Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns

Last updated

The Discovery Institute has conducted a series of related public relations campaigns which seek to promote intelligent design while attempting to discredit evolutionary biology, which the Institute terms "Darwinism". [1] The Discovery Institute promotes the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement and is represented by Creative Response Concepts, a public relations firm. [2]

Contents

Prominent Institute campaigns have been to 'Teach the Controversy' and to allow 'Critical Analysis of Evolution'. Other campaigns have claimed that intelligent design advocates (most notably Richard Sternberg) have been discriminated against, and thus that Academic Freedom bills are needed to protect academics' and teachers' ability to criticise evolution, and that the development of evolutionary theory was historically linked to ideologies such as Nazism and eugenics, [3] [4] [5] claims based on misrepresentation which have been ridiculed by topic experts. [6] [7] These three claims are all publicized in the pro-ID movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed ; the Anti-Defamation League said the film's attempt to blame science for the Nazi Holocaust was outrageous. [8] Other campaigns have included petitions, most notably A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. [9]

The theory of evolution is accepted by overwhelming scientific consensus. [10] [11] Intelligent design has been rejected, both by the vast majority of scientists and by court findings, such as Kitzmiller v. Dover , as being a religious view and not science.

Goal of the campaigns

The overarching goal of the Institute in conducting the intelligent design campaigns is religious; to replace science with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." [12] [ non-primary source needed ] To accomplish this the Institute has conducted a number of public relations campaigns. The governing strategy of these various campaigns is called the Wedge strategy and was first made public when the Institute's "Wedge Document" was leaked on the World Wide Web in 1999. [13] The Discovery Institute argues that science, due to its reliance on naturalism, is an inherently materialistic and atheistic enterprise and thus the source of many of society's ills, and that "Design theory [intelligent design] promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview." [12]

None of the campaigns are aimed at directly influencing the scientific community, which the Institute considers dogmatic and hidebound, but rather are focused on swaying the opinions of the public and public policy makers, which, if effective, it is hoped will respond by forcing the academic institutions supporting the scientific community to accept the Discovery Institute's redefinition of science. Public high school science curricula has been the most common and visible target of the campaigns, with the Institute publishing its own model lesson plan, the Critical Analysis of Evolution.[ citation needed ]

In a Seattle Weekly article, Nina Shapiro quoted Institute founder and president Bruce Chapman when she wrote that behind all Discovery Institute programs there is an underlying hidden religious agenda:

Yet the Discovery Institute as an organization did not get involved in the issue in order to solve the mysteries of the universe. Chapman is up front about having a social and political agenda. He sees design intelligence as a way to combat the growing reliance on genetic explanations for human behavior and what he sees as an undermining of personal responsibility. As an example of this phenomenon, Chapman cites the infamous "Twinkie defense" used by a murder defendant claiming his sugar high made him do it.

Others associated with the institute take a bigger leap of logic to argue that welfare, as currently dispensed, is a misguided consequence of the Darwinian outlook. "If you see human beings as nothing but matter and motion, than all you do is treat them like mouths to feed," says Jay Richards, program director for the institute's Center for Science and Culture. "If they're more than that, you treat the whole person," he argues, which would mean looking at such things as family structure and the role of moral and religious values in their lives.

Do you really have to attack a whole branch of science in order to counter liberal views on welfare? The Discovery Institute folk think they do. "Unless you get the science right," Chapman says, "it's very hard to contend with the other arguments."

— Nina Shapiro, The New Creationists [14]

[ citation needed ]

The Institute's approach has been to position itself as opposed to any required teaching intelligent design, while campaigns such as Teach the Controversy and Critical Analysis of Evolution introduce high school students to design arguments through the Discovery Institute-drafted lesson plans. Teach the Controversy and Free Speech on Evolution both require that "competing" or "alternative" "theories" to evolution to be presented while the Critical Analysis of Evolution model lesson plan fills that requirement by listing intelligent design books by Institute Fellows as such alternatives for students.[ citation needed ]

"Discovery Institute opposes mandating the teaching of intelligent design, but it supports requiring students to know about scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory, which is the approach adopted by the science standards in Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico, and currently under discussion in Kansas. Discovery Institute also supports the right of teachers to voluntarily discuss the scientific debate over intelligent design free from persecution or intimidation." [15]

Campaign to "teach the controversy"

Previously, attempts to introduce creationism into public high school science curricula had been derailed when this was found to have violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In an attempt to avoid repeating this violation, the Institute today avoids directly advocating for intelligent design in high school curricula.[ citation needed ] Instead, it advocates teaching methods that introduce intelligent design ideas (and textbooks) indirectly through a campaign to "Teach the Controversy" by portraying evolution as "a theory in crisis" and "presenting all the evidence, both for and against, evolution" and teaching "Critical Analysis of Evolution" (the name of the Institute's model lesson plans on the subject).[ citation needed ] The Discovery Institute describes their approach as:

As a general approach, Discovery Institute favors teaching students more about evolution, not less. We think students deserve to know not only about the strengths of modern evolutionary theory, but also about some of the theory's weaknesses and unresolved issues. In other words, students should be taught that evolutionary theory, like any scientific theory, continues to be open to analysis and critical scrutiny. According to opinion polls, this approach is favored by the overwhelming majority of the American public, and it has also been endorsed by the U.S. Congress in report language attached to the No Child Left Behind Act Conference Report. [16]

Gordy Slack of Salon interpreted this tactic as: "the 'more' they want to teach, of course, is what they see as evolution's shortcomings, leaving an ecological niche that will then be filled by intelligent design." [17]

