Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Intelligent design

2019-07-30T01:39:41Z

BobEnyart: Added Michael Behe

:''Not to be confused with [[creationism]]''
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|alt= Intelligent design|thumbnail|300px|right|Intelligent design theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]] was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.]]

'''Intelligent design''' '''(ID)''' is the empirically testable<ref>"Dembski and Wells argue calmly and convincingly that intelligent design theory is empirically testable (in spite of Darwinists' shrill protests to the contrary) by indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory, namely a clear demonstration that systems exhibiting [[irreducible complexity]] with specified complexity can in fact arise spontaneously by purely material processes" source: [https://www.amazon.com/The-Design-Life-Discovering-Intelligence/dp/0980021308 The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems - Amazon page]</ref> theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.<ref>
An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ ID Defined]</ref> As [[Jonathan Wells]] wrote, "ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes." <ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/wired_science_one_long_bluff028441.html</ref> Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the [[evolution|Darwinian]] assertion that the features of living things are "inexplicable on the theory of [[creation]]" but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/9151</ref>

The central idea of Intelligent Design theory is that [[design]] is empirically detectable, just as the detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial, and often intuitive (see: [[design detection]]). With respect to the origin and development of cosmological and biological systems, Intelligent Design theory holds that the same principles provide a logical inference of design in nature. That is, without necessarily "proving" actual intelligent design in nature, the observable material evidence provides a reasonable basis from which to infer design, and such an inference supports a legitimate scientific hypothesis of ''intelligent'' design. As such, Intelligent Design theory is a scientific disagreement with the core claim of materialistic theories of [[evolution]] such as chemical and Darwinian evolution <ref>Darwinian Evolution: A materialistic theory of the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors through a process of descent with modification. The theory postulates that evolutionary change is the result of material causes [i.e., unintelligent causes due to the interactions of matter, energy, and the forces of nature], driven primarily by random variation and natural selection. The forces include gravity, the electromagnetic force and the weak and strong nuclear forces that define the structure of atoms. With respect to explaining the cosmos, the laws of chemistry and physics such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics dictate that material causes operate in generally periodic or regular patterns at best, and in entropy-increasing randomness at worst. ''See'', "Thirty-eight Nobel Laureates, ''Nobel Laureates Initiative,'' (The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, September 9, 2005), stressing to Kansas State Board of Education: “[E]volution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.”</ref> that the design exhibited in our universe is merely ''apparent'' design, i.e., ''unintelligent'' design caused by unguided, purposeless, natural forces of physics and chemistry alone.<ref>As used in this article, "materialism" is used synonymously with "naturalism". Naturalism is a philosophical doctrine that material causes alone are adequate to account for all natural phenomena and that teleological (design) conceptions of nature are invalid.</ref>

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection—how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence ('''[[SETI]]'''). An inference that certain cosmological and biological features of the natural world may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.<ref>For example, Stephen C. Meyer, Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, notes at [http://www.discovery.org/a/1671 A Note to Teachers Stephen C. Meyer and Mark Hartwig, Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins May 1, 1993], the problem with limiting explanations to only "natural" causes: "Archaeologists routinely distinguish manufactured objects (e.g., arrowheads, potsherds) from natural ones (e.g., stones), even when the differences between them are very subtle. These manufactured objects then become important clues in reconstructing past ways of life. But if we arbitrarily assert that science explains solely by reference to natural laws, if archaeologists are prohibited from invoking an intelligent manufacturer, the whole archaeological enterprise comes to a grinding halt."</ref>

Intelligent Design theory, like all theories of origins, is scientifically and religiously controversial. All theories of origins are scientifically controversial because they often amount to [[Subjectivism|subjective]] historical narratives that seek to explain unobserved and unobservable singular past events that occurred many years ago and that cannot be adequately tested in the laboratory. They are religiously controversial because all religions, including non-theistic religions, depend on a particular origins narrative. Intelligent Design proponents believe institutions of science, including government agencies, public schools and universities, should strive for objectivity and academic freedom in facilitating origins teaching and research. Objectivity in the evaluation and interpretation of material evidence ensures that all evidence-based explanations for natural phenomena can be considered fairly on their respective merits, regardless of their ultimate metaphysical or religious implications. Institutions of science should promote objectivity and academic freedom, especially where minority viewpoints challenge scientific orthodoxy.

Despite its many strengths, many [[Young Earth Creationism|biblical creationists]], while acknowledging those strengths, criticize the Intelligent Design theory for refusing to specify the identity of the designer, refusing to bring the Christian God and the Bible into the picture, and for accepting long ages and a theistic theory of evolution.<ref name="Whitcomb"/><ref name="PurdomChapter13"/>

== Intelligent Design, Evolution, and the Nature of Origins Science ==
'''[[Origins science]]''' is the scientific inquiry about biological and cosmological origins.<ref>''See'', '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', definition of Origins Science, '''Intelligent Design Network''' http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf</ref> Scientists investigating such origins seek to propose explanations for the direct cause of unobserved events and processes that occurred in the very remote past that can not be duplicated under presently observable conditions and that are not amenable to experimental confirmation. Explanations can only be inferred from the evidence. Intelligent design theorists argue that the evidence naturally leads to an inference of design. Darwinists argue unguided purposeless causes ''despite'' the clear evidence of design. Because no explanation can be tested by experimental methods, the historical nature of origins science can only lead to inferences, and the question is simply which inference is most reasonable.
[[Image:Ernst_Mayr.jpg|thumb|150px|left|[[Ernst Mayr]]]]
Preeminent 20th century Darwinist [[Ernst Mayr]], billed as “one of the great shining figures of evolutionary biology” <ref>Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'' (New York: Basic Books, 2001); back cover, quote attributed to John Maynard Smith.</ref> correctly noted in his book entitled ''What Evolution Is'':

<blockquote>
"Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented. Evolution as a whole, and the explanations of particular evolutionary event, must be inferred from observations." <ref>Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'', (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 12.</ref>
</blockquote>
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|100px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute]]

In a more detailed description of the method for investigating and explaining origins Mayr said:

<blockquote>
“...Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science – the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. ''Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes.'' Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” <ref>Ernst Mayr, ''Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought'', p. 80, (July 2000, Scientific American) emphasis added.</ref>

</blockquote>

Mayr's statement does not define "evolution", but his point is valid.<ref>"Evolution" is in quotes because one of the problems faced in debating "evolution" is the lack of a precise definition. If "evolution" is used to mean "micro-evolution" (minor changes like finch beak variation observed within some species), then "evolution" is uncontroversial. However, if (as Mayr intends, but does not state) by "evolution" is meant "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems", then Mayr is correct -- "evolution" is not experimentally confirmable, and, exactly like Intelligent Design, can only be inferred from observations.</ref> More objectively, his statement should be that origins (whether cosmological or biological) are due to a historical process that cannot be proven . . . but must be inferred from observations. Thus the methods used to discern the cause of historical events and processes differ from those of inductive, experimental science, and inferences based on observations should not be limited only to inferences of unintelligent causation. As with other historical sciences like archeology, historical geology, forensics and cryptanalysis, origins science asks different kinds of questions and uses different methods than do inductive sciences. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates based on direct experimental observation. The historical sciences, on the other hand, use abductive reasoning that asks how certain or probable observable phenomena came to be, the answer to which often cannot be discovered through direct observation. Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] fully develops this line of thought.

The distinction between inductive and historical sciences is not an idea inspired by intelligent design theory. The '''[[National Academy of Sciences]]''' (NAS) makes the same distinction to defend "evolution" as science.<ref>As noted above, with respect to Mayr's statement, "evolution" is in quotes here again because the NAS fails to use the term with a precise meaning. If "evolution" is used to mean "micro-evolution" (the minor change like finch beak variation, usually inconsequential, but observed within some species), then of course "evolution" is scientific and verifiable by experimentation. However, if by "evolution" is meant "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems", then "evolution" is not experimentally confirmable, as the NAS notes. However, as the NAS notes, such lack of being able to be experimentally confirmed does not remove a hypothesis from the realm of science (otherwise, as the NAS confirms, "evolution" would not be science).</ref> In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'',<ref>''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' Washington DC, National Academy Press, (1998), p. 55.</ref> the NAS responds to the question, "How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?":

<blockquote>
This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. . . . Something that happened in the past is thus not "off limits" for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions.<ref>http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Intelligent design theorists agree; one must not take a “narrow view” of science, such that certain disciplines like archeology, the '''[[SETI]]''' project, forensics, and intelligent design are removed from the realm of science. Such disciplines propose hypotheses, and the testing of these hypotheses is often only effective by proposing competing hypotheses and objectively analyzing the evidence to determine which hypothesis correlates best with the evidence. As '''Carol Cleland''' elaborates in her paper entitled ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'', in actual practice historical researchers tend to search for “positive evidence—a smoking gun.” <ref>Carol Cleland, ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'' (Geology, November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11), pp. 987-990.</ref> Ms. Cleland explores the necessary role of hypothesis testing for scientific disciplines not amenable to classical experimental testing. Hypothesis testing by formulating multiple competing hypotheses is essential in the context of historical sciences, such as cosmology, geology, and biogenesis. According to Cleland, “A smoking gun is a trace that picks out one of the competing hypotheses as providing a better causal explanation for the currently available traces than the other.” <ref>Carol Cleland, ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'' (Geology, November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11) p. 988.</ref>

== Methods of Intelligent Design Detection ==

''See also:'' [[Irreducible complexity]] and [[Argument from beauty]]
[[File:Fire-investigator.jpg|275px|right|thumbnail|Design detection is used in a variety of [[science]]s including [[forensic]] science that investigates the cause of a death or fire.]]
Design detection asks whether an effect or pattern that arose unobserved in the past is due to intelligent or unintelligent material causes. Is the pattern or effect a design or just an occurrence?

Design detection is used in a variety of sciences including forensic science that investigates the cause of a death or fire. It is also used in archeology, anthropology, cryptanalysis, copyright infringement, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and the search for function or purpose in genetic sequences. It is key to the current debate over the origin of the cosmos and life. Are these “effects” or patterns that arose long ago the product of an intelligent or material cause? Are the effects designs, i.e., the result of intelligent manipulation, or just occurrences?

The question of causation turns on whether the characteristics of a given pattern or effect are within the capacity of the cause to which it may be attributable. Do unintelligent material causes have the ability or capacity to account for the occurrence of a replicating cell? Does Darwinism's unintelligent material causes, consisting of random variation and natural selection, have the capacity to account for the diversity of life once it gets started? To start the analysis, one should first compare and contrast the capacities of intelligent causes and unintelligent material causes and the kinds of patterns those capacities produce.

===The Capacity of Unintelligent Material Causes ===
Unintelligent material causes consist simply of the interactions of the properties of matter, energy and the forces. These interactions are generally governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics. These causes do not have the capacity to “know” the environment within which they exist and then seek to change it for a particular future purpose. In other words, as stated by evolutionary biologist '''Douglas J. Futuyma''', they lack forward looking "foreknowledge. . . only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose.”<ref>“Darwin's immeasurably important contribution to science was to show how mechanistic causes could also explain all biological phenomena, despite their apparent evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. ......Darwin undid the essentialism that Western philosophy had inherited from Plato and Aristotle, and put variation in its place. He helped to replace a static conception of the world with the vision of a world of ceaseless change. Above all, his theory of random, purposeless variation acted on by blind, purposeless natural selection provided a revolutionary new kind of answer to almost all questions that begin with "Why?" It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that before Darwin, both philosophers and people in general answered "Why?" questions by citing purpose. Only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose. Thus questions like "Why do plants have flowers?" or "Why are there apple trees?"? or plagues, or storms? were answered by imagining the possible purpose that God could have had in creating them.” Douglas J. Futuyma, '''Evolutionary Biology''', Third Edition,(Sinauer Associates, Inc. 1998) p. 5, 8.</ref>

Material causes are to nature as thoughts are to a dead man. The past, present and future is irrelevant to material causes for they can't comprehend it. Unintelligent material causes are not merely blind watchmakers, they are mindless, purposeless, and meaningless. Lacking a mind, they lack the capacity to “make” anything. Unintelligent material causes can adequately account for physical systems like the occurrence of rocks, rivers, wind and rain. However, it is not clear how they account for time-dependent living systems or themselves.

