Editing Intelligent design movement (section)

== History of the movement ==
The intelligent design movement grew out of a creationist tradition which argues against evolutionary theory from a religious standpoint, usually that of [[Evangelicalism|evangelical]] or [[Christian fundamentalism|fundamentalistic Christianity]]. Although intelligent design advocates often claim that they are arguing only for the existence of a designer who may or may not be [[God]], all the movement's leading advocates believe that this designer is God. They frequently accompany their arguments with a discussion of religious issues, especially when addressing religious audiences, but elsewhere downplay the religious aspects of their agenda.

=== Origins ===
The modern use of the words "intelligent design," as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry, began after the [[Supreme Court of the United States]], in the case of ''[[Edwards v. Aguillard]]'' (1987), ruled that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science curricula. A Discovery Institute report says that [[Charles Thaxton]], editor of ''[[Of Pandas and People]]'', had picked the phrase up from a [[NASA]] scientist, and thought "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/post_6001764.html |title=Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design |last=Witt |first=Jonathan |date=December 20, 2005 |website=Evolution News & Views |publisher=[[Discovery Institute]] |location=Seattle, WA |access-date=2014-05-30}}</ref> In drafts of the book over one hundred uses of the root word "creation," such as "creationism" and "creation science," were changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent design,"<ref name="kitz31">{{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/2:Context#Page 31 of 139|Context, pp. 31–33]].</ref> while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "[[cdesign proponentsists]]."{{sic}}<ref name="Matzke">{{cite journal |last=Matzke |first=Nick |author-link=Nick Matzke |date=January–April 2006 |title=Design on Trial: How NCSE Helped Win the ''Kitzmiller'' Case |url=http://ncse.com/rncse/26/1-2/design-trial |journal=Reports of the National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]] |volume=26 |issue=1–2 |pages=37–44 |issn=2158-818X |access-date=2009-11-18}}
*{{cite web |url=http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?p=80 |title=Missing Link discovered! |last=Matzke |first=Nick |date=November 7, 2005 |website=Evolution Education and the Law |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |type=Blog |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070114121029/http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?p=80 |archive-date=2007-01-14 |access-date=2009-11-18}}</ref> In 1989, ''Of Pandas and People'' was published by the [[Foundation for Thought and Ethics]] (FTE),<ref>{{cite journal |last=Biever |first=Celeste |date=October 6, 2005 |title=Book thrown at proponents of Intelligent Design |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8061 |journal=[[New Scientist]] |location=London |publisher=[[Reed Business Information]] |issue=2582 |pages=8–11 |issn=0262-4079 |access-date=2014-05-30}}</ref> with the definition:

{{quotation|"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."<ref name="bfkitz">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6am2.html#day6am889 |title=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), AM Session, Part 2 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |access-date=2014-05-30}}</ref>}}