In 2001 Robert T. Pennock wrote that intelligent design proponents are "manufacturing dissent" in order to explain the absence of scientific debate of their claims: "The 'scientific' claims of such neo-creationists as Johnson, Denton, and Behe rely, in part, on the notion that these issues [surrounding evolution] are the subject of suppressed debate among biologists. ... according to neo-creationists, the apparent absence of this discussion and the nearly universal rejection of neo-creationist claims must be due to the conspiracy among professional biologists instead of a lack of scientific merit." [18]

These teaching methods were promoted by the Institute at the Kansas evolution hearings in 2005, but were the subject of judicial criticism later in that year in the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District : "ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." [19] The slogan "teach the controversy" has been increasingly superseded by the more oblique "Critical Analysis of Evolution".[ citation needed ]

Campaigns claiming discrimination

The claim that "scientists, teachers, and students are under attack for questioning evolution" and have been discriminated against, [20] is the centerpiece of a number of campaigns conducted by the Institute.[ citation needed ] Notable among these campaigns is the Sternberg peer review controversy and in the more recent case of Guillermo Gonzalez's denial of tenure.[ further explanation needed ] As part of a long term strategy the Institute actively promotes an image of intelligent design proponents suffering professional setbacks or failing to advance as victims of "Darwinist inquisitions" conducted by "Thought Police". [21] [ failed verification ] Critics of intelligent design and the Institute such as PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott and Barbara Forrest frequently find themselves the subjects of unflattering articles on the Institute's blog which ignores or downplays the responses of large scientific and academic organizations rejecting intelligent design while portraying opponents as members of an academic and scientific fringe and minority. [20] [22] Other methods employed by the Institute include what they term "Public Education"; described as exposing 'bigotry and intolerance' to 'public disapproval' often through the Institute's blog Evolutionnews.org, "Personal Assistance"; described as "providing assistance in locating free legal representation from a network of concerned lawyers across the nation" and "investigations" and lobbying of officials by the Institute, "Legal Defense" and "Grassroots Action". [23]

Other purported instances of discrimination publicised by the Discovery Institute include:

Court cases (such as Webster v. New Lenox School District and Bishop v. Aronov) have upheld school districts' and universities' right to restrict teaching to a specified curriculum. None of these purported cases of discrimination have been subjected to formal legal or congressional scrutiny.[ citation needed ]

In August 2007, an upcoming movie publicising a number of these incidents was announced, entitled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and starring Ben Stein. [34]

Free Speech on Evolution campaign

The primary message of the campaign was:

"Across America, the freedom of scientists, teachers, and students to question Darwin is coming under increasing attack by what can only be called Darwinian fundamentalists. These self-appointed defenders of the theory of evolution are waging a malicious campaign to demonize and blacklist anyone who disagrees with them." [20] [ dead link ]

The term[ which? ] gained exposure when the Institute was widely quoted in the press in 2005 after president Bush publicly spoke in favor of teaching intelligent design alongside evolution as a competing theory and Institute fellow John G. West responded with a statement framing the issue as a matter of free speech: "President Bush is to be commended for defending free speech on evolution, and supporting the right of students to hear about different scientific views about evolution." [35] [36]

A notable characteristic of this campaign is the Institute's framing of the issues as a confluence of free speech, academic freedom and discrimination. [20] [23] [37]

The campaign has found traction with the Discovery Institute's constituency, conservative Christians, but has failed to produce gains with a wider audience. [38] [39] Critics of the Institute and intelligent design have alleged that the campaign is founded on intellectual dishonesty. PZ Myers describes the "free speech on evolution campaign" as promoting intolerance, lies and distortions, [40] while Wesley R. Elsberry says 'Free Speech on Evolution' is a "catchphrase" describing false compromises offered by Institute Fellows that introduce intelligent design into science classes indirectly by having teachers "teach the controversy." [41]

Campaigns portraying books and sites as banned

Banned Books Week is an awareness campaign, led annually by the American Library Association, in an attempt to protect freedom of speech by celebrating books that the ALA claims others have banned or attempted to ban from various venues. In 2006, Discovery Institute Fellow John West nominated the book Of Pandas and People , on the basis of it being "at the heart of" Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District . [42] However the decision in Kitzmiller made no order regarding Pandas, rendering the basis for considering it to be "banned" highly tenuous, [43] [44] [45] and the assertion was dismissed by Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Deputy Director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom who does not consider the book banned. [46] The Discovery Institute continued to misrepresent the book as banned in 2007, with the statement that:

In 2005, a federal judge banned Pandas outright from science classrooms in Dover, Pennsylvania

— Casey Luskin, Evolution News & Views, Discovery Institute [47]

In 2007, the Discovery Institute nominated Robert J. Marks' 'Evolutionary Informatics Lab' web-site as "Banned Item of the Year", after it was deleted from the Baylor University server. [48] However, the site is still accessible, now being hosted on a third party server. [49]

Academic freedom campaign

Between 2004 and 2008 a number of anti-evolution 'Academic Freedom' bills were introduced in State legislatures in Alabama, Oklahoma, Maryland, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri and Michigan, based largely upon language drafted by the Discovery Institute. As of May 2008, none of them were successfully passed into law.