The laws of motion explain that matter stays in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it. Thus, patterns produced by material causes reflect an intersection of forces which start or stop the motion of matter. An intervening warm spell that melted a glacier carrying rocks and boulders caused them to come to rest in an unsorted pattern as glacial till. Similarly, when the Mississippi River hits the Gulf of Mexico it drops a load that forms a fan-shaped delta.

The starting and stopping of matter may also be produced by interactions due to the properties of atoms, electrons and molecules. In a snowflake, the particular chemical properties of hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms at a specific temperature and pressure, necessitate that they join together and stop in regular hexagonal lattices. Crystals of salt and other minerals “grow” through the stopping of atoms otherwise in motion until the source of new material is depleted or the conditions conducive to the growth change.

With this combination of law and chance, unintelligent material causes produce patterns both random and regular. Sand dunes and snowflakes exhibit regular and periodic patterns driven by constant forces. Random patterns also arise as systems are suddenly interrupted as in the case of an auto accident or a melting glacier that drops an unsorted load.

Although material causes can move matter uniformly and also start it and stop it suddenly, physical systems generally move from states of order to states of disorder per the second law of thermodynamics.

===The Capacity of Intelligent Causes===
Intelligent causes produced by minds are ubiquitous to the natural world. Humans have minds, as do birds and beavers. We are also finding that cellular systems appear to have a kind of internal intelligence. The immune system consists of cells that act as forward observers that look for foreign invaders. Those observers on the front line send messages to command central that develops weapons to be used to defend against the attack.

Intelligent causes differ from unintelligent material causes in that intelligent causes have minds hooked up to input and output devices that have the capacity to manipulate unintelligent material causes for a purpose. Intelligent causes perceive the present, store the perception in memory to build experience and then process the experience and knowledge to predict what will occur in the future. Intelligent causes have knowledge that can be processed by processors to generate “foreknowledge,” while unintelligent material causes have neither. Intelligent causes also have the capacity to choose to change the future so that a desired or intended goal or purpose is achieved and to generate outputs efficient to achieve the purpose. Intelligent causes use unintelligent material causes and the stuff unintelligent material causes produce to make a bird's nest, a beaver's dam or an aqueduct.

Patterns produced by a mind like the dam, nest or aqueduct often reflect millions of precise starting and stopping points not found in systems driven only by the uniform motion of regular natural forces, stopped only by accidental opposing forces. Patterns produced by intelligent causes integrate starts and stops for a purpose. The integration becomes clear when the pattern is both complex and useful. The integrated stopping points are evident in the case of the nest, dam and aqueduct. But for the stopping of matter at integrated precise points, the assembly would not function as a whole. This article reflects thousands of instances where matter has been started and then stopped – integrated - to produce precise, and hopefully understandable, meaning. Unlike patterns produced by the chemical and physical necessity of matter in uniform motion, designs consist of patterns of stopping points that are integrated for a particular purpose. Minds tie events together to for a purpose. Material causes do not. When the patterns are both complex and purposeful the inference to an intelligent cause is compelling.
[[Image:Saint Thomas Aquinas.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[St. Thomas Aquinas]] ]]
In the 13th Century, the famous Christian Philosopher, [[Thomas Aquinas]], noted that systems which have a purpose either have a mind or are driven by one:

<blockquote>
"We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end....... Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer."<ref>St. Thomas Aquinas, '''The Summa Theologica''', (1265-1274).
</ref> </blockquote>

Thus design detection begins with a search for purpose. If a pattern exhibits an apparent purpose, the inquiry turns to whether the apparent purpose is just an illusion. Perhaps the pattern can be adequately explained by unintelligent material causes alone. If not, then logic suggests that mind may be the more adequate explanation for the pattern.

===Formal Design Detection Methodology===

Formal design detection is not often used. Design detection methodology is not often employed because the human mind has an inherent capacity to distinguish between patterns arranged by a mind for a purpose and those that have not. Scientists have found that minds engage in subconscious pattern matching, which is a means of intuitively distinguishing between designs and occurrences.

Formal analysis is employed when a dispute arises about the cause of a pattern. Examples include investigations of deaths and peculiar fires that look for signs of murder or arson. Archaeologists debate over whether a rock is a rock or an artifact. Astronomers analyze radio and light waves in search of messages from alien minds. So far all of the tests of extraterrestrial radio waves for intelligence have been negative. The cause of life and its diversity are major areas of dispute as much is at stake. Religious and other world views depend on the best explanation for those events.

====Formal Design Detection -- ''The Explanatory Filter''====
[[Image:Wm Dembski.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|Dr. [[William Dembski]] ]]
Dr. [[William Dembski]] is a leading intelligent design theorist, and has written several books on the subject, including ''Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology'',<ref>https://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Between-Science-Theology/dp/083082314X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194228951&sr=1-2</ref> and ''The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory)''.<ref>https://www.amazon.com/Design-Inference-Eliminating-Probabilities-Probability/dp/0521678676/ref=sr_1_7/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194229141&sr=1-7</ref> Dr. Dembski has a Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, and an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary. One of Dembski's contributions to the intelligent design movement is to set forth one method of detecting design, a method he describes as the "[[explanatory filter]]".

Dembski describes his three-part '''explanatory filter''' together with an example of its use in a paper published at '''Access Research Network'''.<ref>http://www.arn.org</ref> In the paper, entitled ''The Explanatory Filter: A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design'',<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm</ref>

Dembski found that all formal design detection methodologies can be reduced to three logical steps in what he refers to as an explanatory filter. The filter first asks whether a given pattern is best explained by some chemical or physical necessity or law? If not, can it be explained by chance. If chance and necessity can't explain the pattern, does it exhibit a “specification” or apparent purpose? If a complex pattern reflecting the integration of numerous stopping points does exhibit purpose and can't be explained by chance or necessity, then the scientific, logical inference to the best explanation is design.

===Informal Design Detection Methodology===
====Intuition, Common Sense and Confirmation====
An inference of design first springs from intuition – subconscious pattern-matching that alerts the mind to a pattern that reflects a purpose or pre-existing intention. We see knives in the back of dead man and intuitively start looking for a mind that arranged the event – a suspect. If the data are strong enough common sense causes us to follow up on that lead, not ignore it. Common sense reflects a judgment about the most prudent of a set of possible choices. If the evidence leads toward design, then common sense suggests an exploration of the lead in an effort to confirm or disconfirm it.

Therefore, at a basic level design detection is a matter of common sense, an intuitive determination we all make based on our everyday experiences with intelligently designed things. The intuitive, common sense approach is the primary method used by scientists such as archaeologists. No one expects an archaeologist to provide a rigorous "proof" that a pot or sculpture found in the ground is the result of an intelligent being. The archaeologist may not know who made the pot or why (and usually has no way to find out), but the fact of intelligent design is rarely in question. As in a similar concept of attaching intelligent agency to an event in law, we can rationally say ''res ipsa loquitur'', or "the thing speaks for itself". There is no principled reason to ignore the common sense approach when it comes to living biological systems. We may not know who made living systems or why, but the fact of intelligent design can be easily and intuitively grasped.
[[File:WilliamPaley3.jpg|thumb|230px|left|William Paley]]
Perhaps the best example of the common sense approach to design detection was that put forth by William Paley in his famous "watchmaker analogy". William Paley (July 1743 – May 25, 1805) was a British theologian and philosopher. He used the watchmaker analogy as an argument for the existence of God in his book ''Natural Theology''. Paley states his analogy:
<blockquote>
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.

</blockquote>

Scientists who hold Darwinism dogmatically object to the common sense approach, not based on the fact of design, but on the metaphysical implications of considering true, intelligent design. Attempting to conflate the "what" of design with the "who" in biological systems is the tactic of those philosophically opposed to a supposed supernatural designer, i.e., those who fear a "divine foot in the door" of science. But such fear should not be tolerated by true scientists; design can be detected independent of any inquiry into the identity of the designer. Imagine archeology being rejected as science because there is absolutely no way to identify the designer of a clearly designed pot; such notions should be rejected by true scientists. Permitting the logical, common sense inference of intelligent design in the face of material evidence of design should be expected of honest scientists.

== Evidence for Intelligent Design in Nature ==

''See also:'' [[Irreducible complexity]] and [[Anthropic principle]]

[[Image:Phillip_johnson_arn.gif|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Phillip E. Johnson]], Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law, Emeritus]]
Virtually all scientists, including evolutionists,<ref>The term "evolutionist" is used in its "strong form" to describe those who hold and defend the position that all the variety of life is the result solely of naturalistic processes. Therefore, the term refers to those who rule out any intelligent causation for any aspect of life (if intelligence plays any role whatsoever, then whatever the theory, it is a form of intelligent design). While everyone is an "evolutionist" if "evolution" is defined in its weak form as simply "change over time" or "micro-evolution" such as finch beak variation, not everyone is an "evolutionist" if "evolution" is used, as herein, to mean "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems". Evolutionists who oppose Intelligent Design believe that unintelligent processes of physics and chemistry can explain the creation of every novel and beneficial feature of the various species, including wings, eyes, and brains. Darwinism is the leading naturalistic evolutionary theory, holding that all life forms descended as modified forms of previous life forms in an unguided, unintelligent process, i.e., Darwin's "descent with modification".</ref> observe design in nature. Fossils exhibit design. Living body plans exhibit design. Micro-biological features such as DNA exhibit design. The evidentiary question is not a question of the '''''existence''''' of design in nature, but the '''''cause''''' of design in nature.

Only two causes are available to explain the design evident in nature: '''''unintelligent''''' causes and '''''intelligent causes'''''. '''Unintelligent causes''' include the natural actions of physics and chemistry, operating alone by natural laws in space and time. Unintelligent causes cannot produce true design, so Darwinists dismiss the evident design in nature as merely the "appearance" of design.

Intelligent design proponent [[Phillip E. Johnson]] illustrates the obstinancy of evolutionary scientists to recognize intelligent causation of design in nature when he wrote the following:
[[Image:Francis Crick.jpg|thumb|px130|left|[[Francis Crick]], co-discoverer of the structure of [[DNA]]]]
{{cquote|"One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir [[Francis Crick]], the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner...In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are."<ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html</ref>}}

'''Intelligent causes''' include the actions of an intelligent agent (which may be unknown, such as in anonymous works of art, or in archeological finds) manipulating physics and chemistry to create something that physics and chemistry alone cannot. Only intelligent causes can produce true design.

The question is not, therefore, "is there evidence of design in nature?" Rather, the scientific question is, "Based on the evidence of design observed in nature, what causes best explain design?" Framed this way, potential explanations, or theories, are not limited by a predetermined bias, such as only unintelligent causes (e.g., Darwinism) or only intelligent causes (e.g., creationism). The question simply asks, "in accordance with the scientific method, what causes can be logically inferred from the evidence?"

With the proper question in mind, it is easy to see that virtually all the evidence used to support Darwinism is equally evidence in support of Intelligent Design. '''Cosmological''' evidence for design is described at '''[[Evidence for intelligent design in cosmology]]''' section. '''Biological''' evidence for intelligent design includes '''''general evidence''''' and '''''special evidence''''', and both are discussed at '''[[General and Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology]]'''. For all material evidence, the evidentiary value can be determined by use of the '''[[Evidence Filter]]'''.