''Pandas'' was followed in 1991 by ''[[Darwin on Trial]]'', a neo-creationist [[polemics|polemic]] by Phillip E. Johnson, that is regarded as a central text of the movement.<ref>[[#Stewart 2007|Stewart 2007]], p. 2</ref> ''Darwin on Trial'' mentioned ''Pandas'' as "'creationist' only in the sense that it juxtaposes a paradigm of 'intelligent design' with the dominant paradigm of (naturalistic) evolution," but his use of the term as a focus for his wedge strategy promoting "[[Theistic science#Johnson|theistic realism]]" came later.<ref>[[#Johnson 2010|Johnson 2010]], pp. 238–239</ref><ref name="theistic_realism">{{cite journal |last=Johnson |first=Phillip E. |date=May–June 1996 |title=Third-Party Science |url=http://www.ctlibrary.com/bc/1996/mayjun/6b3030.html |journal=[[Christianity Today|Books & Culture]] |type=Book review |volume=2 |issue=3 |access-date=December 26, 2013 |archive-date=February 19, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140219230949/http://www.ctlibrary.com/bc/1996/mayjun/6b3030.html |url-status=dead }} Article reprinted in full by [[Access Research Network]] [http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/ratzsch.htm here].</ref> The book was reviewed by evolutionary biologist [[Stephen Jay Gould]] for ''[[Scientific American]]'' in July 1992, concluding that the book contains "... no weighing of evidence, no careful reading of literature on all sides, no full citation of sources (the book does not even contain a bibliography) and occasional use of scientific literature only to score rhetorical points."<ref name="gould">{{cite journal |last=Gould |first=Stephen Jay |author-link=Stephen Jay Gould |date=July 1992 |title=Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge |url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_darwin-on-trial.html |journal=[[Scientific American]] |location=Stuttgart, Germany |publisher=[[Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group|Holtzbrinck]] |volume=267 |issue=1 |access-date=2009-04-01}}</ref> Gould's review led to the formation in 1992 or 1993 of an 'Ad Hoc Origins Committee' of Johnson's supporters, which wrote a letter, circulated to thousands of university professors, defending the book. Among the 39 signatories were nine who later became members of the [[Center for Science and Culture|Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture]] (CRSC).<ref>[[#Forrest & Gross 2004|Forrest & Gross 2004]], p. 18</ref><ref name="ahoc">{{cite web |url=http://apologetics.org/news/adhoc.html |title=Ad Hoc Origins Committee: ''Scientists Who Question Darwinism'' |website=Christian Apologetics |publisher=[[Trinity College (Florida)|Trinity College]] |location=New Port Richey, FL |access-date=2014-06-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080212041533/http://www.apologetics.org/news/adhoc.html |archive-date=2008-02-12 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

During the early 1990s Johnson worked to develop a 'big tent' movement to unify a wide range of creationist viewpoints in opposition to evolution. In 1992, the first formal meeting devoted to intelligent design was held in [[Southern Methodist University]]. It included a debate between Johnson and [[Michael Ruse]] (a key witness in ''[[McLean v. Arkansas]]'' (1982)) and papers by [[William A. Dembski]], [[Michael Behe]] and [[Stephen C. Meyer]]. In 1993, Johnson organized a follow-up meeting, including Dembski, Behe, Meyer, [[Dean H. Kenyon]] (co-author of ''Pandas'') and [[Walter Bradley (engineer)|Walter Bradley]] (co-author with Thaxton and Kenyon of ''The Mystery of Life's Origin'' (1984)), as well as two graduate students, [[Paul Nelson (creationist)|Paul A. Nelson]] and [[Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)|Jonathan Wells]].<ref>[[#Numbers 2006|Numbers 2006]], p. 380</ref>

=== Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture ===
{{main|Center for Science and Culture}}
On December 6, 1993, an article by Meyer was published in ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', drawing national attention to the controversy over Dean H. Kenyon's teaching of creationism. This article also gained the attention of Discovery Institute co-founder [[Bruce Chapman]]. On discovering that Meyer was developing the idea of starting a scientific research center in conversations with conservative political scientist [[John G. West]], Chapman invited them to create a unit within the Discovery Institute called the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (later renamed the Center for Science and Culture). This center was dedicated to overthrowing "[[Metaphysical naturalism|scientific materialism]]" and "fomenting nothing less than a scientific and cultural revolution."<ref name="Num381">[[#Numbers 2006|Numbers 2006]], pp. 381–382</ref>
A 1995 conference, "The Death of Materialism and the Renewal of Culture," served as a blueprint for the center.<ref>[[#Forrest & Gross 2004|Forrest & Gross 2004]], p. 19</ref> By 1996 they had nearly a million dollars in grants, the largest being from [[Howard Ahmanson, Jr.]], with smaller but still large contributions coming from the Stewardship Foundation established by C. Davis Weyerhaeuser and the Maclellan Foundation, and appointed their first class of research fellows.<ref name="Num381" />

