false attacks against evolution, of engaging in misinformation and misrepresentation about science, and marginalizing those who teach it.<ref name="JCI">{{cite journal |last1=Attie |first1=Alan D. |last2=Sober |first2=Elliott |author-link2=Elliott Sober |last3=Numbers |first3=Ronald L. |author-link3=Ronald Numbers |last4=Amasino |first4=Richard M. |author-link4=Richard Amasino |last5=Cox |first5=Beth |last6=Berceau |first6=Terese |author-link6=Terese Berceau |last7=Powell |first7=Thomas |last8=Cox |first8=Michael M. |date=May 1, 2006 |title=Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action |url= |journal=[[Journal of Clinical Investigation]] |volume=116 |issue=5 |pages=1134–1138 |doi=10.1172/JCI28449 |issn=0021-9738 |pmid=16670753 |pmc=1451210 |ref=Attie, et al. 2006}}</ref> More recently, in September 2012, [[Bill Nye]] warned that creationist views threaten science education and innovations in the United States.<ref name="APNews-20120924">{{cite news |last=Lovan |first=Dylan |date=September 24, 2012 |title=Bill Nye Warns: Creation Views Threaten US Science |url=http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bill-nye-warns-creation-views-threaten-us-science |agency=[[Associated Press]] |access-date=2014-02-28 |archive-date=2013-10-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131014114115/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bill-nye-warns-creation-views-threaten-us-science |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="Youtube-20120823">{{cite web |last1=Fowler |first1=Jonathan |last2=Rodd |first2=Elizabeth|title=Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU | archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211102/gHbYJfwFgOU| archive-date=2021-11-02 | url-status=live|date=August 23, 2012 |website=YouTube |publisher=[[Big Think]] |location=New York |access-date=2014-02-28}}{{cbignore}}</ref>

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

{{Blockquote|We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/sign_the_list.php |title=Sign – Dissent from Darwin |website=dissentfromdarwin.org |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2014-02-28 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110411085856/http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/sign_the_list.php |archive-date=April 11, 2011 }}</ref>}}

The ambiguous statement did not exclude other known evolutionary mechanisms, and most signatories were not scientists in relevant fields, but starting in 2004 the Institute claimed the increasing number of signatures indicated mounting doubts about evolution among scientists.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/2114 |title=Doubts Over Evolution Mount With Over 300 Scientists Expressing Skepticism With Central Tenet of Darwin's Theory |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=April 1, 2004 |website=Center for Science and Culture |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2014-01-02}}</ref> The statement formed a key component of [[Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns|Discovery Institute campaigns]] to present intelligent design as scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support,<ref name="Evans">{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/doubting-darwinism-creative-license |title=Doubting Darwinism Through Creative License |last=Evans |first=Skip |date=April 8, 2002 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, Calif. |type=Blog |access-date=2011-04-25}}</ref><ref name="Chang">{{cite news |first=Kenneth |last=Chang |date=February 21, 2006 |title=Few Biologists But Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html |newspaper=The New York Times |access-date=2008-01-04}}</ref> with Institute members continuing to cite the list through at least 2011.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/16911 |title=A Scientific Analysis of Karl Giberson and Francis Collins' ''The Language of Science and Faith'' |last=Luskin |first=Casey |date=June 1, 2011 |website=Evolution News & Views |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle |access-date=2014-01-02}}</ref> As part of a strategy to counter these claims, scientists organised [[Project Steve]], which gained more signatories named Steve (or variants) than the Institute's petition, and a counter-petition, "[[A Scientific Support for Darwinism]]", which quickly gained similar numbers of signatories.