=== Anthropic principle ===

''See also:'' [[Anthropic principle]]

There is a strong body of evidence for a Designer that comes from the fine-tuning of the universal constants and the solar system.<ref name="creation.com">[https://creation.com/the-universe-is-finely-tuned-for-life The universe is finely tuned for life] by Jonathan Sarfati</ref>

The anthropic principle states that the reason the constants of nature appear so finely tuned to life, is that if it were otherwise, life such as ourselves would not have developed. Hence we should not be surprised that the laws of physics are enable life such as ourselves to exist.

Former [[Atheism|atheist]] Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] states, "commonsense interpretation of the facts is that a super-intelligence has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces in nature."<ref name="creation.com"/>

==Examples of Intelligent Design Theory Used in Science==
[[File:11943452 115b299206.jpg|thumbnail|275px|right|[[Forensic]] scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime. ]]
Intelligent design detection is uncontroversial in many well-accepted scientific disciplines. In each of the scientific disciplines listed below, scientists evaluate the evidence objectively, that is, there is no pre-determined rule of interpretation that dictates that only ''unintelligent'' causes can be considered.

'''Forensic sciences''': [[Forensic]] scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime. For example, a forensic investigator investigating a death uses scientific evidence to determine whether the death was caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., murder).

'''Archeology''': Archaeologists are virtually dependent upon the science of design detection. Working with present-day evidence left from the past, archaeologists seek to determine whether artifacts were caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., clay) or intelligent causes (i.e., a clay pot).

'''Cryptanalysis''': Cryptanalysis is the scientific endeavor of code breaking. Code breakers examine the observable evidence of a string or pattern of characters to determine if it contains a message or if it is simply a string of random, meaningless characters.

'''Arson investigation''': Arson investigators observe evidence and attempt to explain the cause of a fire; was it caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., accidental ignition), or by intelligent causes (i.e., arson).

'''Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence''': The name says it all. These scientists are observing evidence in the form of radio signals to determine if the signals are the result of unintelligent causes (i.e., background radiation in space), or by intelligent causes (i.e., extraterrestrial intelligence).

Each of the above scientific disciplines utilize design detection to determine if the cause of observed evidence is due to unintelligent or intelligent agency. Usually, such as in the case of archaeologists observing clay pots, the detection and determination of design is intuitive and assumed without further justification. No rigorous analytical method is required of archaeologists to support a finding of design; nothing beyond the simple, rational recognition of what is consistent with the human experience of intelligent design is necessary.

== Intelligent design theorists and life on other planets ==

[[The Privileged Planet]] is an intelligent design theory documentary which argues that the earth contains a rare and finely-tuned array of factors which makes earth suitable for complex life.<ref>[http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ The Privileged Planet documentary website]</ref>

The proposal that first life came about through natural processes has not fared well in recent times. The prominent [[origin of life]] researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.<ref name="Why Abiogenesis is impossible">[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]</ref>

== Religious Implications of Origins Science ==
Any theory of origins unavoidably impacts religion.<ref>One should not make the mistake of equating "religion" with only traditional theistic religions like [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]], or [[Islam]]. As used herein the term is used as defined in the Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science: Religion: A broad range of theistic and non-theistic religions and religious belief systems.</ref> As stated in Article II.C of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''':<ref name="intelligentdesignnetwork.org">http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf</ref>
<blockquote>
Implications of scientific explanations of origins unavoidably impact religion, ethics, morality, government and politics. The implications of materialistic explanations (such as Darwinism) of origins support the central tenets of non-theistic religions,<ref>Non-theistic religions are religions and belief systems that presuppose that no God intervenes in the natural world and that material causes, such as unguided evolutionary change, are adequate to explain natural phenomena. Non-theistic religions include [[atheism]], [[Secular Humanism]], and [[Scientism]], as well as some forms of [[Buddhism]] and other eastern religions. By way of example, the Humanist Manifesto I sets forth the first two "affirmations" of religious humanism as "FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created; and, SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process." Thus, Darwinism supports the central tenets of a religious belief.</ref> while the implications of teleological<ref>Teleological: Exhibiting or relating to design or purpose, especially in nature. ''See'', Merriam-Webster Online</ref> explanations (such as Intelligent Design) support the central tenets of theistic religions. Both theistic and non-theistic religions and worldviews address questions of ethics, morality, government and politics.<ref>ibid, Article II.C</ref>
</blockquote>
[[Image:Atheism.jpg|thumb|right|195px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789) was an early advocate of [[atheism]] in [[Europe]].]]
Therefore, it should not be surprising that most theists are sympathetic to intelligent design because the science of intelligent design supports the theology of theistic religions like [[Christianity]]. Likewise, it is not surprising that virtually all atheists are Darwinists because the science of Darwinism supports the theology of non-theistic religions such as religious humanism (having a theology of atheism). The simple fact is that worldviews and interpretations of evidence go hand in hand. If, for example, your world view prohibits explanations involving intelligent design, then you will reject intelligent design in spite of the evidence, not because of it.

For this reason, as stated in Article III.A. of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', if '''truth''' is the goal:
<blockquote>
Institutions of science should ignore religious and ethical implications of competing historical hypotheses and strive for '''objectivity'''<ref>Objective: Not influenced by personal bias or prejudice; based on facts. An objective position is one that is Secular, Neutral, and Non-ideological.</ref> in the conduct and teaching of origins science. Institutional objectivity may be achieved by encouraging healthy competition among scientists holding differing scientific views regarding origins, consistent with the scientific method.<ref>ibid, Article III.A</ref>
</blockquote>

This is because, as stated in Article II.B. of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''':
<blockquote>
The adequacy of scientific explanations of origins depends on an analysis of competing possibilities. Origins explanations use a form of '''abductive'''<ref>Abduction, or abductive reasoning, is the process of reasoning to the best explanations. In other words, it is the reasoning process that starts from a set of facts and derives their most likely explanations. See, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning</ref> reasoning that produces competing Historical Hypotheses, that lead to an inference to the best current explanation rather than to an explanation that is logically compelled by experimental confirmation. Due to inherent limitations on the experimental validation of historical hypotheses, testing requires rigorous competition between alternative hypotheses so that their relative strengths and plausibilities may be compared. While competition among multiple hypotheses decreases subjectivity, it may nevertheless result in no adequate current explanation.<ref>ibid, Article II.B</ref>
</blockquote>

==Objections to Intelligent Design==
===Creationist Objections to Intelligent Design===
Many Biblical creationists and other theists object to Intelligent Design as failing to identify the alleged designer and refusing to bring the Christian God and the Bible into the picture.<ref name="Whitcomb">Whitcomb, John C., Ph.D. (2006). [https://www.icr.org/article/history-impact-book-the-genesis-flood/ The History and Impact of the Book, "The Genesis Flood"]. ''ICR.org'' (from ''Acts & Facts. 35 (5)''). Retrieved October 26, 2016.</ref> This objection is expressed well by Georgia Purdom, Ph.D. of '''[[Answers in Genesis]]''' in an article entitled '''''Does the Identity of the Creator Really Matter?''''' Dr. Purdom sums up the major objection:

<blockquote>
However, the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement</ref>
</blockquote>

The reader is encouraged to read Dr. Purdom's full article, as it fairly and thoroughly deals with the objection at hand. Building on the same thoughts, the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]], Dr. [[Carl Wieland]], notes:

<blockquote>
The Intelligent Design Movement’s motivation appears to be the desire to challenge the blind acceptance of the materialistic, godless, naturalistic philosophy of Darwinian evolution. They confront many of the philosophical underpinnings of today’s evolutionary thinking. As a movement, they are unwilling to align themselves with biblical creationism.<ref name="CMI IDM">[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2560 CMI’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement]</ref>
</blockquote>

Referring to Intelligent Design as the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM), Weiland pinpoints the specific objection as:
<blockquote>
The IDM’s refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God, and in particular with the history in the Bible, means that:
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.<ref>See the 2004 book by CMI speaker Gary Bates: Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection. [footnote in original]</ref> In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
There is no philosophical answer to their opponents’ logically-deduced charge that the Designer was monstrous and/or inept (‘look at all the horrible, cruel, even defective things in the living world’), since bringing up the Fall is deliberately, tactically excluded. (However, the Fall was a major event in history, that changed everything. The world we are looking at now is a world that has been corrupted by sin, not the original world that God designed). Thus, the movement’s success could very likely even be counterproductive, by laying the Biblical God open to ridicule and contempt in new ways.<ref name="CMI IDM" />
</blockquote>

In addition to the fair criticisms listed above, biblical creationists also criticize the intelligent design theory for continuing to accept long ages and the theory of evolution along with the existence of some designer.<ref name="PurdomChapter13">Purdom, Georgia, Dr. (May 6, 2010). [https://answersingenesis.org/intelligent-design/is-the-intelligent-design-movement-christian/ Chapter 13 - Is the Intelligent Design Movement Christian?]. ''Answers in Genesis'' (from ''The New Answers Book 2''). Retrieved October 25, 2016.</ref>

====Response to Creationist Objections====
[[Image:Carl wieland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] ]]
Intelligent design theorists appreciate the criticisms of creationists such as Purdom and Wieland, and, in fact, most intelligent design theorists are creationists themselves. And while most intelligent design theorists would agree with Dr. Purdom that the Creator and his creation "reflect on each other," they would disagree that "the Creator and His creation cannot be separated." The "separation" is epistemological, that is, there is a distinction between ''how'' one can know anything about the creation versus the creator. Just as a painter can be separated from a painting, so that the painting is labelled "anonymous", and just as an archaeologist can infer a designer of a clay pot without knowing the designer's actual identity, the ''fact'' of a creator in nature can be determined scientifically, but the ''specific'' creator cannot.

Intelligent design theorists recognize that the scientific method places limits as to the kind of knowledge that can be determined scientifically. Intelligent design theorists hold that intelligent design is a logical inference based on observation of material evidence in nature. That is, intelligent design can be determined as a matter of science alone in full accord with the scientific method. But science can say little about who the designer is.

The intelligent design position is expressed well in an article by Casey Luskin entitled '''''Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why Intelligent Design Doesn't Identify the Designer'''''. Luskin states, referring to a law review article he co-authored:

<blockquote>
David DeWolf, John West and I also address this issue in our recent Montana Law Review article:
It is important to stress that the refusal of ID proponents to draw scientific conclusions about the nature or identity of the designer is principled rather than merely rhetorical. ID is primarily a historical science, meaning it uses principles of uniformitarianism to study present-day causes and then applies them to the historical record in order to infer the best explanation for the origin of the natural phenomena being studied. ID starts with observations from “uniform sensory experience” showing the effects of intelligence in the natural world. As Pandas explains, scientists have uniform sensory experience with intelligent causes (i.e. humans), thus making intelligence an appropriate explanatory cause within historical scientific fields. However, the “supernatural” cannot be observed, and thus historical scientists applying uniformitarian reasoning cannot appeal to the supernatural. If the intelligence responsible for life was supernatural, science could only infer the prior action of intelligence, but could not determine whether the intelligence was supernatural.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=4306, citing David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin, “Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover,” 68 Montana Law Review 7, 30 (Spring, 2007) (internal citations removed).</ref>

</blockquote>
Further, it appears that Dr. Weiland's concern that "[a]cceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions" is unfounded. Certainly some who are honestly convinced of true intelligent design might entertain "sci-fi notions," but the evidence supports the opposite—i.e., those convinced of design are more likely to entertain thoughts of a supernatural God. Like Aristotle of ancient Greece, those who reasonably and honestly are convinced of true design in nature are more likely to follow the pattern Dr. Pordum highlighted from Romans 1:18-20. That is, the creation speaks to a supernatural, infinite, eternal creator.