=== The wedge strategy ===
{{main|Wedge strategy}}
The wedge strategy was formulated by Phillip E. Johnson to combat the "evil" of [[Naturalism (philosophy)#Methodological naturalism|methodological naturalism]].<ref>[[#Numbers 2006|Numbers 2006]], p. 377</ref> It first came to the general public's attention when a Discovery Institute internal memo now known as the "[[Wedge strategy|Wedge Document]]" (believed to have been written in 1998) was leaked to the public in 1999. However it is believed to have been an update of an earlier document to be implemented between 1996 and 2001.<ref>[[#Forrest & Gross 2004|Forrest & Gross 2004]], pp. 25–29</ref>

The document begins with "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built." and then goes on to outline the movement's goal to exploit perceived discrepancies within evolutionary theory in order to discredit evolution and scientific materialism in general. Much of the strategy is directed toward the broader public, as opposed to the professional scientific community. The stated "governing goals" of the CSC's wedge strategy are:
:1. To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies
:2. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God

Critics of intelligent design movement argue that the Wedge Document and strategy demonstrate that the intelligent design movement is motivated purely by religion and political ideology and that the Discovery Institute as a matter of policy obfuscates its agenda. The Discovery Institute's official response was to characterize the criticism and concern as "irrelevant," "paranoid," and "near-panic" while portraying the Wedge Document as a "fund-raising document."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/f/349 |title=The 'Wedge Document': 'So What?' |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |year=2003 |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle, WA |format=PDF |access-date=2014-05-30}}</ref>

Johnson in his 1997 book ''Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds'' confirmed some of the concerns voiced by the movement's gainsayers:
{{quotation|If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this,...We call our strategy the "wedge."<ref>[[#Johnson 1997|Johnson 1997]], pp. 91–92</ref>}}

=== Kansas evolution hearings ===
{{main|Kansas evolution hearings}}
The Kansas evolution hearings were a series of hearings held in [[Topeka, Kansas|Topeka]], [[Kansas]], from May 5 to May 12, 2005, by the [[Kansas State Department of Education|Kansas State Board of Education]] and its State Board Science Hearing Committee to change how evolution and the [[origin of life]] would be taught in the state's public high school science classes. The hearings were arranged by the conservative Board with the intent of introducing intelligent design into science classes via the "Teach the Controversy" method.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo6.html |title=Kansas Evolution Hearings: Part 6 |date=July 1, 2005 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |access-date=2014-05-30}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.salon.com/2005/05/13/kansas_5/ |title=A Real Monkey Trial |last=Dizikes |first=Peter |date=May 13, 2005 |website=[[Salon (website)|Salon]] |location=San Francisco, CA |publisher=Salon Media Group |access-date=2014-05-30}}</ref>

The hearings raised the issues of [[creation and evolution in public education]] and were attended by all the major participants in the intelligent design movement but were ultimately boycotted by the scientific community over concern of lending credibility to the claim, made by proponents of intelligent design, that evolution is purportedly the subject of wide dispute within the scientific and science education communities.

The Discovery Institute, hub of the intelligent design movement, played a central role in starting the hearings by promoting its [[Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns|Critical Analysis of Evolution]] lesson plan<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.discovery.org/a/2112 |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Key Resources for Parents and School Board Members |website=Center for Science and Culture |date=25 March 2004 |publisher=Discovery Institute |location=Seattle, WA |access-date=2013-07-30}}</ref> which the Kansas State Board of Education eventually adopted over objections of the State Board Science Hearing Committee, and campaigning on behalf of conservative Republican candidates for the Board.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=July 7, 2006 |title=Some question group's move with elections nearing |url=http://www.6newslawrence.com/news/2006/jul/07/many_question_groups_move_elections_nearing/ |work=[[6 News Lawrence|6News Lawrence]] |format=QuickTime |location=Lawrence, KS |publisher=[[Lawrence Journal-World]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070503093917/http://www.6newslawrence.com/news/2006/jul/07/many_question_groups_move_elections_nearing/ |archive-date=2007-05-03 |access-date=2014-05-30}}</ref>