They purport that teachers, students, and college professors face intimidation and retaliation when discussing scientific criticisms of evolution, and therefore require protection. [50] Critics of the bills point out that there are no credible scientific critiques of evolution. [51] Investigation of the allegations of intimidation and retaliation have found no evidence that it occurs. [52]

In February 2008, the Discovery Institute announced the Academic Freedom Petition campaign, [53] which it is conducting with assistance from Brian Gage Design [54] who provides the Discovery Institute graphic design professional services. [55] The petition states:

We, the undersigned American citizens, urge the adoption of policies by our nation's academic institutions to ensure teacher and student academic freedom to discuss the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution. Teachers should be protected from being fired, harassed, intimidated, or discriminated against for objectively presenting the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory. Students should be protected from being harassed, intimidated, or discriminated against for expressing their views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory in an appropriate manner. [50]

Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs at Discovery Institute, is the contact person for the campaign's Model Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution. [50]

In his 2004 book From Darwin to Hitler, Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany, Discovery Institute fellow Richard Weikart links Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution to Nazism, concluding:

Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism, especially in its social Darwinist and eugenics permutations, neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the world's greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy. Darwinism – or at least some naturalistic interpretation of darwinism – succeeded in turning morality on its head.

[ citation needed ]

This conclusion is however controversial, with professor of history at the University of Louisville Ann Taylor Allen giving the opinion that Weikart's talk about "Darwinism" is not based on any careful reading of Darwin himself but on vague ideas by a variety of people who presented themselves as "Darwinian." Moreover, fundamental elements of Nazism like anti-Semitism cannot be attributed to Darwinism since it predates evolutionary theory. Allen concluded: [7]

This picture of the Holocaust as the outcome of a 'culture war' between religion and science leads to serious distortions on both sides. The 'Judeo-Christian' worldview is unproblematically associated here with many beliefs – such as opposition to birth control, legalized abortion, and assisted suicide--that many believing Christians and Jews would reject. And 'Darwinism' is equated with a hodgepodge of ideas about race, politics, and social issues. If all these ideas were to fall into well-deserved obsolescence, this would in no way detract from the validity of Darwin's contributions to modern biological science. Neither religion nor science is well served by this oversimplified view of their complex history.

Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture Associate Director John G. West, in both his book Darwin Day in America and in lectures, [56] has attempted to link Darwin to the eugenics movement. [57] However, critics point out that:

Campaign to discredit the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District decision

For deciding whether intelligent design is science

David K. DeWolf, John G. West and Casey Luskin, senior fellows or officers of the Discovery Institute, argued that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, that the Jones court should not have addressed the question of whether it was a scientific theory, and that the decision will have no effect on the development and adoption of intelligent design as an alternative to standard evolutionary theory. [62] Peter Irons responded to the DeWolf et al. article, arguing that the decision was extremely well reasoned, and that it marks the end to legal efforts by the intelligent design movement to introduce creationism in public schools. [63] DeWolf et al. responded to the Irons article in the same issue. [64]

"Study" criticizing Judge Jones

The Discovery Institute and its fellows published several articles describing a "study" performed by the Discovery Institute criticizing the judge in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. It claims that "90.9% of Judge Jones' [opinion] on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU's proposed 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law' submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling." [65] The study, though making no specific allegations of wrongdoing, implies that Judge Jones relied upon the plaintiff's submissions in writing his own conclusions of law.

Within a day, the president of the York County Bar Association wrote that parties are required by the courts to submit findings of fact and "a judge can adopt some, all or none of the proposed findings." She added that in the final ruling, a judge's decision "is the judge's findings and it doesn't matter who submitted them". A partner in a York law firm said that "Any attempt to make a stink out of it is absurd." [66]

Several commentators described a number of critical flaws in the study from both a numerical and legal standpoint. Witold Walczak, legal director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania and the ACLU's lead attorney on the case called the Institute's report a stunt: "They're getting no traction in the scientific world so they're trying to do something ... as a PR stunt to get attention, ... That's not how scientists work, ... Discovery Institute is trying to litigate a year-old case in the media." He also said the Discovery Institute staff is not, as it claims, interested in finding scientific truths; it is more interested in a "cultural war," pushing for intelligent design and publicly criticizing a judge. [67]

A subsequent review of the study performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of the text comparison program that was partly responsible for the decision in the case, indicated that only 38% of the complete ruling by Judge Jones actually incorporated the findings of fact and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, and only 66% of the section (on whether intelligent design was science) incorporated the proposals, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed was copied in that section. Significantly, Judge Jones adopted only 48% of the plaintiffs's proposed findings of fact for that section, and rejected 52%, clearly showing that he did not accept the section verbatim. [68] [69]

"Intelligent design is not creationism"

One of the principal rationales behind intelligent design's neo-creationist strategy is to separate intelligent design from previous, more explicitly religious, forms of creationism, and the legal defeats that prohibit them from public school science classrooms. For this reason, the Discovery Institute (and its supporters) make frequent and vehement denials of any connection between intelligent design and creationism. These denials are at times bitter and abrasive, for example:

[ John Derbyshire ] still can't understand the obvious differences between creationism and intelligent design, continually conflating the two and looking like an ill-informed crank.

— Robert Crowther, Discovery Institute, Is It Really Intelligent Design that has the Great Derb Worried?, Evolution News & Views [70]

However this assertion has been refuted both in court and academia. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Judge John E. Jones III found that "the overwhelming evidence at trial established that intelligent design is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." [71] Numerous books have been written by prominent academics documenting intelligent design as a form of creationism, e.g.:

Petition campaigns

The Discovery Institute has created a number of petitions to give the impression that there are widespread doubts about the Theory of Evolution among scientists and scientifically-literate professionals. These petitions include A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity, Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism, and the now-defunct Stand Up For Science.

Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism

Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism is a petition promoting intelligent design. It consists of a list of people agreeing with a statement casting doubt on evolution. The petition was produced by the Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI), a nonprofit organization formed by the Discovery Institute, and is intended to support the Discovery Institute's campaign to portray intelligent design as a scientifically valid theory by creating the impression that evolution lacks broad scientific support. [72] It is similar to the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to discredit evolution.

The document itself has been the subject of controversy and extensive criticism from a variety of sources. The statement in the document has been branded as poorly worded, misleading and vague. [73] This campaign, like the rest of the Discovery Institute anti-evolution campaigns, has come under criticism for being misleading and anti-science. The list of signatories represents an insignificant fraction of medical professionals (about 0.02%). The evidence of evolution is not determined by petitions or polls, but by scientific consensus. This is the reason that the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted.

Statement

The medical doctors and comparable professionals are signatories to a statement which disputes evolution, which they refer to as "Darwinian macroevolution" or "Darwinism", which are both misleading terms. The statement that the organization subscribes to is titled "Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism" and contains the following text:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory."

Evolutionary synthesis and the theory of evolution state that random mutation leads to inherited traits that become more or less common due to non-random natural selection and random genetic drift, as well as other mechanisms. Therefore, the PSSI statement is overly vague and worded in a misleading fashion, since few real evolutionary biologists would subscribe to the version of evolution presented by the statement. [73] Evolution does not include the study of the origin of life, as the statement implies.

The wording of this statement is very similar to the wording of the Discovery Institute's petition, " A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism ", which has been widely criticized for being inaccurate and misleading. [74] [75] [76] [77]

History

The Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity was formed in 2006. By May 8, 2006, the PSSI Dissent petition had 34 signatories. [73] There were 100 signatories on July 30, 2006. By December 2006, 167 had signed the statement. By May 22, 2007, 252 appeared on the list. As of July 30, 2007, the list included 264 names. [78]

The PSSI invites holders of the M.D., D.O., D.D.S., D.M.D., D.V.M., or similar degrees to sign the Dissent petition.

Analysis

The statement is similar to the one of the A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism of the Discovery Institute which has come under extensive criticism from a variety of sources as misleading, poorly phrased and containing only a tiny fraction of professionals in relevant fields.

Statement of "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism":

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.

The value of the opinions of physicians, surgeons, veterinarians, optometrists and other signatories of this petition is not clear. Referring to the number of people on the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism list and their claimed relevance, University of Minnesota biology professor PZ Myers writes, "Not only is the number that they cite pathetically small, but they rely on getting scientists whose expertise isn't relevant." In analogy, it can be argued that the 'Physicians' list represents an insignificant fraction of the total medical profession. Addressing a specific example, Myers says of neurosurgeon Michael Egnor, who signed both lists, that "The Discovery Institute may like to trumpet his expertise in neurosurgery as an indicator of the significance of his dissent from evolutionary biology, but I think I'd rather trumpet his ignorance of evolutionary biology as an indicator of the uselessness of the Discovery Institute's list." [79] Myers continued to state that the signer "is not only wrong, but he's pretty damn arrogant about it – how else to explain someone who is proud of the fact that he knows nothing about a subject, and is proud of his inability to find sources that would correct his ignorance, even when they're pointed out to him directly? He's like Michael Behe, in that we can plop mountains of information in front of him, and he'll just blithely claim it doesn't exist." [80]

The compiled list of medical professionals is available on the Internet, where each signatory is listed three times: by last name, by country and by specialty. Most of the doctors who signed the statement are from the United States. As of May 22, 2007 there were 224 signatories from the United States, two signatories from Australia, four signatories from Canada, eight signatories from the United Kingdom and another 14 from nine other countries. However, this figure should be expected to rise, based on a poll of 1472 US physicians conducted by the "Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research" at the Jewish Theological Seminary and HCD Research in Flemington, New Jersey, from May 13–15, 2005. This study showed that 34% of physician respondents felt more comfortable with intelligent design than evolution. [81] [82] include doctors trained or working in a wide range of disciplines, including, addiction medicine, bariatrics (i.e., weight loss medicine), dentistry, dermatology, hospice care, ophthalmology, optometry, plastic surgery, psychiatry, radiology, urology and veterinary medicine.

The American Medical Association estimates that in 2006, there were more than 884,000 physicians in the United States. [83] In addition, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that in May 2003 the US had 97,090 dentists, 63,780 opticians, 22,740 optometrists and 43,890 veterinarians. [84]

Therefore, the total number of US professionals in the fields represented by the "Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity" Dissent petition is at least 1,111,500. That is, the 224 US signatories of the statement represent approximately 0.02% of the total number of US professionals in these fields.

Stand Up For Science

The Stand Up For Science campaign originated in July 2006 leading up to the showdown in the Kansas Board of Education that began with Kansas evolution hearings, which was also driven by the Discovery Institute. [85] The Institute's online petition and Stand Up For Science website where one could sign the petition were prominent features of the campaign. During the period leading up to the Kansas evolution hearings the Institute ran a number radio and print ads across Kansas incorporating many of its slogans, such as "Teach the Controversy", "Free Speech on Evolution", and "Critical Analysis of Evolution", and directing readers and listeners to the Discovery Institute website. As the Kansas debate over the teaching of evolution wound down in Fall 2006 after the conservative Republicans who approved the Critical Analysis of Evolution classroom standards lost their majority in a primary election and the moderate Republicans and Democrats vowed to overturn Discovery Institute-influenced 2005 school science standards and adopt those recommended by a State Board Science Hearing Committee that were rejected by the previous board, the Institute shifted the focus of The Stand Up For Science campaign from Kansas to Texas.