Take the example of former atheist Anthony Flew, as discussed by intelligent design theorist Phillip E. Johnson, in an article entitled '''''Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects'''''. First Johnson reiterates:

<blockquote>
The goal of the Intelligent Design Movement is to achieve an open philosophy of science that permits consideration of any explanations toward which the evidence may be pointing.<ref name="discovery.org">http://www.discovery.org/a/3914</ref>
</blockquote>

However, Johnson notes with respect to the practical effects of such an open philosophy:

<blockquote>
One early sign of the way the world is headed came in December 2004, when there was much comment in newspapers and internet discussion groups about famed atheist philosopher Anthony Flew. Flew had just announced that he had converted to philosophical theism (though not to Christianity or any other specific religion, at least as yet), on the basis of scientific discoveries and related reasoning, which had convinced him that there is an intelligent designer of the natural universe. Flew seems to have investigated the phenomenon of design in the natural world for reasons similar to my own. He wanted to decide for himself whether evidence and logic point in the direction of a creating intelligence, or whether God is nothing more than a subjective idea created by human imagination. Perhaps these questions about the reality of god are religious in nature, but they are important questions that deserve to be investigated dispassionately instead of being barred from consideration because powerful groups define “science” as committed a priori to naturalism.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>

Although as yet Flew does not adhere to Christianity or any other creedal faith, he has taken a giant step in that direction. In an article in the London Independent for December 27, 2004, an Oxford University theologian wrote: “What kind of God could it [i.e. Flew’s designer] refer to? One who created the universe–elementary particles, strong and weak forces, atoms and molecules, yet, for example, has no relation to the emergence of a clever humanity? Or could it be a God who was intelligent enough to create galaxies, and amazingly intricate systems like DNA, yet not intelligent enough to communicate with humankind? Although Flew does not believe in revelation, and may not feel that the Book of Genesis provides a useful account of creation, he does not seem to have quite this kind of minimalist God in mind either. In fact when pressed as to whether his ‘First Cause’ embraced omniscience, Flew admits that a First Cause, if there is one, has clearly produced everything that is going on, and this implies creation ‘in the beginning.’”<ref name="discovery.org"/>

</blockquote>

Intelligent design theorists leave the identity of the designer open as a matter of scientific discipline. Even though everyone, including creationists must rely on special revelation (i.e., the Bible) to know specifics about the designer, everyone can know the fact of design based on general revelation (i.e., nature).

===Methodological Naturalist Objections to Intelligent Design===
Many scientists object to intelligent design on the basis that intelligent design "is not science."

The validity of this objection depends on what is meant by the terms "intelligent design" and "science". If "science" is defined objectively (as in Websters dictionary: 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.<ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science</ref>) and "intelligent design" is defined as in this article, then intelligent design is clearly, without question "science", and the objection of methodological naturalists is overcome.

The term "methodological naturalism" describes a form of science in which science is assumed to be necessarily practiced as if naturalism were itself true (see also [[scientific materialism]]). Of course, "naturalism", which is a philosophy that holds there is no immaterial substance in the universe, i.e., all is matter alone, is an assumption-based philosophy. "Naturalism", like "materialism" as a philosophy holds that there is no supernatural in the universe, no spirit, no soul, and, of course, no God.

Methodological naturalists are scientists that, while perhaps not themselves being full-fledged naturalists (although growing numbers are), insist that science be practiced as if naturalism were true. If this method of practicing science is adhered to, then intelligent design cannot be science, because intelligent design posits the possibility of a ''supernatural'' designer.

One way to illustrate the objection is this: Consider two definitions of science:

<blockquote>
1. Science is the activity of seeking explanations for natural phenomena.

</blockquote>
<blockquote>
2. Science is the activity of seeking only natural (i.e., unintelligent) causes as explanations for natural phenomena.

</blockquote>
The first definition above is an objective, bias-free definition, for which intelligent design qualifies as science. However, the second definition above is one in which the objective definition has been qualified by the term "natural", which assumes there ''are'' natural, i.e., unintelligent, causes for natural phenomena.

The second definition is the definition that methodological naturalists insist be adopted as ''the'' definition for science. However, the "natural causes alone" criteria for gaining scientific knowledges is based upon an assumption that there ''is'' a natural cause for all natural phenomena. If intelligent design is true, scientists operating by the second definition above will never be able to come to the truth. The insistence on only "natural causes" imports a philosophical bias into the objective definition, which is then defended based not on '''''knowledge''''', but an '''''assumption'''''. Therefore, methodological naturalists "define out" of science intelligent design based on a philosophical assumption.

====Response to Naturalist Objection====

The simple response to methodological naturalism, which is the only principled basis for excluding intelligent design from science, is that methodological naturalism improperly and unnecessarily restricts the realm of science.

By any objective definition of science, including dictionary definitions, intelligent design is science. But the controversy begs a larger question. Historically, the practice of science can be considered in two broad categories.
[[Image:Francis_Bacon.jpg|thumbnail|150px|[[Francis Bacon]]]]
First there is the inductive method espoused by [[Francis Bacon]]. Bacon pioneered the modern notion that science should let "evidence lead the inquiry" and "general axioms ought to be the end, not the beginning, of the scientific process."<ref>See, Cornelius G. Hunter, ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism, (Brazos Press, 2007), p. 15.</ref> Bacon specifically formulated his scientific method to ensure that religious speculation (including speculation about naturalism) was excluded from the scientific process. Thus, Bacon's scientific method proceeded based on observations of nature, and logical inferences derived from those observations.

Second, there is the deductive method espoused by René Descartes. Descartes argued that science needed mechanical, or naturalistic, descriptions that could explain, rather than merely label, the effects.<ref>See, Hunter, p. 17.</ref> According to Cornelius Hunter, in his book ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism,'' Descartes proposed a method of science in which "What science needed were naturalistic descriptions, even if they were not known to be true explanations. Thus, Cartesian explanations were hypothetical; Descartes argued that having a plausible yet incorrect description was better than no description at all."

Therefore, whether or not intelligent design is "science" depends on what approach one takes to science. If one takes the Baconian approach, letting the evidence lead the inquiry without presuppositions, intelligent design is science. Moreover, if one takes the Cartesian approach, intelligent design of biological systems can still be science; it depends on what hypothetical constraints are put upon scientific inquiry. Methodological naturalists place the "natural causes only" constraint on all scientific inquiry, and, therefore, define out of science the notion of any non-natural designer.

Intelligent design theorists maintain that the "natural causes only" constraint might be correct for operational science, but for historical sciences in which one is attempting to reconstruct a historical narrative based on present-day evidence, such a constraint does not make sense. For one thing, intelligent design theorists maintain that there is a difference between inductive and/or deductive sciences (each of which can be used in experimental sciences), and the "historical sciences". Intelligent design is scientific in both inductive and historical sciences (and deductive, without limiting biases), but can have its greatest value as a historical science.

The broad categories of "experimental sciences" and "historical sciences" ask different kinds of questions and use different kinds of methods. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates. The historical sciences, on the other hand, ask different kinds of questions. Rather than trying to understand how the natural world operates, the historical sciences seek to understand how things came to be. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer develops this line of thought fully in an article entitled ''Science and the Laws of Nature''.

The distinction between experimental and historical sciences is not an ID-inspired idea. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) makes the same distinction to defend the historical nature of evolution. In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'', the NAS responds to the question, "How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?":

<blockquote>
This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. . . . Something that happened in the past is thus not "off limits" for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions.<ref>''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' (Washington DC, National Academy Press, 1998), p. 55</ref>
</blockquote>

With respect to hypothesis testing, see, Carol Cleland, '''''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method''''', (''Geology'', November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11, 987-990).

The fact is that historical sciences operate by different methods, including different methods of testing, than do experimental sciences. Historical sciences attempt to construct a historical narrative to explain current observed phenomena. The only way to "test" historical narratives is by comparing with competing historical narratives to see which one more closely aligns with the observed phenomena.

Intelligent design, therefore, is not only science, but as a competing historical narrative, it is a valuable scientific challenge to the naturalistic historical narrative of Darwinism. Without it, Darwinism ceases being science, and becomes an unchallengeable dogma.

== History of Intelligent Design ==
[[File:Aristotle.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Aristotle]] ]]
In many respects the history of intelligent design corresponds to the history of science in general; since the days of [[Aristotle]] most scientists have assumed design based on the clear evidence at hand. Moreover, the history of the modern intelligent design movement must be seen in the context of the ages-old tension between materialistic science and non-materialistic science. For a timeline directed specifically to the history of intelligent design and the creation - evolution controversy, see the '''IDEA Center's''' ''"Primer: History of intelligent design and the creation - evolution controversy".'' <ref>http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1119</ref>

Plato and Aristotle both argued that nature is ''teleological'', a term that comes from the Greek ''telos'' meaning "directed by goal or purpose". In other words, the evidence of nature leads logically to the idea that behind the purely natural is some kind of rational, non-natural order, something Plato referred to as "Form" and which Aristotle referred to as "Idea". Both were led to their conclusions by the commonsense notion that if the world really did consist of chance configurations of atoms, then knowledge would be impossible. (See Nancy Pearcey, ''Total Truth'', Appendix 3, p. 390.)<ref>Nancy R. Pearcey, ''Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity'' (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004)(https://www.amazon.com/Total-Truth-Liberating-Christianity-Captivity/dp/1581347464/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195005366&sr=1-1)</ref>

[[Image:Pearcey.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Nancy Pearcey]]
Modern intelligent design theory is simply a response to the resurgence of dominant materialistic thought, primarily as expressed by institutions of science such as universities and various academies of science. As '''Nancy Pearcey''' states: "By tracing the debate over Darwinism all the way back to [[Epicurus]] (a Greek materialist) we can place the theory in a much larger context. Darwinism was not entirely new, invented out of whole cloth." Likewise, the modern intelligent design movement can be placed in a larger context as a challenge to modern materialistic thought as enforced in modern science.

For more indepth study of the history of intelligent design, see '''William Dembski's''' work entitled ''Intelligent Design''.<ref>http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.08.Encyc_of_Relig.htm</ref> In particular, Dembski's bibliography and comments are reproduced here:

Bibliography
<blockquote>

Beckwith, Francis J. Law, Darwinism, and Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design. Lanham, Md., 2003. 

Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York, 1996. 

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. New York, 1986. 

Dembski, William A. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Lanham, Md., 2002. 

Forrest, Barbara. “The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream.” In Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, edited by Robert T. Pennock, pp. 5–53, Cambridge, Mass., 2001. 

Giberson, Karl W. and Donald A. Yerxa. Species of Origins: America’s Search for a Creation Story. Lanham, Md., 2002. 

Hunter, Cornelius G. Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Grand Rapids, Mich., 2002. 

Manson, Neil A., ed. God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. London, 2003. 

Miller, Kenneth R. Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. San Francisco, 1999. 

Rea, Michael C. World without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism. Oxford, 2002. 

Witham, Larry. By Design: Science and the Search for God. San Francisco, 2003. 

