Editing Intelligent design (section)

===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.