Editing Intelligent design (section)

===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.