Woodward, Thomas. Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design. Grand Rapids, Mich., 2003. 
</blockquote>

Bibliographic Essay

<blockquote>[[Larry Witham]] provides the best overview of intelligent design, even-handedly treating its scientific, cultural, and religious dimensions. As a journalist, Witham has personally interviewed all the main players in the debate over intelligent design and allows them to tell their story. For intelligent design’s place in the science and religion dialogue, see Giberson and Yerxa. For histories of the intelligent design movement, see Woodward (a supporter) and Forrest (a critic). See Behe and Dembski to overview intelligent design’s scientific research program. For a critique of that program, see Miller. For an impassioned defense of Darwinism against any form of teleology or design, see Dawkins. Manson’s anthology situates intelligent design within broader discussions about teleology. Rea probes intelligent design’s metaphysical underpinnings. Hunter provides an interesting analysis of how intelligent design and Darwinism play off the problem of evil. Beckwith examines whether intelligent design is inherently religious and thus, on account of church-state separation, must be barred from public school science curricula.

</blockquote>

== Global intelligence design movement ==

''See also:'' [[Global intelligent design movement]]

''Evolution News and Views'' reported concerning the intelligent design movement:
{{cquote|Along with the absurd stereotype that support for ID is limited to right-wing fundamentalist Christians … there’s also the Darwinist agitprop point that advocates of the theory are rare outside the United States. Hardly! An unacknowledged strength of the ID movement is its international character.

Asia is an up-and-coming ID hot spot, as ENV has reported. See here for Signature in the Cell and Explore Evolution [links omitted for Discoveroid books] in their recent and handsome Korean editions.

Europe and Asia aside, how about Brazil? From South America’s most populous nation, accounting for half the continent’s total population, comes news of the First Brazilian Intelligent Design Congress, scheduled for November 14–16 this year at [details of the event].<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/intelligent_des_20090211.html Intelligent Design's Secret Weapon: The World] by David Klinghoffer October 3, 2014 11:53 AM</ref>}}

==Resources==
=== Quick Start ===
For a quick, concise overview of what intelligent design is all about, link to the following relatively short articles:

'''''Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution'''''.<ref>http://idnetohio.cinti.net/media/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf</ref> Written by William S. Harris and John H. Calvert (of '''Intelligent Design Network, Inc.'''),<ref name="ReferenceA">http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/</ref> this article is a one-stop mini-compendium on what intelligent design is, what it claims, and why it's important.

'''''The Evolution Controversy: Understanding the Basic Issues in the Debate Between Biological Evolution and Intelligent Design'''''. By Jody F. Sjogren, Robert P. Lattimer, and Douglas D. Rudy, and presented by Science Excellence for all Ohioans (SEAO).<ref>http://www.sciohio.org/start.htm</ref> Read and understand this and you will, as the title says, understand the basic issues.

'''''Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.'''''<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC - Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science - MainPage&id=2177</ref> By Stephen C. Meyer of the Center for Science & Culture,<ref name="http://www.discovery.org/csc">http://www.discovery.org/csc/</ref> this article first appeared in the peer reviewed Proceeding of the Biological Society of Washington, August 20, 2005. Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.

===Web Based Resources===
====The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture====
'''The Center for Science and Culture'''<ref name="http://www.discovery.org/csc"/> is a '''[[Discovery Institute]]''' program that encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, as well as supporting the work of scholars who challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory and scholars who are working on the scientific theory known as intelligent design.

In addition to scientific research and scholarship, the Center's '''Evolution News and Views''' blog<ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/</ref> presents analysis of that relevant news coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution.

A related website, '''intelligentdesign.org'''<ref>http://www.intelligentdesign.org/</ref> provides up-to-date information and learning resources.

====Access Research Network====
The '''[[Access Research Network]] (ARN)'''<ref name="arn.org">http://www.arn.org/</ref> is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing accessible information on science, technology and society.

'''ARN's''' articles and publications cover a host of issues which focus on such topics as intelligent design theory, genetic engineering, euthanasia, computer technology, environmental issues, creation/evolution, fetal tissue research and medical issues. ARN provides information needed to orient one's self in today's scientific and technological world in order to make informed decisions.

====The Intelligent Design Network====
'''Intelligent Design Network, Inc.'''<ref name="ReferenceA"/> is a nonprofit organization that seeks institutional objectivity in origins science. Objectivity results from the use of the [[scientific method]] without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?

The Intelligent Design Network produced a Statement of Objectives <ref name="intelligentdesignnetwork.org"/> regarding origins science. The Statement acknowledges that explanations of the origin of the universe and of life and its diversity are scientifically controversial. Further, due to its controversial nature, Origins Science requires a scientific enterprise guided by '''scientific objectivity'' rather than a preconceived view of origins, whether Materialistic (e.g., Darwinism) or Teleological (e.g., creationism). For this reason, according to the Statement, government and public education institutions supporting Origins Science should strive for objectivity as they inform the public about the state of our scientific knowledge regarding origins.

====The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center====

The '''Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center'''<ref>http://www.ideacenter.org/</ref> is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design theory and fostering good - spirited discussion and a better understanding over intelligent design theory and the creation - evolution issue among students, educators, churches, and anyone else interested. The Center's primary focus is to help students form "IDEA Clubs" on university and high school campuses.

====ID the Future====
Intelligent Design's "Super Blog", '''ID the Future'''<ref>http://www.idthefuture.com/</ref> offers podcasts as part of its mission of exploring the issues central to evolution and intelligent design (ID). IDTF provides listeners with the most current news and views on evolution and ID through brief interviews with key scientists and scholars developing the theory of ID, as well as insightful commentary from '''Discovery Institute''' senior fellows and staff on the scientific, educational and legal aspects of the debate.

====Uncommon Descent====
The intelligent design weblog of [[William Dembski]], Denyse O'Leary, and friends, '''Uncommon Descent'''<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/</ref> holds that...
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution—an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.

====Real Science Radio====
Denver-based Real Science Radio has interviewed a dozen scientists and scholars associated with Seattle's Discovery Institute including [[Michael Behe]], Paul Nelson, [[Stephen Meyer]], [[Richard Sternberg]], Ann Gauger, and Doug Axe, all listed on RSR's single Intelligent Design page.<ref>https://rsr.org/id/</ref>

====The Post-Darwinist====
Toronto-based '''Denyse O'Leary's''' blog,<ref>http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/</ref> covering the intelligent design movement from a journalist/author's perspective.

===Books, Tapes, DVD's===

====Discovery Institute====
The '''Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture''' "Essential Readings" list<ref>http://www.discovery.org/csc/essentialReadings.php</ref> includes links to books and articles by leading intelligent design proponents.

====Access Research Network====
Books available from '''Access Research Network's'''<ref name="arn.org"/> book catalog<ref name="astore.amazon.com">http://astore.amazon.com/a0ed97-20</ref> and videos/tapes (including DVD's)<ref name="astore.amazon.com"/><ref>[http://www.arn.org/origins-101.html ARN Videos]</ref> include the latest information on the subject of intelligent design.

==See also==

*[[Intelligent design movement]]
*[[Atheism and reason]]
*[[Irreligion and superstition]]
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Living fossil]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ IntelligentDesign.org]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Intelligent Design| ]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Intelligent design

2019-01-24T14:48:57Z

BobEnyart: typo Pal to Paul

:''Not to be confused with [[creationism]]''
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|alt= Intelligent design|thumbnail|300px|right|Intelligent design theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]] was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.]]

'''Intelligent design''' '''(ID)''' is the empirically testable<ref>"Dembski and Wells argue calmly and convincingly that intelligent design theory is empirically testable (in spite of Darwinists' shrill protests to the contrary) by indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory, namely a clear demonstration that systems exhibiting [[irreducible complexity]] with specified complexity can in fact arise spontaneously by purely material processes" source: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Design-Life-Discovering-Intelligence/dp/0980021308 The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems - Amazon page]</ref> theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.<ref>
An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ ID Defined]</ref> As [[Jonathan Wells]] wrote, "ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes." <ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/wired_science_one_long_bluff028441.html</ref> Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the [[evolution|Darwinian]] assertion that the features of living things are "inexplicable on the theory of [[creation]]" but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/9151</ref>

The central idea of Intelligent Design theory is that [[design]] is empirically detectable, just as the detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial, and often intuitive (see: [[design detection]]). With respect to the origin and development of cosmological and biological systems, Intelligent Design theory holds that the same principles provide a logical inference of design in nature. That is, without necessarily "proving" actual intelligent design in nature, the observable material evidence provides a reasonable basis from which to infer design, and such an inference supports a legitimate scientific hypothesis of ''intelligent'' design. As such, Intelligent Design theory is a scientific disagreement with the core claim of materialistic theories of [[evolution]] such as chemical and Darwinian evolution <ref>Darwinian Evolution: A materialistic theory of the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors through a process of descent with modification. The theory postulates that evolutionary change is the result of material causes [i.e., unintelligent causes due to the interactions of matter, energy, and the forces of nature], driven primarily by random variation and natural selection. The forces include gravity, the electromagnetic force and the weak and strong nuclear forces that define the structure of atoms. With respect to explaining the cosmos, the laws of chemistry and physics such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics dictate that material causes operate in generally periodic or regular patterns at best, and in entropy-increasing randomness at worst. ''See'', "Thirty-eight Nobel Laureates, ''Nobel Laureates Initiative,'' (The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, September 9, 2005), stressing to Kansas State Board of Education: “[E]volution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.”</ref> that the design exhibited in our universe is merely ''apparent'' design, i.e., ''unintelligent'' design caused by unguided, purposeless, natural forces of physics and chemistry alone.<ref>As used in this article, "materialism" is used synonymously with "naturalism". Naturalism is a philosophical doctrine that material causes alone are adequate to account for all natural phenomena and that teleological (design) conceptions of nature are invalid.</ref>

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection—how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence ('''[[SETI]]'''). An inference that certain cosmological and biological features of the natural world may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.<ref>For example, Stephen C. Meyer, Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, notes at [http://www.discovery.org/a/1671 A Note to Teachers Stephen C. Meyer and Mark Hartwig, Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins May 1, 1993], the problem with limiting explanations to only "natural" causes: "Archaeologists routinely distinguish manufactured objects (e.g., arrowheads, potsherds) from natural ones (e.g., stones), even when the differences between them are very subtle. These manufactured objects then become important clues in reconstructing past ways of life. But if we arbitrarily assert that science explains solely by reference to natural laws, if archaeologists are prohibited from invoking an intelligent manufacturer, the whole archaeological enterprise comes to a grinding halt."</ref>

Intelligent Design theory, like all theories of origins, is scientifically and religiously controversial. All theories of origins are scientifically controversial because they often amount to [[Subjectivism|subjective]] historical narratives that seek to explain unobserved and unobservable singular past events that occurred many years ago and that cannot be adequately tested in the laboratory. They are religiously controversial because all religions, including non-theistic religions, depend on a particular origins narrative. Intelligent Design proponents believe institutions of science, including government agencies, public schools and universities, should strive for objectivity and academic freedom in facilitating origins teaching and research. Objectivity in the evaluation and interpretation of material evidence ensures that all evidence-based explanations for natural phenomena can be considered fairly on their respective merits, regardless of their ultimate metaphysical or religious implications. Institutions of science should promote objectivity and academic freedom, especially where minority viewpoints challenge scientific orthodoxy.