The scientific and science education communities reacted to campaign by saying that it was a misinformation campaign. Nick Matzke described the campaign's support for science as "irony-meter-busting". [86] In response to the campaign Kansas biology teacher Jeremy Mohn founded the competing website, Stand Up for REAL Science. [87]

Theistic evolution

On May 26, 2009, the Discovery Institute announced a new website, FaithandEvolution.Org. [88] The site attacks theistic evolution, and New Scientist suggests that it is in response to Francis Collins' recent launch of the BioLogos Institute to promote theistic evolution. [89]

Criticism

Every leading scientific professional organization has through position statements unequivocally endorsed evolution as a widely accepted and well-proven theory. [90] [91] [92] [93] McGill University Professor of Education Brian Alters states in an article published by the NIH that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". [94]

Critics say that the Institute is conducting a deliberate disinformation campaign. One common criticism is that the rhetoric employed by the Institute in its campaigns is intentionally vague and misleading [95] [96] and that the campaigns mask a near total absence of scientific support and productive research programs. The Templeton Foundation, who once provided grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design has since rejected the Discovery Institute's entreaties for more funding, Foundation senior vice president Charles L. Harper Jr. said "They're political – that for us is problematic," and that while Discovery has "always claimed to be focused on the science," "what I see is much more focused on public policy, on public persuasion, on educational advocacy and so forth." [97] [98]

In one of a series of articles in Skeptic on the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed , ID critic Ed Brayton noted:

The intelligent design (ID) movement has long labored to inculcate two mutually exclusive falsehoods in the minds of the public: A) that ID is a purely scientific theory that has nothing to do with religion; and B) that any objection to ID is evidence of bias and discrimination against religion.

— Ed Brayton, The Richard Sternberg Affair [99]

See also

Related Research Articles

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.

The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative think tank that advocates the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design (ID). It was founded in 1991 in Seattle as a non-profit offshoot of the Hudson Institute.

<i>Icons of Evolution</i> Book by Jonathan Wells

Icons of Evolution is a book by Jonathan Wells, an advocate of the pseudoscientific intelligent design argument for the existence of God and fellow of the Discovery Institute, in which Wells criticizes the paradigm of evolution by attacking how it is taught. The book includes a 2002 video companion. In 2000, Wells summarized the book's contents in an article in the American Spectator. Several of the scientists whose work is sourced in the book have written rebuttals to Wells, stating that they were quoted out of context, that their work has been misrepresented, or that it does not imply Wells's conclusions.

The intelligent design movement is a neo-creationist religious campaign for broad social, academic and political change to promote and support the pseudoscientific idea of intelligent design (ID), which asserts that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Its chief activities are a campaign to promote public awareness of this concept, the lobbying of policymakers to include its teaching in high school science classes, and legal action, either to defend such teaching or to remove barriers otherwise preventing it. The movement arose out of the creation science movement in the United States, and is driven by a small group of proponents. The Encyclopædia Britannica explains that ID cannot be empirically tested and that it fails to solve the problem of evil; thus, it is neither sound science nor sound theology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wedge strategy</span> Creationist political and social agenda

The Wedge Strategy is a creationist political and social agenda authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement. The strategy was presented in a Discovery Institute internal memorandum known as the Wedge Document. Its goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect politically conservative fundamentalist evangelical Protestant values. The wedge metaphor is attributed to Phillip E. Johnson and depicts a metal wedge splitting a log.

The "Teach the controversy" campaign of the Discovery Institute seeks to promote the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design as part of its attempts to discredit the teaching of evolution in United States public high school science courses. Scientific organizations point out that the institute claims that there is a scientific controversy where in fact none exists.

The Kansas evolution hearings were a series of hearings held in Topeka, Kansas, United States from May 5 to 12, 2005 by the 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 Board of Education with the intent of introducing intelligent design into science classes via the Teach the Controversy method.

<i>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District</i> 2005 court case in Pennsylvania

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design (ID), ultimately found by the court to not be science. In October 2004, the Dover Area School District of York County, Pennsylvania, changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design be presented as an alternative to evolution theory, and that Of Pandas and People, a textbook advocating intelligent design, was to be used as a reference book. The prominence of this textbook during the trial was such that the case is sometimes referred to as the Dover Panda Trial, a name which recalls the popular name of the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, 80 years earlier. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge's decision sparked considerable response from both supporters and critics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Neo-creationism</span> Pseudoscientific creationist movement

Neo-creationism is a pseudoscientific movement which aims to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, by policy makers, by educators and by the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture. This comes in response to the 1987 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard that creationism is an inherently religious concept and that advocating it as correct or accurate in public-school curricula violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The intelligent design movement has conducted an organized campaign largely in the United States that promotes a pseudoscientific, neo-creationist religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes centering on intelligent design.

A Scientific Support for Darwinism was a four-day, word-of-mouth petition of scientists in support of evolution. Inspired by Project Steve, it was initiated in 2005 by archaeologist R. Joe Brandon to produce a public response to the Discovery Institute's 2001 petition A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Giuseppe Sermonti</span> Italian professor of genetics (1925–2018)

Giuseppe Sermonti was an Italian professor of genetics who criticized natural selection as the deciding factor of human biology.

"A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" was a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a Christian, conservative think tank based in Seattle, Washington, U.S., best known for its promotion of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. As part of the Discovery Institute's Teach the Controversy campaign, the statement expresses skepticism about the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encourages careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinism", a term intelligent design proponents use to refer to evolution.

