Editing Intelligent design movement (section)

== Criticisms of the movement ==
One of the most common criticisms of the movement and its leadership is that of [[Intellectual honesty|intellectual dishonesty]], in the form of misleading impressions created by the use of rhetoric, intentional [[ambiguity]], and misrepresented evidence.<ref name="Rosenhouse">{{cite web |url=http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/who_designed_the_designer/ |title=Who Designed the Designer? |last=Rosenhouse |first=Jason |date=November 3, 2006 |website=[[Committee for Skeptical Inquiry]] |series=Intelligent Design Watch |location=Amherst, N.Y. |publisher=[[Center for Inquiry]] |access-date=2014-02-28}}</ref> It is alleged that its goal is to lead an unwary public to reach certain conclusions, and that many have been deceived as a result. Critics of the movement, such as [[Eugenie Scott]], [[Robert T. Pennock]] and [[Barbara Forrest]], claim that leaders of the intelligent design movement, and the Discovery Institute in particular, knowingly misquote scientists and other experts, deceptively omit contextual text through [[ellipsis]], and make unsupported amplifications of relationships and credentials. Theologian and molecular biophysicist [[Alister McGrath]] has a number of criticisms of the Intelligent design movement, stating that "those who adopt this approach make Christianity deeply... vulnerable to scientific progress" and defining it as just another "[[God of the gaps|god-of-the-gaps]]" theory. He went on to criticize the movement on theological grounds as well, stating "It is not an approach I accept, either on scientific or theological grounds."<ref>[[#McGrath & McGrath 2007|McGrath & McGrath 2007]], p. 30</ref>

Such statements commonly note the institutional affiliations of signatories for purposes of identification. But this statement strategically listed either the institution that granted a signatory's [[Doctor of Philosophy|PhD]] or the institutions with which the individual is presently affiliated. Thus the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, for example, were the [[University of Texas at Dallas|University of Texas]], [[Ohio University]], and the [[University of California, Berkeley]], respectively, where they earned their degrees, rather than their current affiliations: ''Probe Ministries'' for Bohlin, ''[[Reasons To Believe|Reasons to Believe]]'' ministry for Rana, and the Discovery Institute's ''Center for Science and Culture'' for Wells. Similarly confusing lists of local scientists were circulated during controversies over evolution education in [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], [[New Mexico]], [[Ohio]], and [[Texas]]. In another instance, the Discovery Institute frequently mentions the [[Nobel Prize]] in connection with [[Henry F. Schaefer, III]], a CSC Fellow, and chemist at the [[University of Georgia]]. Critics allege that Discovery Institute is inflating his reputation by constantly referring to him as a "five-time nominee for the Nobel Prize" because Nobel Prize nominations remain confidential for fifty years.

This criticism is not reserved only to the Institute; individual intelligent design proponents have been accused of using their own credentials and those of others in a misleading or confusing fashion. For example, critics allege William A. Dembski gratuitously invokes his laurels by boasting of his correspondence with a [[List of Nobel laureates|Nobel laureate]], bragging that one of his books was published in a series whose editors include a Nobel laureate, and exulting that the publisher of the intelligent design book ''The Mystery of Life's Origin'', [[Philosophical Library]], also published books by eight Nobel laureates. Critics claim that Dembski purposefully omits relevant facts which he fails to mention to his audience that in 1986, during the ''Edwards v. Aguillard'' hearings, 72 Nobel laureates endorsed an ''amicus curiae'' brief that noted that the "evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept."<ref name="Edwards_v_Aguillard_amicus">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html |title=Edwards v. Aguillard: U.S. Supreme Court Decision |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |access-date=2014-06-06}}</ref>

Another common criticism is that since no intelligent design research has been published in mainstream, [[peer review|peer-reviewed]] [[scientific journal]]s, the Discovery Institute often misuses the work of mainstream scientists by putting out lists of articles that allegedly support their arguments for intelligent design drawing from mainstream scientific literature. Often, the original authors respond that their articles cited by the center don't support their arguments at all. Many times, the original authors have publicly refuted them for distorting the meaning of something they've written for their own purposes.

[[Sahotra Sarkar]], a [[Molecular biology|molecular biologist]] at the [[University of Texas at Austin|University of Texas]], has testified that intelligent design advocates, and specifically the Discovery Institute, have misused his work by misrepresenting its conclusions to bolster their own claims, has gone on to allege that the extent of the misrepresentations rises to the level of professional [[malfeasance]]:

{{quotation|"When testifying before the Texas State Board of Education in 2003 (in a battle over textbook adoption that we won hands down), I claimed that my work had been maliciously misused by members of the Discovery Institute. ... The trouble is that it says nothing of the sort that Meyer claims. I don't mention Dembski, ID, or "intelligent" information whatever that may be. I don't talk about assembly instructions. In fact what the paper essentially does is question the value of informational notions altogether, which made many molecular biologists unhappy, but which is also diametrically opposed to the "complex specified information" project of the ID creationists. ... Notice how my work is being presented as being in concordance with ID when Meyer knows very well where I stand on this issue. If Meyer were an academic, this kind of malfeasance would rightly earn him professional censure. Unfortunately he's not. He's only the Director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture."|Sahotra Sarkar|Fraud from the Discovery Institute<ref>{{cite web |url=http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/archives/sarkarlab/003383.html |title=Fraud from the Discovery Institute |last=Sarkar |first=Sahotra |author-link=Sahotra Sarkar |date=December 3, 2005 |website=Sarkar Lab WebLog |type=Blog |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060806005117/http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/archives/sarkarlab/003383.html |archive-date=2006-08-06 |access-date=2014-06-04}}</ref>}}

An October 2005 conference called "When Christians and Cultures Clash" was held in Christ Hall at [[Evangelical Seminary|Evangelical School of Theology]] in [[Myerstown, Pennsylvania]]. Attorney Randall L. Wenger, who is affiliated with the Alliance Defense Fund, and a close ally of the Discovery Institute, and one of the presenters at the conference advocated the use of subterfuge for advancing the movement's religious goals: "But even with God's blessing, it's helpful to consult a lawyer before joining the battle... For instance, the Dover area school board might have had a better case for the intelligent design disclaimer they inserted into high school biology classes had they not mentioned a religious motivation at their meetings... Give us a call before you do something controversial like that... I think we need to do a better job at being clever as serpents."<ref>{{cite news |last=Burke |first=Daniel |date=October 20, 2005 |title="Bring us your legal issues," clergy told |url=http://lancasteronline.com/news/bring-us-your-legal-issues-clergy-told/article_8db31e2c-b983-5fc6-a642-6060f0964230.html?mode=jqm |newspaper=[[Lancaster Newspapers, Inc.|Lancaster New Era]] |location=Lancaster, PA |access-date=2017-03-26}}</ref>

Critics state about the [[wedge strategy]] that its "ultimate goal is to create a theocratic state".<ref name="ForrestGross2007">{{cite book|first1=Barbara|last1=Forrest|first2=Paul R.|last2=Gross|title=Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7mMSDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA11|year=2007|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-531973-6|page=11}}</ref>