Editing Intelligent design movement (section)

== Reception by the scientific community ==
[[Jason Rosenhouse]] summarized the prevailing attitude of the scientific community: "Scientists who have responded to ID arguments in print have generally done so with a tone of sneering contempt. This is understandable: ID supporters present fallacious arguments, use dishonest rhetoric, and often present non-contemptuous responses as evidence that their theories are gaining acceptance."<ref name="name">{{cite journal |last=Rosenhouse |first=Jason |author-link=Jason Rosenhouse |date=January 2003 |title=Leaders and Followers in the Intelligent-Design Movement |journal=[[BioScience]] |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] on behalf of the [[American Institute of Biological Sciences]] |volume=53 |issue=1 |pages=6–7 |doi=10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0006:LAFITI]2.0.CO;2 |issn=0006-3568 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

Intelligent design advocates realize that their arguments have little chance of acceptance within the mainstream scientific community, so they direct them toward politicians, philosophers and the general public.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.arn.org/docs/pjweekly/pj_weekly_010611.htm |title=The Pennsylvania Controversy |last=Johnson |first=Phillip E. |date=June 11, 2001 |website=[[Access Research Network]] |location=Goleta, CA |type=The Weekly Wedge Update |quote=Whether educational authorities allow the schools to teach about the controversy or not, public recognition that there is something seriously wrong with Darwinian orthodoxy is going to keep on growing. While the educators stonewall, our job is to continue building the community of people who understand the difference between a science that tests its theories against the evidence, and a pseudoscience that protects its key doctrines by imposing philosophical rules and erecting legal barriers to freedom of thought. |access-date=2014-05-31}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.arn.org/docs/pjweekly/pj_weekly_010507.htm |title=Icons of Evolution exposed on CNN |last=Johnson |first=Phillip E. |date=May 7, 2001 |website=Access Research Network |location=Goleta, CA |type=The Weekly Wedge Update |quote=If the science educators continue to pretend that there is no controversy to teach, perhaps the television networks and the newspapers will take over the responsibility of informing the public. |access-date=2014-05-31}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.arn.org/docs/pjweekly/pj_weekly_020409.htm |title=Passing the Torch |last=Johnson |first=Phillip E. |date=April 9, 2002 |website=Access Research Network |location=Goleta, CA |type=The Weekly Wedge Update |quote=If the public school educators will not "teach the controversy," our informal network can do the job for them. In time, the educators will be running to catch up. |access-date=2014-05-31}}</ref>  What prima facie "scientific" material they have produced has been attacked by critics as containing factual misrepresentation and misleading, [[rhetoric]]al and equivocal terminology. A number of [[documentary film|documentaries]] that promote their assertion that intelligent design as an increasingly well-supported line of scientific inquiry have been made for the Discovery Institute.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/2170 |title=Privileged Planet--New Science Documentary Explores Earth's Extraordinary Place in the Cosmos |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=August 20, 2004 |website=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle, WA |access-date=2014-05-31}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/2116 |title=Unlocking the Mystery of Life--Documentary reveals growing number of scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution |last1=Meyer |first1=Stephen C. |author-link=Stephen C. Meyer |last2=Allen |first2=W. Peter |date=July 15, 2004 |website=Center for Science and Culture |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle, WA |access-date=2014-05-31}}</ref> The bulk of the material produced by the intelligent design movement, however, is not intended to be scientific but rather to promote its social and political aims.<ref name="kitzmillerpg83" /><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/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 89 of 139|Whether ID is Science, p. 89]]</ref><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/3:Disclaimer#Page 49 of 139|Disclaimer, p. 49]]</ref> Polls indicate that intelligent design's main appeal to citizens comes from its link to religious concepts.{{cn|date=March 2024}}

Scientists responding to a poll overwhelmingly said intelligent design is about religion, not science. A 2002 sampling of 460 Ohio science professors had 91% say it's primarily religion, 93% say there is not "any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution," and 97% say that they did not use intelligent design concepts in their own research.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.uc.edu/news/idpoll.htm |title=Majority of Ohio Science Professors and Public Agree: 'Intelligent Design' Mostly About Religion |last=Hoffman |first=Carey |date=October 11, 2002 |website=University of Cincinnati |location=Cincinnati, OH |access-date=2014-06-01}}</ref>

In October and November 2001, the Discovery Institute advertised ''[[A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism]]'' in three national publications (''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', ''[[The New Republic]]'' and ''[[The Weekly Standard]]''), listing what they claimed were "100 scientific dissenters" who had signed a statement that "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 name="di_dissent">{{cite web|url=http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/sign_the_list.php |title=Sign - Dissent from Darwin |website=dissentfromdarwin.org |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle, WA |access-date=2014-06-01 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110411085856/http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/sign_the_list.php |archive-date=2011-04-11 }}</ref> Shortly afterwards the National Center for Science Education described the wording as misleading, noting that a minority of the signatories were biologists and some of the others were engineers, mathematicians and philosophers, and that some signatories did not fully support the Discovery Institute's claims. The list was further criticized in a February 2006 article in ''[[The New York Times]]'' which pointed out that only 25% of the signatories by then were biologists and that signatories' "doubts about evolution grew out of their religious beliefs."<ref>{{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=2014-06-01}}</ref> In 2003, as a humorous parody of such listings the NCSE produced the pro-evolution [[Project Steve]] list of signatories, all with variations of the name Steve and most of whom are trained biologists. As of July 31, 2006, the Discovery Institute lists "over 600 scientists," while Project Steve reported 749 signatories; as of May 30, 2014, 1,338 Steves have signed the statement, while 906 have signed ''A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism'' as of April 2014.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves |title=The List of Steves |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |type=Blog |access-date=2014-06-05}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660 |title=A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism |date=April 2014 |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle, WA |format=PDF |access-date=2014-06-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604020014/http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660 |archive-date=2011-06-04 |url-status=dead }}</ref>