===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 intelligent design among certain groups. According to a 2005 [[Harris Insights & Analytics|Harris poll]], 10% of adults in the United States viewed human beings as "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581 |title=Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=July 6, 2005 |website=The Harris Poll |publisher=[[Harris Insights & Analytics|Harris Interactive]] |location=Rochester, N.Y. |id=#52 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051217080148/http://harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581 |archive-date=December 17, 2005 |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> Although [[John Zogby|Zogby polls]] commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support, these polls suffer from considerable flaws, such as having a low response rate (248 out of 16,000), being conducted on behalf of an organization with an expressed interest in the outcome of the poll, and containing [[leading question]]s.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nmsr.org/id-poll.htm |title=Sandia National Laboratories says that the Intelligent Design Network (IDNet-NM/Zogby) 'Lab Poll' is BOGUS! |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=New Mexicans for Science and Reason |publisher=NMSR |location=Peralta, N.M. |access-date=2007-07-13}}</ref><ref name="Polling_for_ID">{{cite web |url=http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/polling/ |title=Polling for ID |last=Mooney |first=Chris |author-link=Chris Mooney (journalist) |date=September 11, 2003 |website=Committee for Skeptical Inquiry |location=Amherst, N.Y. |type=Blog |publisher=Center for Inquiry |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080327041611/http://csicop.org/doubtandabout/polling/ |archive-date=March 27, 2008 |access-date=2007-02-16}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://blogs.salon.com/0001092/2003/07/30.html |title='Intelligent Design'-ers launch new assault on curriculum using lies and deception |last=Harris |first=David |date=July 30, 2003 |website=[[Salon (website)|Salon]] |location=San Francisco |type=Blog |publisher=Salon Media Group |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030816135718/http://blogs.salon.com/0001092/2003/07/30.html |archive-date=August 16, 2003 |access-date=2007-07-13}}</ref>

A series of Gallup polls in the United States from 1982 through 2014 on "Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design" found support for "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced formed of life, but God guided the process" of between 31% and 40%, support for "God created human beings in pretty much their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" varied from 40% to 47%, and support for "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in the process" varied from 9% to 19%. The polls also noted answers to a series of more detailed questions.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx |title=In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=Gallup.Com |date=2 June 2014 |location=Omaha |publisher=Gallup, Inc. |access-date=2016-01-30}}</ref>
The 2017 [[The Gallup Organization|Gallup]] creationism survey found that 38% of adults in the United States hold the view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings, which was noted as being at the lowest level in 35 years.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx|title=In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low|website=[[Gallup, Inc.]]|last=Swift|first=Art|date=22 May 2017}}</ref>

===Allegations of discrimination against ID proponents===
{{Main|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 [[documentary film]] ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', released in 2008, host [[Ben Stein]] presents five such cases. The film contends that the mainstream science establishment, in a "scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation's laboratories and classrooms", suppresses academics who believe they see evidence of intelligent design in nature or criticize evidence of evolution.<ref name="Cornelia_Dean">{{cite news |last=Dean |first=Cornelia |date=September 27, 2007 |title=Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin& |newspaper=The New York Times |access-date=2014-05-14 |ref=Dean 2007}}</ref><ref name="Premise_pressrelease">{{cite press release |last=Burbridge-Bates |first=Lesley |date=August 14, 2007 |title=What Happened to Freedom of Speech? |url=http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/55281599.html |location=Los Angeles |publisher=Motive Entertainment; Premise Media Corporation |access-date=2014-05-14}}</ref> Investigation into these allegations turned up alternative explanations for perceived persecution.<ref group=n>{{cite web |url=https://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2007/jun/statement.shtml |title=Statement from Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy |last=Geoffroy |first=Gregory |author-link=Gregory L. Geoffroy |date=June 1, 2007 |website=News Service: Iowa State University |publisher=[[Iowa State University]] |location=Ames, Ohio |access-date=2007-12-16}}
* {{cite web |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know/ |title=Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know... |last1=Rennie |first1=John |author-link1=John Rennie (editor) |last2=Mirsky |first2=Steve |author-link2=Steve Mirsky |date=April 16, 2008 |work=[[Scientific American]] |publisher=[[Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group]] |location=Stuttgart, Germany |issn=0036-8733 |access-date=2014-06-24}}
* {{cite news |last=Vedantam |first=Shankar |date=February 5, 2006 |title=Eden and Evolution |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020300822_pf.html |access-date=2008-02-16 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |page=W08 |quote=GMU spokesman Daniel Walsch denied that the school had fired Crocker. She was a part-time faculty member, he said, and was let go at the end of her contract period for reasons unrelated to her views on intelligent design.}}</ref>