Despite its many strengths, many [[Young Earth Creationism|biblical creationists]], while acknowledging those strengths, criticize the Intelligent Design theory for refusing to specify the identity of the designer, refusing to bring the Christian God and the Bible into the picture, and for accepting long ages and a theistic theory of evolution.<ref name="Whitcomb"/><ref name="PurdomChapter13"/>

== Intelligent Design, Evolution, and the Nature of Origins Science ==
'''[[Origins science]]''' is the scientific inquiry about biological and cosmological origins.<ref>''See'', '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', definition of Origins Science, '''Intelligent Design Network''' http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf</ref> Scientists investigating such origins seek to propose explanations for the direct cause of unobserved events and processes that occurred in the very remote past that can not be duplicated under presently observable conditions and that are not amenable to experimental confirmation. Explanations can only be inferred from the evidence. Intelligent design theorists argue that the evidence naturally leads to an inference of design. Darwinists argue unguided purposeless causes ''despite'' the clear evidence of design. Because no explanation can be tested by experimental methods, the historical nature of origins science can only lead to inferences, and the question is simply which inference is most reasonable.
[[Image:Ernst_Mayr.jpg|thumb|150px|left|[[Ernst Mayr]]]]
Preeminent 20th century Darwinist [[Ernst Mayr]], billed as “one of the great shining figures of evolutionary biology” <ref>Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'' (New York: Basic Books, 2001); back cover, quote attributed to John Maynard Smith.</ref> correctly noted in his book entitled ''What Evolution Is'':

<blockquote>
"Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented. Evolution as a whole, and the explanations of particular evolutionary event, must be inferred from observations." <ref>Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'', (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 12.</ref>
</blockquote>
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|100px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute]]

In a more detailed description of the method for investigating and explaining origins Mayr said:

<blockquote>
“...Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science – the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. ''Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes.'' Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” <ref>Ernst Mayr, ''Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought'', p. 80, (July 2000, Scientific American) emphasis added.</ref>

</blockquote>

Mayr's statement does not define "evolution", but his point is valid.<ref>"Evolution" is in quotes because one of the problems faced in debating "evolution" is the lack of a precise definition. If "evolution" is used to mean "micro-evolution" (minor changes like finch beak variation observed within some species), then "evolution" is uncontroversial. However, if (as Mayr intends, but does not state) by "evolution" is meant "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems", then Mayr is correct -- "evolution" is not experimentally confirmable, and, exactly like Intelligent Design, can only be inferred from observations.</ref> More objectively, his statement should be that origins (whether cosmological or biological) are due to a historical process that cannot be proven . . . but must be inferred from observations. Thus the methods used to discern the cause of historical events and processes differ from those of inductive, experimental science, and inferences based on observations should not be limited only to inferences of unintelligent causation. As with other historical sciences like archeology, historical geology, forensics and cryptanalysis, origins science asks different kinds of questions and uses different methods than do inductive sciences. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates based on direct experimental observation. The historical sciences, on the other hand, use abductive reasoning that asks how certain or probable observable phenomena came to be, the answer to which often cannot be discovered through direct observation. Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] fully develops this line of thought.

The distinction between inductive and historical sciences is not an idea inspired by intelligent design theory. The '''[[National Academy of Sciences]]''' (NAS) makes the same distinction to defend "evolution" as science.<ref>As noted above, with respect to Mayr's statement, "evolution" is in quotes here again because the NAS fails to use the term with a precise meaning. If "evolution" is used to mean "micro-evolution" (the minor change like finch beak variation, usually inconsequential, but observed within some species), then of course "evolution" is scientific and verifiable by experimentation. However, if by "evolution" is meant "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems", then "evolution" is not experimentally confirmable, as the NAS notes. However, as the NAS notes, such lack of being able to be experimentally confirmed does not remove a hypothesis from the realm of science (otherwise, as the NAS confirms, "evolution" would not be science).</ref> In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'',<ref>''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' Washington DC, National Academy Press, (1998), p. 55.</ref> the NAS responds to the question, "How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?":

<blockquote>
This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. . . . Something that happened in the past is thus not "off limits" for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions.<ref>http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Intelligent design theorists agree; one must not take a “narrow view” of science, such that certain disciplines like archeology, the '''[[SETI]]''' project, forensics, and intelligent design are removed from the realm of science. Such disciplines propose hypotheses, and the testing of these hypotheses is often only effective by proposing competing hypotheses and objectively analyzing the evidence to determine which hypothesis correlates best with the evidence. As '''Carol Cleland''' elaborates in her paper entitled ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'', in actual practice historical researchers tend to search for “positive evidence—a smoking gun.” <ref>Carol Cleland, ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'' (Geology, November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11), pp. 987-990.</ref> Ms. Cleland explores the necessary role of hypothesis testing for scientific disciplines not amenable to classical experimental testing. Hypothesis testing by formulating multiple competing hypotheses is essential in the context of historical sciences, such as cosmology, geology, and biogenesis. According to Cleland, “A smoking gun is a trace that picks out one of the competing hypotheses as providing a better causal explanation for the currently available traces than the other.” <ref>Carol Cleland, ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'' (Geology, November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11) p. 988.</ref>

== Methods of Intelligent Design Detection ==

''See also:'' [[Irreducible complexity]] and [[Argument from beauty]]
[[File:Fire-investigator.jpg|275px|right|thumbnail|Design detection is used in a variety of [[science]]s including [[forensic]] science that investigates the cause of a death or fire.]]
Design detection asks whether an effect or pattern that arose unobserved in the past is due to intelligent or unintelligent material causes. Is the pattern or effect a design or just an occurrence?

Design detection is used in a variety of sciences including forensic science that investigates the cause of a death or fire. It is also used in archeology, anthropology, cryptanalysis, copyright infringement, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and the search for function or purpose in genetic sequences. It is key to the current debate over the origin of the cosmos and life. Are these “effects” or patterns that arose long ago the product of an intelligent or material cause? Are the effects designs, i.e., the result of intelligent manipulation, or just occurrences?

The question of causation turns on whether the characteristics of a given pattern or effect are within the capacity of the cause to which it may be attributable. Do unintelligent material causes have the ability or capacity to account for the occurrence of a replicating cell? Does Darwinism's unintelligent material causes, consisting of random variation and natural selection, have the capacity to account for the diversity of life once it gets started? To start the analysis, one should first compare and contrast the capacities of intelligent causes and unintelligent material causes and the kinds of patterns those capacities produce.

===The Capacity of Unintelligent Material Causes ===
Unintelligent material causes consist simply of the interactions of the properties of matter, energy and the forces. These interactions are generally governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics. These causes do not have the capacity to “know” the environment within which they exist and then seek to change it for a particular future purpose. In other words, as stated by evolutionary biologist '''Douglas J. Futuyma''', they lack forward looking "foreknowledge. . . only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose.”<ref>“Darwin's immeasurably important contribution to science was to show how mechanistic causes could also explain all biological phenomena, despite their apparent evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. ......Darwin undid the essentialism that Western philosophy had inherited from Plato and Aristotle, and put variation in its place. He helped to replace a static conception of the world with the vision of a world of ceaseless change. Above all, his theory of random, purposeless variation acted on by blind, purposeless natural selection provided a revolutionary new kind of answer to almost all questions that begin with "Why?" It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that before Darwin, both philosophers and people in general answered "Why?" questions by citing purpose. Only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose. Thus questions like "Why do plants have flowers?" or "Why are there apple trees?"? or plagues, or storms? were answered by imagining the possible purpose that God could have had in creating them.” Douglas J. Futuyma, '''Evolutionary Biology''', Third Edition,(Sinauer Associates, Inc. 1998) p. 5, 8.</ref>

Material causes are to nature as thoughts are to a dead man. The past, present and future is irrelevant to material causes for they can’t comprehend it. Unintelligent material causes are not merely blind watchmakers, they are mindless, purposeless, and meaningless. Lacking a mind, they lack the capacity to “make” anything. Unintelligent material causes can adequately account for physical systems like the occurrence of rocks, rivers, wind and rain. However, it is not clear how they account for time-dependent living systems or themselves.

The laws of motion explain that matter stays in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it. Thus, patterns produced by material causes reflect an intersection of forces which start or stop the motion of matter. An intervening warm spell that melted a glacier carrying rocks and boulders caused them to come to rest in an unsorted pattern as glacial till. Similarly, when the Mississippi River hits the Gulf of Mexico it drops a load that forms a fan-shaped delta.

The starting and stopping of matter may also be produced by interactions due to the properties of atoms, electrons and molecules. In a snowflake, the particular chemical properties of hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms at a specific temperature and pressure, necessitate that they join together and stop in regular hexagonal lattices. Crystals of salt and other minerals “grow” through the stopping of atoms otherwise in motion until the source of new material is depleted or the conditions conducive to the growth change.

With this combination of law and chance, unintelligent material causes produce patterns both random and regular. Sand dunes and snowflakes exhibit regular and periodic patterns driven by constant forces. Random patterns also arise as systems are suddenly interrupted as in the case of an auto accident or a melting glacier that drops an unsorted load.

Although material causes can move matter uniformly and also start it and stop it suddenly, physical systems generally move from states of order to states of disorder per the second law of thermodynamics.

===The Capacity of Intelligent Causes===
Intelligent causes produced by minds are ubiquitous to the natural world. Humans have minds, as do birds and beavers. We are also finding that cellular systems appear to have a kind of internal intelligence. The immune system consists of cells that act as forward observers that look for foreign invaders. Those observers on the front line send messages to command central that develops weapons to be used to defend against the attack.

Intelligent causes differ from unintelligent material causes in that intelligent causes have minds hooked up to input and output devices that have the capacity to manipulate unintelligent material causes for a purpose. Intelligent causes perceive the present, store the perception in memory to build experience and then process the experience and knowledge to predict what will occur in the future. Intelligent causes have knowledge that can be processed by processors to generate “foreknowledge,” while unintelligent material causes have neither. Intelligent causes also have the capacity to choose to change the future so that a desired or intended goal or purpose is achieved and to generate outputs efficient to achieve the purpose. Intelligent causes use unintelligent material causes and the stuff unintelligent material causes produce to make a bird’s nest, a beaver’s dam or an aqueduct.

Patterns produced by a mind like the dam, nest or aqueduct often reflect millions of precise starting and stopping points not found in systems driven only by the uniform motion of regular natural forces, stopped only by accidental opposing forces. Patterns produced by intelligent causes integrate starts and stops for a purpose. The integration becomes clear when the pattern is both complex and useful. The integrated stopping points are evident in the case of the nest, dam and aqueduct. But for the stopping of matter at integrated precise points, the assembly would not function as a whole. This article reflects thousands of instances where matter has been started and then stopped – integrated - to produce precise, and hopefully understandable, meaning. Unlike patterns produced by the chemical and physical necessity of matter in uniform motion, designs consist of patterns of stopping points that are integrated for a particular purpose. Minds tie events together to for a purpose. Material causes do not. When the patterns are both complex and purposeful the inference to an intelligent cause is compelling.
[[Image:Saint Thomas Aquinas.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[St. Thomas Aquinas]] ]]
In the 13th Century, the famous Christian Philosopher, [[Thomas Aquinas]], noted that systems which have a purpose either have a mind or are driven by one:

<blockquote>
"We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end....... Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer."<ref>St. Thomas Aquinas, '''The Summa Theologica''', (1265-1274).
</ref> </blockquote>

Thus design detection begins with a search for purpose. If a pattern exhibits an apparent purpose, the inquiry turns to whether the apparent purpose is just an illusion. Perhaps the pattern can be adequately explained by unintelligent material causes alone. If not, then logic suggests that mind may be the more adequate explanation for the pattern.

===Formal Design Detection Methodology===

Formal design detection is not often used. Design detection methodology is not often employed because the human mind has an inherent capacity to distinguish between patterns arranged by a mind for a purpose and those that have not. Scientists have found that minds engage in subconscious pattern matching, which is a means of intuitively distinguishing between designs and occurrences.

Formal analysis is employed when a dispute arises about the cause of a pattern. Examples include investigations of deaths and peculiar fires that look for signs of murder or arson. Archaeologists debate over whether a rock is a rock or an artifact. Astronomers analyze radio and light waves in search of messages from alien minds. So far all of the tests of extraterrestrial radio waves for intelligence have been negative. The cause of life and its diversity are major areas of dispute as much is at stake. Religious and other world views depend on the best explanation for those events.