Local science advocacy group [[Kansas Citizens for Science]] organized a [[boycott]] of the hearings by mainstream scientists, who accused it of being a [[kangaroo court]] and argued that their participation would lend an undeserved air of legitimacy to the hearings.<ref>{{cite news |last=Scholfield |first=Randy |date=March 30, 2005 |title=Scientists right to boycott evolution hearings |url=http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/news/editorial/11260641.htm |newspaper=[[The Wichita Eagle]] |type=Editorial |location=San Jose, CA |publisher=[[Knight Ridder]] |page=A6 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050405050648/http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/news/editorial/11260641.htm |archive-date=2005-04-05 |access-date=2014-05-30}}
*{{cite news |last=Scholfield |first=Randy |date=April 12, 2005 |title=Evolution hearings rejected by scientists |url=http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/04/excellent-edito.html |newspaper=The Wichita Eagle |type=Editorial |location=San Jose, CA |publisher=Knight Ridder |access-date=2014-05-30}}</ref> Board member Kathy Martin declared at the beginning of the hearings "Evolution has been proven false. ID (Intelligent Design) is science-based and strong in facts." At their conclusion she proclaimed that evolution is "an unproven, often disproven" theory.<ref name="Bailey_2005">{{cite journal |last=Bailey |first=Ronald |author-link=Ronald Bailey |date=May 25, 2005 |title=Unintelligent Design |url=http://reason.com/archives/2005/05/25/unintelligent-design |journal=[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]] |location=Los Angeles, CA |publisher=[[Reason Foundation]] |issn=0048-6906 |access-date=2014-05-30}}</ref>

"ID has theological implications. ID is not strictly Christian, but it is theistic," asserted Martin.<ref name="Bailey_2005" /> The scientific community rejects teaching intelligent design as science; a leading example being the National Academy of Sciences, which issued a policy statement saying "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 name="nas_25" />

On February 13, 2007, the Board voted 6 to 4 to reject the amended science standards enacted in 2005.<ref name="iht">{{cite news |last=Hanna |first=John |date=February 13, 2007 |title=Evolution of Kansas science standards continues as Darwin's theories regain prominence |url=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/13/america/NA-GEN-US-Kansas-Evolution-History.php |newspaper=[[International New York Times|International Herald Tribune]] |location=New York |publisher=[[The New York Times Company]] |agency=[[Associated Press]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070525044215/http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/13/america/NA-GEN-US-Kansas-Evolution-History.php |archive-date=2007-05-25 |access-date=2014-05-31}}</ref>

=== ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'' (2005) ===
{{main|Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District}}
In the movement's sole major case, ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'', it was represented by the [[Thomas More Law Center]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.salon.com/2005/10/20/dover_trial/ |title=Intelligent designer |last=Slack |first=Gordy |date=October 20, 2005 |website=Salon |location=San Francisco, CA |publisher=Salon Media Group |access-date=2014-05-31}}</ref> which had been seeking a test-case on the issue for at least five years.<ref>{{cite news |last=Goodstein |first=Laurie |date=November 4, 2005 |title=In Intelligent Design Case, a Cause in Search of a Lawsuit |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/science/sciencespecial2/04design.html?_r=1&oref=slogin |newspaper=The New York Times |quote=For years, a lawyer for the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan visited school boards around the country searching for one willing to challenge evolution by teaching intelligent design, and to face a risky, high-profile trial. |access-date=2014-05-31}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Humburg |first1=Burt |last2=Brayton |first2=Ed |date=December 20, 2005 |title=Kitzmiller et al versus Dover Area School District |url=http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-12-20/ |journal=[[Skeptic (U.S. magazine)|eSkeptic]] |type=Newsletter |publisher=[[The Skeptics Society]] |issn=1556-5696 |quote=TMLC representatives traveled the country from at least early 2000, encouraging school boards to teach ID in science classrooms. From Virginia to Minnesota, TMLC recommended the textbook Of Pandas and People (Pandas) as a supplement to regular biology textbooks, promising to defend the schools free of charge when the ACLU filed the inevitable lawsuit. Finally, in summer 2004, they found a willing school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, a board known to have been searching for a way to get creationism inserted into its science classrooms for years. |access-date=2014-05-31}}</ref> However conflicting agendas resulted in the withdrawal of a number of Discovery Institute Fellows as expert witnesses, at the request of DI director Bruce Chapman,<ref>{{cite news |last=Postman |first=David |date=April 26, 2006 |title=Seattle's Discovery Institute scrambling to rebound after intelligent-design ruling |url=http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002953668_id26m.html |newspaper=[[The Seattle Times]] |location=Seattle, WA |publisher=[[The Seattle Times Company]] |access-date=2014-05-31}}</ref> and mutual recriminations with the DI after the case was lost.<ref name="InstituteandThomasSquabble">{{cite web |url=http://ncse.com/news/2005/10/discovery-institute-thomas-more-law-center-squabble-aei-foru-00704 |title=Discovery Institute and Thomas More Law Center Squabble in AEI Forum |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=October 23, 2005 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |type=Blog |access-date=2014-05-31}}</ref> The [[Alliance Defending Freedom|Alliance Defense Fund]] briefly represented the Foundation for Thought and Ethics in its unsuccessful motion to intervene in this case,<ref>{{cite press release |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=ADF attorneys seek to supply missing link in intelligent design curriculum case |url=http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3440 |location=Harrisburg, PA |publisher=[[Alliance Defending Freedom|Alliance Defense Fund]] |date=May 24, 2005 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070616043046/http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3440 |archive-date=2007-06-16 |access-date=2014-05-31}}</ref> and prepared ''[[amicus curiae]]'' briefs on behalf of the DI and FTE in it.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/highlights/2005-12-07_Ps_response_to_FTE-DI_amicus_OCR.pdf |title=Plaintiffs' Response to Amicus Briefs |date=December 7, 2005 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071014045828/http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/highlights/2005-12-07_Ps_response_to_FTE-DI_amicus_OCR.pdf |archive-date=2007-10-14 |access-date=2014-05-31}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'']]</ref> It has also made ''amicus curiae'' submissions<ref>{{cite web |url=http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/12006d.asp |title=Circuit Court Sends 'Textbook Sticker' Case Back to Lower Court |last=Brown |first=Jim |date=June 1, 2006 |website=AgapePress |publisher=[[American Family Association]] |location=Tupelo, MS |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060822034556/http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/12006d.asp |archive-date=2006-08-22 |access-date=2014-05-31}}</ref> and offered to pay for litigation,<ref>{{cite news |last=Moore |first=Michael |date=February 29, 2004 |title=Darby debate: Focus on religion a central ADF tenet |url=http://missoulian.com/news/local/darby-debate-focus-on-religion-a-central-adf-tenet/article_9a55d524-2c82-57bf-8063-d4092e4d28c3.html |newspaper=[[Missoulian]] |location=Davenport, IA |publisher=[[Lee Enterprises]] |access-date=2014-05-31}}</ref> in other (actual and potential) creationism-related cases. On a far smaller scale, [[Larry Caldwell]] and his wife operate under the name Quality Science Education for All, and have made a number of lawsuits in furtherance of the movement's anti-evolution agenda. In 2005 they brought at least three separate lawsuits to further the intelligent design movement's agenda. One was later abandoned, two were dismissed.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/nuisance-lawsui.html |title=Nuisance Lawsuit Against Scott and NCSE Withdrawn |last=Elsberry |first=Wesley R. |author-link=Wesley R. Elsberry |date=September 14, 2005 |website=[[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|The Panda's Thumb]] |publisher=TalkOrigins Archive Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |type=Blog |access-date=2014-05-31}}</ref><ref>{{cite court |litigants=Caldwell v. Roseville Joint Union High School District |vol=05 |reporter=cv |opinion=061|date=September 7, 2007 |url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00061/pdf/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00061-9.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/03/15_evolution.shtml |title=Court dismisses lawsuit targeting evolution website |last=Sanders |first=Robert |date=March 15, 2006 |website=UC Berkeley News |publisher=[[Regents of the University of California]] |location=Berkeley, CA |access-date=2014-05-31}}</ref>