<i>Uncommon Dissent</i> 2004 anthology edited by William A. Dembski

Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing is a 2004 anthology edited by William A. Dembski in which fifteen intellectuals, eight of whom are leading intelligent design proponents associated with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC) and the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), criticise "Darwinism" and make a case for intelligent design. It is published by the publishing wing of the paleoconservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute. The foreword is by John Wilson, editor of the evangelical Christian magazine Christianity Today. The title is a pun on the principle of biology known as common descent. The Discovery Institute is the engine behind the intelligent design movement.

Truth in Science is a United Kingdom-based creationist organisation which promotes the Discovery Institute's "Teach the Controversy" campaign, which it uses to try to get the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design creationism taught alongside evolution in school science lessons. The organisation claims that there is scientific controversy about the validity of Darwinian evolution, a view rejected by the United Kingdom's Royal Society and over 50 Academies of Science around the world. The group is affiliated with the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement, following its strategy and circulating the Institute's promotional materials.

The level of support for evolution among scientists, the public, and other groups is a topic that frequently arises in the creation–evolution controversy, and touches on educational, religious, philosophical, scientific, and political issues. The subject is especially contentious in countries where significant levels of non-acceptance of evolution by the general population exists, but evolution is taught at public schools and universities.

<i>Explore Evolution</i>

Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism is a controversial biology textbook written by a group of intelligent design supporters and published in 2007. Its promoters describe it as aimed at helping educators and students to discuss "the controversial aspects of evolutionary theory that are discussed openly in scientific books and journals but which are not widely reported in textbooks." As one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to "teach the controversy" its evident purpose is to provide a "lawsuit-proof" way of attacking evolution and promoting pseudoscientific creationism without being explicit.

The Biologic Institute was a section of the Discovery Institute created to give the organization a facade of conducting biological research with the aim of producing experimental evidence of intelligent design creationism, funded by the Discovery Institute. It claimed offices in Redmond, Washington and laboratories in the Fremont neighborhood of Seattle, Washington. Instead Biologic Institute consisted solely of a rented office space in Redmond which is no longer in use for several years although the web domain is still renewed. The 'research' listed for the group consists mainly of random and often irrelevant works by Intelligent Design supporters going back to their graduate school years. Several are notably articles, books or internally published content from Discovery's 'BioComplexity' journal which is not a legitimate scientific journal.

John G. West is a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute (DI), and associate director and vice president for public policy and legal affairs of its Center for Science and Culture (CSC), which serves as the main hub of the pseudoscientific Intelligent design movement.

The relationship between intelligent design and science has been a contentious one. Intelligent design (ID) is presented by its proponents as science and claims to offer an alternative to evolution. The Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank and the leading proponent of intelligent design, launched a campaign entitled "Teach the Controversy", which claims that a controversy exists within the scientific community over evolution. The scientific community rejects intelligent design as a form of creationism, and the basic facts of evolution are not a matter of controversy in science.