====Formal Design Detection -- ''The Explanatory Filter''====
[[Image:Wm Dembski.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|Dr. [[William Dembski]] ]]
Dr. [[William Dembski]] is a leading intelligent design theorist, and has written several books on the subject, including ''Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology'',<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Between-Science-Theology/dp/083082314X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194228951&sr=1-2</ref> and ''The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory)''.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Design-Inference-Eliminating-Probabilities-Probability/dp/0521678676/ref=sr_1_7/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194229141&sr=1-7</ref> Dr. Dembski has a Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, and an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary. One of Dembski's contributions to the intelligent design movement is to set forth one method of detecting design, a method he describes as the "[[explanatory filter]]".

Dembski describes his three-part '''explanatory filter''' together with an example of its use in a paper published at '''Access Research Network'''.<ref>http://www.arn.org</ref> In the paper, entitled ''The Explanatory Filter: A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design'',<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm</ref>

Dembski found that all formal design detection methodologies can be reduced to three logical steps in what he refers to as an explanatory filter. The filter first asks whether a given pattern is best explained by some chemical or physical necessity or law? If not, can it be explained by chance. If chance and necessity can’t explain the pattern, does it exhibit a “specification” or apparent purpose? If a complex pattern reflecting the integration of numerous stopping points does exhibit purpose and can’t be explained by chance or necessity, then the scientific, logical inference to the best explanation is design.

===Informal Design Detection Methodology===
====Intuition, Common Sense and Confirmation====
An inference of design first springs from intuition – subconscious pattern-matching that alerts the mind to a pattern that reflects a purpose or pre-existing intention. We see knives in the back of dead man and intuitively start looking for a mind that arranged the event – a suspect. If the data are strong enough common sense causes us to follow up on that lead, not ignore it. Common sense reflects a judgment about the most prudent of a set of possible choices. If the evidence leads toward design, then common sense suggests an exploration of the lead in an effort to confirm or disconfirm it.

Therefore, at a basic level design detection is a matter of common sense, an intuitive determination we all make based on our everyday experiences with intelligently designed things. The intuitive, common sense approach is the primary method used by scientists such as archaeologists. No one expects an archaeologist to provide a rigorous "proof" that a pot or sculpture found in the ground is the result of an intelligent being. The archaeologist may not know who made the pot or why (and usually has no way to find out), but the fact of intelligent design is rarely in question. As in a similar concept of attaching intelligent agency to an event in law, we can rationally say ''res ipsa loquitur'', or "the thing speaks for itself". There is no principled reason to ignore the common sense approach when it comes to living biological systems. We may not know who made living systems or why, but the fact of intelligent design can be easily and intuitively grasped.
[[File:WilliamPaley3.jpg|thumb|230px|left|William Paley]]
Perhaps the best example of the common sense approach to design detection was that put forth by William Paley in his famous "watchmaker analogy". William Paley (July 1743 – May 25, 1805) was a British theologian and philosopher. He used the watchmaker analogy as an argument for the existence of God in his book ''Natural Theology''. Paley states his analogy:
<blockquote>
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.

</blockquote>

Scientists who hold Darwinism dogmatically object to the common sense approach, not based on the fact of design, but on the metaphysical implications of considering true, intelligent design. Attempting to conflate the "what" of design with the "who" in biological systems is the tactic of those philosophically opposed to a supposed supernatural designer, i.e., those who fear a "divine foot in the door" of science. But such fear should not be tolerated by true scientists; design can be detected independent of any inquiry into the identity of the designer. Imagine archeology being rejected as science because there is absolutely no way to identify the designer of a clearly designed pot; such notions should be rejected by true scientists. Permitting the logical, common sense inference of intelligent design in the face of material evidence of design should be expected of honest scientists.

== Evidence for Intelligent Design in Nature ==

''See also:'' [[Irreducible complexity]] and [[Anthropic principle]]

[[Image:Phillip_johnson_arn.gif|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Phillip E. Johnson]], Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law, Emeritus]]
Virtually all scientists, including evolutionists,<ref>The term "evolutionist" is used in its "strong form" to describe those who hold and defend the position that all the variety of life is the result solely of naturalistic processes. Therefore, the term refers to those who rule out any intelligent causation for any aspect of life (if intelligence plays any role whatsoever, then whatever the theory, it is a form of intelligent design). While everyone is an "evolutionist" if "evolution" is defined in its weak form as simply "change over time" or "micro-evolution" such as finch beak variation, not everyone is an "evolutionist" if "evolution" is used, as herein, to mean "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems". Evolutionists who oppose Intelligent Design believe that unintelligent processes of physics and chemistry can explain the creation of every novel and beneficial feature of the various species, including wings, eyes, and brains. Darwinism is the leading naturalistic evolutionary theory, holding that all life forms descended as modified forms of previous life forms in an unguided, unintelligent process, i.e., Darwin's "descent with modification".</ref> observe design in nature. Fossils exhibit design. Living body plans exhibit design. Micro-biological features such as DNA exhibit design. The evidentiary question is not a question of the '''''existence''''' of design in nature, but the '''''cause''''' of design in nature.

Only two causes are available to explain the design evident in nature: '''''unintelligent''''' causes and '''''intelligent causes'''''. '''Unintelligent causes''' include the natural actions of physics and chemistry, operating alone by natural laws in space and time. Unintelligent causes cannot produce true design, so Darwinists dismiss the evident design in nature as merely the "appearance" of design.

Intelligent design proponent [[Phillip E. Johnson]] illustrates the obstinancy of evolutionary scientists to recognize intelligent causation of design in nature when he wrote the following:
[[Image:Francis Crick.jpg|thumb|px130|left|[[Francis Crick]], co-discoverer of the structure of [[DNA]]]]
{{cquote|"One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir [[Francis Crick]], the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner...In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are."<ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html</ref>}}

'''Intelligent causes''' include the actions of an intelligent agent (which may be unknown, such as in anonymous works of art, or in archeological finds) manipulating physics and chemistry to create something that physics and chemistry alone cannot. Only intelligent causes can produce true design.

The question is not, therefore, "is there evidence of design in nature?" Rather, the scientific question is, "Based on the evidence of design observed in nature, what causes best explain design?" Framed this way, potential explanations, or theories, are not limited by a predetermined bias, such as only unintelligent causes (e.g., Darwinism) or only intelligent causes (e.g., creationism). The question simply asks, "in accordance with the scientific method, what causes can be logically inferred from the evidence?"

With the proper question in mind, it is easy to see that virtually all the evidence used to support Darwinism is equally evidence in support of Intelligent Design. '''Cosmological''' evidence for design is described at '''[[Evidence for intelligent design in cosmology]]''' section. '''Biological''' evidence for intelligent design includes '''''general evidence''''' and '''''special evidence''''', and both are discussed at '''[[General and Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology]]'''. For all material evidence, the evidentiary value can be determined by use of the '''[[Evidence Filter]]'''.

=== Anthropic principle ===

''See also:'' [[Anthropic principle]]

There is a strong body of evidence for a Designer that comes from the fine-tuning of the universal constants and the solar system.<ref name="creation.com">[http://creation.com/the-universe-is-finely-tuned-for-life The universe is finely tuned for life] by Jonathan Sarfati</ref>

The anthropic principle states that the reason the constants of nature appear so finely tuned to life, is that if it were otherwise, life such as ourselves would not have developed. Hence we should not be surprised that the laws of physics are enable life such as ourselves to exist.

Former [[Atheism|atheist]] Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] states, "commonsense interpretation of the facts is that a super-intelligence has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces in nature."<ref name="creation.com"/>

==Examples of Intelligent Design Theory Used in Science==
[[File:11943452 115b299206.jpg|thumbnail|275px|right|[[Forensic]] scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime. ]]
Intelligent design detection is uncontroversial in many well-accepted scientific disciplines. In each of the scientific disciplines listed below, scientists evaluate the evidence objectively, that is, there is no pre-determined rule of interpretation that dictates that only ''unintelligent'' causes can be considered.

'''Forensic sciences''': [[Forensic]] scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime. For example, a forensic investigator investigating a death uses scientific evidence to determine whether the death was caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., murder).

'''Archeology''': Archaeologists are virtually dependent upon the science of design detection. Working with present-day evidence left from the past, archaeologists seek to determine whether artifacts were caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., clay) or intelligent causes (i.e., a clay pot).

'''Cryptanalysis''': Cryptanalysis is the scientific endeavor of code breaking. Code breakers examine the observable evidence of a string or pattern of characters to determine if it contains a message or if it is simply a string of random, meaningless characters.

'''Arson investigation''': Arson investigators observe evidence and attempt to explain the cause of a fire; was it caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., accidental ignition), or by intelligent causes (i.e., arson).

'''Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence''': The name says it all. These scientists are observing evidence in the form of radio signals to determine if the signals are the result of unintelligent causes (i.e., background radiation in space), or by intelligent causes (i.e., extraterrestrial intelligence).

Each of the above scientific disciplines utilize design detection to determine if the cause of observed evidence is due to unintelligent or intelligent agency. Usually, such as in the case of archaeologists observing clay pots, the detection and determination of design is intuitive and assumed without further justification. No rigorous analytical method is required of archaeologists to support a finding of design; nothing beyond the simple, rational recognition of what is consistent with the human experience of intelligent design is necessary.

== Intelligent design theorists and life on other planets ==

[[The Privileged Planet]] is an intelligent design theory documentary which argues that the earth contains a rare and finely-tuned array of factors which makes earth suitable for complex life.<ref>[http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ The Privileged Planet documentary website]</ref>

The proposal that first life came about through natural processes has not fared well in recent times. The prominent [[origin of life]] researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.<ref name="Why Abiogenesis is impossible">[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]</ref>

== Religious Implications of Origins Science ==
Any theory of origins unavoidably impacts religion.<ref>One should not make the mistake of equating "religion" with only traditional theistic religions like [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]], or [[Islam]]. As used herein the term is used as defined in the Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science: Religion: A broad range of theistic and non-theistic religions and religious belief systems.</ref> As stated in Article II.C of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''':<ref name="intelligentdesignnetwork.org">http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf</ref>
<blockquote>
Implications of scientific explanations of origins unavoidably impact religion, ethics, morality, government and politics. The implications of materialistic explanations (such as Darwinism) of origins support the central tenets of non-theistic religions,<ref>Non-theistic religions are religions and belief systems that presuppose that no God intervenes in the natural world and that material causes, such as unguided evolutionary change, are adequate to explain natural phenomena. Non-theistic religions include [[atheism]], [[Secular Humanism]], and [[Scientism]], as well as some forms of [[Buddhism]] and other eastern religions. By way of example, the Humanist Manifesto I sets forth the first two "affirmations" of religious humanism as "FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created; and, SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process." Thus, Darwinism supports the central tenets of a religious belief.</ref> while the implications of teleological<ref>Teleological: Exhibiting or relating to design or purpose, especially in nature. ''See'', Merriam-Webster Online</ref> explanations (such as Intelligent Design) support the central tenets of theistic religions. Both theistic and non-theistic religions and worldviews address questions of ethics, morality, government and politics.<ref>ibid, Article II.C</ref>
</blockquote>
[[Image:Atheism.jpg|thumb|right|195px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789) was an early advocate of [[atheism]] in [[Europe]].]]
Therefore, it should not be surprising that most theists are sympathetic to intelligent design because the science of intelligent design supports the theology of theistic religions like [[Christianity]]. Likewise, it is not surprising that virtually all atheists are Darwinists because the science of Darwinism supports the theology of non-theistic religions such as religious humanism (having a theology of atheism). The simple fact is that worldviews and interpretations of evidence go hand in hand. If, for example, your world view prohibits explanations involving intelligent design, then you will reject intelligent design in spite of the evidence, not because of it.