The film portrays intelligent design as motivated by science, rather than religion, though it does not give a detailed definition of the phrase or attempt to explain it on a scientific level. Other than briefly addressing issues of irreducible complexity, ''Expelled'' examines it as a political issue.<ref name="Colorado_Independent" /><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rogerebert.com/scanners/ben-stein-no-argument-allowed |title=Ben Stein: No argument allowed |last=Emerson |first=Jim |date=December 17, 2008 |website=RogerEbert.com |publisher=Ebert Digital LLC |location=Chicago |type=Blog |access-date=2014-05-14 |quote=One spokesman comes close to articulating a thought about Intelligent Design: '"If you define evolution precisely, though, to mean the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection{{snd}}that's a textbook definition of neo-Darwinism{{snd}}biologists of the first rank have real questions... 'Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence.'}}</ref> The scientific theory of evolution is portrayed by the film as contributing to [[fascism]], [[the Holocaust]], [[communism]], [[atheism]], and [[eugenics]].<ref name="Colorado_Independent">{{cite news |last=Whipple |first=Dan |date=December 16, 2007 |title=Science Sunday: Intelligent Design Goes to the Movies |url=http://www.coloradoindependent.com/3116/science-sunday-intelligent-design-goes-to-the-movies |work=[[The Colorado Independent]] |type=Blog |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=[[American Independent News Network]] |access-date=2014-05-14}}</ref><ref name="Catsoulis">{{cite news |last=Catsoulis |first=Jeannette |date=April 18, 2008 |title=Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html |newspaper=The New York Times |type=Movie review |access-date=2014-05-14}}</ref>

''Expelled'' has been used in private screenings to legislators as part of the [[Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns|Discovery Institute intelligent design campaign]] for [[Academic Freedom bills]].<ref name="WSJschools">{{cite news |last=Simon |first=Stephanie |date=May 2, 2008 |title=Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools |url=https://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB120967537476060561?mod=googlenews_wsj&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB120967537476060561.html%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj |newspaper=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |access-date=2014-05-14}}</ref> Review 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 dishonest and divisive propaganda aimed at introducing religious ideas into public school science classrooms,<ref name="AAASPressRelease">{{cite web |last=Lempinen |first=Edward W. |date=April 18, 2008 |title=New AAAS Statement Decries 'Profound Dishonesty' of Intelligent Design Movie |work=AAAS - The World's Largest General Scientific Society |url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2008/0418expelled.shtml |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080425000539/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2008/0418expelled.shtml |archive-date=April 25, 2008 |access-date =2008-04-20}}</ref> and the [[Anti-Defamation League]] has denounced the film's allegation that evolutionary theory influenced the Holocaust.<ref>{{cite AV media |people=Frankowski, Nathan (Director) |year=2008 |title=[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]] |medium=Motion picture |publisher=Premise Media Corporation; Rampant Films |oclc=233721412}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.livescience.com/2432-anti-evolution-film-stirs-controversy.html |title=New Anti-Evolution Film Stirs Controversy |last=Mosher |first=Dave |date=April 3, 2008 |website=[[LiveScience]] |location=New York |publisher=[[Imaginova|Space Holdings Corp.]] |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> 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 [[Michael Shermer]] describes his experience of being repeatedly asked the same question without context as "surreal".<ref>{{cite web |author=Josh Timonen |url=http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/2400-expelled-overview |title=Expelled Overview |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150317175934/http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/2400-expelled-overview |archive-date=March 17, 2015 |work=The Richard Dawkins Center for Reason and Science |date=March 24, 2008 |access-date=March 13, 2015}}</ref>