References

  1. ↑ Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Archived June 30, 2007, at the Wayback Machine Barbara Forrest. May, 2007.
  2. ↑ Dean, Cornelia; Goodstein, Laurie (9 July 2005). "Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 July 2018.
  3. ↑ "The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought" (PDF). csustan.edu. Retrieved 25 July 2018.
  4. ↑ "From Darwin to Hitler". Richard Weikart. Retrieved 25 July 2018.
  5. ↑ "Senior Fellow Richard Weikart responds to Sander Gliboff". Discovery Institute. 10 October 2004. Retrieved 25 July 2018.
  6. ↑ Rennie, John; Mirsky, Steve (April 16, 2008). "Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know..." Scientific American. Stuttgart: Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group. ISSN   0036-8733 . Retrieved 2016-01-05.
  7. 1 2 The Journal of Modern History (March 2006)
  8. ↑ "Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust" (Press release). New York: Anti-Defamation League. April 29, 2008. Archived from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2016-01-08.
  9. ↑ "Dissent From Darwinism "Goes Global" as Over 600 Scientists Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwinian Evolution". evolution news. 21 June 2006. Retrieved 25 July 2018.
  10. ↑ Hofmann, James R.; Weber, Bruce H. (November 2003). "The Fact of Evolution: Implications for Science Education". Science & Education . 12 (8): 729–760. Bibcode:2003Sc&Ed..12..729H. doi:10.1023/B:SCED.0000004556.80802.3a. S2CID   31403131.[ permanent dead link ]
  11. ↑ Kroll, Andy (September 15, 2017). "New Mexico Doesn't Want Your Kids to Know How Old the Earth Is". Mother Jones .
  12. 1 2 Wedge Document [usurped] Discovery Institute, 1999.
  13. ↑ Barbara Forrest; Paul R. Gross (2004). "The Wedge Document: A Design for Design". Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195157420.003.0003. ISBN   978-0-19-515742-0.
  14. ↑ The New Creationists Archived 2006-12-30 at the Wayback Machine , Nina Shapiro, Seattle Weekly, April 18, 2001
  15. ↑ President Bush's Support for Free Speech on Evolution and Intelligent Design Draws Praise From Discovery Institute – press release, August 2, 2005.
  16. ↑ Key Resources for Parents and School Board Members Discovery Institute, September 21, 2005.
  17. ↑ The evolution of creationism, Gordy Slack, Salon Archived 2010-03-05 at the Wayback Machine
  18. ↑ Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives Robert T. Pennock. MIT Press, 2001. p. 322.
  19. ↑ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, p89
  20. 1 2 3 4 Free Speech on Evolution Campaign Main Page Archived 2006-08-06 at the Wayback Machine Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture.
  21. ↑ Thought Police Try To Stifle Academic Freedom at Iowa State University Discovery Institute. September 1, 2005.
  22. ↑ While we're at it, let's also fire the math teachers who can't do algebra Archived May 21, 2006, at the Wayback Machine PZ Myers. Pharyngula (blog), August 1, 2005.
  23. 1 2 Free Speech on Evolution Campaign Page 2 Archived 2007-06-25 at the Wayback Machine Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture.
  24. ↑ "Science in the classroom, or creationism?". Archived from the original on 2013-10-18. Retrieved 2008-03-16.
  25. ↑ Science chief back, The Oakland Tribune, Mar 28, 2003
  26. ↑ Professor Dumped Over Evolution Beliefs Archived 2007-01-22 at the Wayback Machine , Jim Brown and Ed Vitagliano, AgapePress, March 11, 2003
  27. ↑ Brumfiel, Geoff (27 April 2005). "Intelligent design: Who has designs on your students' minds?". Nature . 434 (7037): 1062–1065. Bibcode:2005Natur.434.1062B. doi: 10.1038/4341062a . PMID   15858545. S2CID   4390405.
  28. ↑ Darwin Goes to Church Archived 2007-10-08 at the Wayback Machine , Henry G. Brinton, Washington Post, September 18, 2005
  29. ↑ One Long Article: Washington Post Highlights Persecution of Caroline Crocker Archived 2007-10-04 at the Wayback Machine , Evolution News & Views, Discovery Institute
  30. ↑ Baylor episode is getting wider circulation Archived 2007-12-30 at the Wayback Machine , Pharyngula (blog)
  31. ↑ Baylor U. Removes a Web Page Associated With Intelligent Design From Its Site, The Chronicle of Higher Education
  32. ↑ William Dembski Addresses Forthcoming Intelligent Design Research that Advances ID and Answers Critics, Evolution News & Views, Discovery Institute
  33. ↑ Crisis averted, Mark Bergin, World Magazine
  34. ↑ "Expelled Press Release" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-03-25. Retrieved 2014-05-14.
  35. ↑ Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate Peter Baker, Peter Slevin. Washington Post, August 3, 2005.
  36. ↑ A Country Ruled by Faith Garry Wills. The New York Review of Books, November 16, 2006.
  37. ↑ Holocaust Denier Led the Charge Against Academic Freedom on Evolution in Alabama Casey Luskin. Discovery Institute, Evolutionnews.org.
  38. ↑ Bush Praised for Defending Free Speech on Theory of Life's Origin Archived 2007-09-28 at the Wayback Machine Jim Brown. AgapePress, American Family Association, August 5, 2005.
  39. ↑ President Bush calls for teaching Intelligent Design in schools Good News Magazine. Archived 2007-09-27 at the Wayback Machine
  40. ↑ While we're at it, let's also fire the math teachers who can't do algebra PZ Myers. Pharyngula (blog). August 01, 2005.
  41. ↑ Letter to the St. Petersburg Times on ID Poll Archived 2007-09-30 at the Wayback Machine Wesley R. Elsberry. The Panda's Thumb. January 1, 2006.
  42. ↑ Banned Book of the Year: Of Pandas and People, John West, Evolution News & Views, Discovery Institute
  43. ↑ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion
  44. ↑ The silliest thing I've heard all week: ACLU book banning Archived 2008-07-25 at the Wayback Machine , Nick Matzke, The Panda's Thumb
  45. ↑ FTE and Jon Buell's Day in Court, Wesley R. Elsberry, The Austringer, November 21, 2007.
  46. ↑ "The "banning" of Pandas – A final (I hope) update". Archived from the original on February 10, 2012.
  47. ↑ Design of Life, Evolution News & Views, Discovery Institute
  48. ↑ Banned Item of the Year: Dr. Robert Marks' Evolutionary Informatics Website, Evolution News & Views, Discovery Institute
  49. ↑ "The Evolutionary Informatics Lab". www.EvoInfo.org.
  50. 1 2 3 "Academic Freedom Petition". Free Science.
  51. ↑ Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools, Stephanie Simon, The Wall Street Journal , May 2, 2008
  52. ↑ Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement Archived 2008-09-10 at the Wayback Machine , The Professional Staff of the Education Pre-K–12 Committee, Florida Senate, March 26, 2008
  53. ↑ , Robert Crowther, Evolution News & Views, Discovery Institute, February 7, 2008
  54. ↑ "WHOIS information for: academicfreedompetition.com". Archived from the original on 2011-05-18. Retrieved 2008-02-09.
  55. ↑ "Brian Gage Design | Portfolio". www.briangagedesign.com.
  56. ↑ West Wins In Minn. Archived December 7, 2007, at the Wayback Machine , Bruce Chapman, Evolution News & Views, Discovery Institute
  57. 1 2 3 4 5 Dancing with the Disco Institute Archived 2007-12-17 at the Wayback Machine , Mark Borrello, assistant professor of the history of science, University of Minnesota. Minnesota Citizens for Science
  58. 1 2 Should Dr. West Be Sterilized? Archived 2007-12-17 at the Wayback Machine , Jim Curtsinger, Minnesota Citizens for Science
  59. ↑ How the West was 'Won': with spin and rewriting history Archived December 14, 2007, at the Wayback Machine , PZ Myers, Pharyngula
  60. ↑ Carrie Buck's Daughter, Stephen Jay Gould Archived 2017-03-19 at the Wayback Machine
  61. ↑ Evangelical Engagements With Eugenics, 1900-1940 Archived 2007-12-08 at the Wayback Machine , Dennis L. Durst, Volume 18:2, Ethics & Medicine
  62. ↑ Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover Archived 2007-12-01 at the Wayback Machine , David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin, University of Montana Law Review, Volume 68, Number 1, May 4, 2007.
  63. ↑ Disaster in Dover: The Trials (and Tribulations) of Intelligent Design, Peter Irons, University of Montana Law Review, Volume 68, Number 1, April 27, 2007. Archived December 1, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  64. ↑ Rebuttal to Irons Archived December 1, 2007, at the Wayback Machine , David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin, University of Montana Law Review, Volume 68, Number 1, April 27, 2007.
  65. ↑ A Comparison of Judge Jones' Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs' "Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" (pdf) John G. West and David K. DeWolf. Discovery Institute, December 12, 2006.
  66. ↑ Judges' wording often borrowed, Rick Lee, The York Daily Record, December 12, 2006. Access requires registration
  67. ↑ New criticism for Dover intelligent design ruling Archived 2013-12-17 at the Wayback Machine Christina Kauffman. The York Dispatch, December 12, 2006.
  68. ↑ Text Comparison source documents, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Archived December 15, 2012, at the Wayback Machine Wesley Elsberry.
  69. ↑ Jones, Luskin, and Text, Wesley R. Elsberry, The Austringer, 31 Jan 2007
  70. ↑ Is It Really Intelligent Design that has the Great Derb Worried?, Robert Crowther, Evolution News & Views, Discovery Institute
  71. ↑ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District p43
  72. ↑ Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals: A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Archived 2011-05-19 at the Wayback Machine Barbara Forrest, Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy, May, 2007.
  73. 1 2 3 Poor Orac Archived 2011-06-05 at the Wayback Machine , Tara C. Smith, Aetiology, Scienceblogs, May 8, 2006.
  74. ↑ Doubting Darwinism through Creative License Archived 2008-10-19 at the Wayback Machine , Skip Evans, National Center for Science Education, 29 November 2001
  75. ↑ Few Biologists But Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition Archived 2008-03-06 at the Wayback Machine , Kenneth Chang, The New York Times , February 21, 2006 (paid subscription required, text available at Skeptical News)
  76. ↑ The Evolution Wars Visit Eye on Science, Michael Lemonick, Eye on Science, Time-Blog, February 21, 2007.
  77. ↑ Wedging Creationism into the Academy Archived September 27, 2007, at the Wayback Machine Barbara Forrest, Glenn Branch, Academe Online, American Association of University Professors, May, 2005.
  78. ↑ Medical Doctors a Fast Growing Segment of Darwin Doubting Science Professionals, Robert Crowther, Evolution News and Views, Discovery Institute, July 30, 2007.
  79. ↑ Dr Michael Egnor challenges evolution! Archived 2009-05-31 at the Wayback Machine , PZ Myers, Pharyngula, Scienceblogs, February 18, 2007 9:44 am
  80. ↑ Egnor responds, falls flat on his face Archived 2011-06-05 at the Wayback Machine , PZ Myers, Pharyngula, Scienceblogs, February 24, 2007 10:38 am.
  81. ↑ Majority of Physicians Give the Nod to Evolution Over Intelligent Design Archived 2011-07-23 at the Wayback Machine , HCD Research press release, May 23, 2005
  82. ↑ "Data from HCD and Finkelstein Institute study of physician attitudes to evolution". Archived from the original on 2008-05-17. Retrieved 2011-06-10.
  83. ↑ Physician Characteristics and Distribution in the US, 2006 Archived 2011-05-20 at the Wayback Machine , American Medical Association, ISBN   1-57947-682-1
  84. ↑ May 2003 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates Healthcare Practitioner and Technical Occupations, US Bureau of Labor Statistics
  85. ↑ New Public Education Effort on Evolution Encourages Citizens to Stand Up For Science, Stand Up For Kansas EvolutionNews.org, Discovery Institute. July 7, 2006
  86. ↑ Kansas Primary Election, August 1 – Online Resources Archived 2008-11-20 at the Wayback Machine Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb, July 16, 2006.
  87. ↑ "Stand Up for REAL Science". Archived from the original on 2010-08-06. Retrieved 2009-01-22.
  88. ↑ Faith and Evolution: Friends or Foes? Find out at FaithandEvolution.Org, Robert Crowther, Evolution News and Views, Discovery Institute
  89. ↑ Christians battle each other over evolution , Amanda Gefter, 28 May 2009, New Scientist
  90. ↑ Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Archived February 21, 2006, at the Wayback Machine American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006.
  91. ↑ Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition National Academy of Sciences, 1999.
  92. ↑ Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83
  93. ↑ "Not a single expert witness over the course of the six-week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science." Ruling, page 70 Kitzmiller v. Dover.
  94. ↑ Finding the Evolution in Medicine Archived 2011-07-18 at the Wayback Machine , Cynthia Delgado, NIH Record, National Institutes of Health, Vol. LVIII, No. 15, July 28, 2006
  95. ↑ "ID supporters present fallacious arguments, use dishonest rhetoric, and often present non-contemptuous responses as evidence that their theories are gaining acceptance." Leaders and Followers in the Intelligent Design Movement Archived 2007-06-12 at the Wayback Machine Jason Rosenhouse. BioScience, Vol. 53 No. 1, January 2003.
  96. ↑ Political Animal, Intelligent Design Archived 2014-03-27 at the Wayback Machine Kevin Drum. Washington Monthly, March 24, 2004.
  97. ↑ Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive Jodi Wilgoren. The New York Times, August 21, 2005.
  98. ↑ Anti-Evolutionism Archived December 12, 2005, at the Wayback Machine John Templeton Foundation.
  99. ↑ The Richard Sternberg Affair, Ed Brayton, Skeptic magazine, April 17 2008
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.