For this reason, as stated in Article III.A. of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', if '''truth''' is the goal:
<blockquote>
Institutions of science should ignore religious and ethical implications of competing historical hypotheses and strive for '''objectivity'''<ref>Objective: Not influenced by personal bias or prejudice; based on facts. An objective position is one that is Secular, Neutral, and Non-ideological.</ref> in the conduct and teaching of origins science. Institutional objectivity may be achieved by encouraging healthy competition among scientists holding differing scientific views regarding origins, consistent with the scientific method.<ref>ibid, Article III.A</ref>
</blockquote>

This is because, as stated in Article II.B. of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''':
<blockquote>
The adequacy of scientific explanations of origins depends on an analysis of competing possibilities. Origins explanations use a form of '''abductive'''<ref>Abduction, or abductive reasoning, is the process of reasoning to the best explanations. In other words, it is the reasoning process that starts from a set of facts and derives their most likely explanations. See, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning</ref> reasoning that produces competing Historical Hypotheses, that lead to an inference to the best current explanation rather than to an explanation that is logically compelled by experimental confirmation. Due to inherent limitations on the experimental validation of historical hypotheses, testing requires rigorous competition between alternative hypotheses so that their relative strengths and plausibilities may be compared. While competition among multiple hypotheses decreases subjectivity, it may nevertheless result in no adequate current explanation.<ref>ibid, Article II.B</ref>
</blockquote>

==Objections to Intelligent Design==
===Creationist Objections to Intelligent Design===
Many Biblical creationists and other theists object to Intelligent Design as failing to identify the alleged designer and refusing to bring the Christian God and the Bible into the picture.<ref name="Whitcomb">Whitcomb, John C., Ph.D. (2006). [http://www.icr.org/article/history-impact-book-the-genesis-flood/ The History and Impact of the Book, "The Genesis Flood"]. ''ICR.org'' (from ''Acts & Facts. 35 (5)''). Retrieved October 26, 2016.</ref> This objection is expressed well by Georgia Purdom, Ph.D. of '''[[Answers in Genesis]]''' in an article entitled '''''Does the Identity of the Creator Really Matter?''''' Dr. Purdom sums up the major objection:

<blockquote>
However, the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement</ref>
</blockquote>

The reader is encouraged to read Dr. Purdom's full article, as it fairly and thoroughly deals with the objection at hand. Building on the same thoughts, the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]], Dr. [[Carl Wieland]], notes:

<blockquote>
The Intelligent Design Movement’s motivation appears to be the desire to challenge the blind acceptance of the materialistic, godless, naturalistic philosophy of Darwinian evolution. They confront many of the philosophical underpinnings of today’s evolutionary thinking. As a movement, they are unwilling to align themselves with biblical creationism.<ref name="CMI IDM">[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2560 CMI’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement]</ref>
</blockquote>

Referring to Intelligent Design as the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM), Weiland pinpoints the specific objection as:
<blockquote>
The IDM’s refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God, and in particular with the history in the Bible, means that:
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.<ref>See the 2004 book by CMI speaker Gary Bates: Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection. [footnote in original]</ref> In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
There is no philosophical answer to their opponents’ logically-deduced charge that the Designer was monstrous and/or inept (‘look at all the horrible, cruel, even defective things in the living world’), since bringing up the Fall is deliberately, tactically excluded. (However, the Fall was a major event in history, that changed everything. The world we are looking at now is a world that has been corrupted by sin, not the original world that God designed). Thus, the movement’s success could very likely even be counterproductive, by laying the Biblical God open to ridicule and contempt in new ways.<ref name="CMI IDM" />
</blockquote>

In addition to the fair criticisms listed above, biblical creationists also criticize the intelligent design theory for continuing to accept long ages and the theory of evolution along with the existence of some designer.<ref name="PurdomChapter13">Purdom, Georgia, Dr. (May 6, 2010). [https://answersingenesis.org/intelligent-design/is-the-intelligent-design-movement-christian/ Chapter 13 - Is the Intelligent Design Movement Christian?]. ''Answers in Genesis'' (from ''The New Answers Book 2''). Retrieved October 25, 2016.</ref>

====Response to Creationist Objections====
[[Image:Carl wieland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] ]]
Intelligent design theorists appreciate the criticisms of creationists such as Purdom and Wieland, and, in fact, most intelligent design theorists are creationists themselves. And while most intelligent design theorists would agree with Dr. Purdom that the Creator and his creation "reflect on each other," they would disagree that "the Creator and His creation cannot be separated." The "separation" is epistemological, that is, there is a distinction between ''how'' one can know anything about the creation versus the creator. Just as a painter can be separated from a painting, so that the painting is labelled "anonymous", and just as an archaeologist can infer a designer of a clay pot without knowing the designer's actual identity, the ''fact'' of a creator in nature can be determined scientifically, but the ''specific'' creator cannot.

Intelligent design theorists recognize that the scientific method places limits as to the kind of knowledge that can be determined scientifically. Intelligent design theorists hold that intelligent design is a logical inference based on observation of material evidence in nature. That is, intelligent design can be determined as a matter of science alone in full accord with the scientific method. But science can say little about who the designer is.

The intelligent design position is expressed well in an article by Casey Luskin entitled '''''Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why Intelligent Design Doesn’t Identify the Designer'''''. Luskin states, referring to a law review article he co-authored:

<blockquote>
David DeWolf, John West and I also address this issue in our recent Montana Law Review article:
It is important to stress that the refusal of ID proponents to draw scientific conclusions about the nature or identity of the designer is principled rather than merely rhetorical. ID is primarily a historical science, meaning it uses principles of uniformitarianism to study present-day causes and then applies them to the historical record in order to infer the best explanation for the origin of the natural phenomena being studied. ID starts with observations from “uniform sensory experience” showing the effects of intelligence in the natural world. As Pandas explains, scientists have uniform sensory experience with intelligent causes (i.e. humans), thus making intelligence an appropriate explanatory cause within historical scientific fields. However, the “supernatural” cannot be observed, and thus historical scientists applying uniformitarian reasoning cannot appeal to the supernatural. If the intelligence responsible for life was supernatural, science could only infer the prior action of intelligence, but could not determine whether the intelligence was supernatural.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=4306, citing David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin, “Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover,” 68 Montana Law Review 7, 30 (Spring, 2007) (internal citations removed).</ref>

</blockquote>
Further, it appears that Dr. Weiland's concern that "[a]cceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions" is unfounded. Certainly some who are honestly convinced of true intelligent design might entertain "sci-fi notions," but the evidence supports the opposite—i.e., those convinced of design are more likely to entertain thoughts of a supernatural God. Like Aristotle of ancient Greece, those who reasonably and honestly are convinced of true design in nature are more likely to follow the pattern Dr. Pordum highlighted from Romans 1:18-20. That is, the creation speaks to a supernatural, infinite, eternal creator.

Take the example of former atheist Anthony Flew, as discussed by intelligent design theorist Phillip E. Johnson, in an article entitled '''''Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects'''''. First Johnson reiterates:

<blockquote>
The goal of the Intelligent Design Movement is to achieve an open philosophy of science that permits consideration of any explanations toward which the evidence may be pointing.<ref name="discovery.org">http://www.discovery.org/a/3914</ref>
</blockquote>

However, Johnson notes with respect to the practical effects of such an open philosophy:

<blockquote>
One early sign of the way the world is headed came in December 2004, when there was much comment in newspapers and internet discussion groups about famed atheist philosopher Anthony Flew. Flew had just announced that he had converted to philosophical theism (though not to Christianity or any other specific religion, at least as yet), on the basis of scientific discoveries and related reasoning, which had convinced him that there is an intelligent designer of the natural universe. Flew seems to have investigated the phenomenon of design in the natural world for reasons similar to my own. He wanted to decide for himself whether evidence and logic point in the direction of a creating intelligence, or whether God is nothing more than a subjective idea created by human imagination. Perhaps these questions about the reality of god are religious in nature, but they are important questions that deserve to be investigated dispassionately instead of being barred from consideration because powerful groups define “science” as committed a priori to naturalism.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>

Although as yet Flew does not adhere to Christianity or any other creedal faith, he has taken a giant step in that direction. In an article in the London Independent for December 27, 2004, an Oxford University theologian wrote: “What kind of God could it [i.e. Flew’s designer] refer to? One who created the universe–elementary particles, strong and weak forces, atoms and molecules, yet, for example, has no relation to the emergence of a clever humanity? Or could it be a God who was intelligent enough to create galaxies, and amazingly intricate systems like DNA, yet not intelligent enough to communicate with humankind? Although Flew does not believe in revelation, and may not feel that the Book of Genesis provides a useful account of creation, he does not seem to have quite this kind of minimalist God in mind either. In fact when pressed as to whether his ‘First Cause’ embraced omniscience, Flew admits that a First Cause, if there is one, has clearly produced everything that is going on, and this implies creation ‘in the beginning.’”<ref name="discovery.org"/>

</blockquote>

Intelligent design theorists leave the identity of the designer open as a matter of scientific discipline. Even though everyone, including creationists must rely on special revelation (i.e., the Bible) to know specifics about the designer, everyone can know the fact of design based on general revelation (i.e., nature).

===Methodological Naturalist Objections to Intelligent Design===
Many scientists object to intelligent design on the basis that intelligent design "is not science."

The validity of this objection depends on what is meant by the terms "intelligent design" and "science". If "science" is defined objectively (as in Websters dictionary: 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.<ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science</ref>) and "intelligent design" is defined as in this article, then intelligent design is clearly, without question "science", and the objection of methodological naturalists is overcome.

The term "methodological naturalism" describes a form of science in which science is assumed to be necessarily practiced as if naturalism were itself true (see also [[scientific materialism]]). Of course, "naturalism", which is a philosophy that holds there is no immaterial substance in the universe, i.e., all is matter alone, is an assumption-based philosophy. "Naturalism", like "materialism" as a philosophy holds that there is no supernatural in the universe, no spirit, no soul, and, of course, no God.

Methodological naturalists are scientists that, while perhaps not themselves being full-fledged naturalists (although growing numbers are), insist that science be practiced as if naturalism were true. If this method of practicing science is adhered to, then intelligent design cannot be science, because intelligent design posits the possibility of a ''supernatural'' designer.

One way to illustrate the objection is this: Consider two definitions of science:

<blockquote>
1. Science is the activity of seeking explanations for natural phenomena.

</blockquote>
<blockquote>
2. Science is the activity of seeking only natural (i.e., unintelligent) causes as explanations for natural phenomena.

</blockquote>
The first definition above is an objective, bias-free definition, for which intelligent design qualifies as science. However, the second definition above is one in which the objective definition has been qualified by the term "natural", which assumes there ''are'' natural, i.e., unintelligent, causes for natural phenomena.

The second definition is the definition that methodological naturalists insist be adopted as ''the'' definition for science. However, the "natural causes alone" criteria for gaining scientific knowledges is based upon an assumption that there ''is'' a natural cause for all natural phenomena. If intelligent design is true, scientists operating by the second definition above will never be able to come to the truth. The insistence on only "natural causes" imports a philosophical bias into the objective definition, which is then defended based not on '''''knowledge''''', but an '''''assumption'''''. Therefore, methodological naturalists "define out" of science intelligent design based on a philosophical assumption.

====Response to Naturalist Objection====

The simple response to methodological naturalism, which is the only principled basis for excluding intelligent design from science, is that methodological naturalism improperly and unnecessarily restricts the realm of science.

By any objective definition of science, including dictionary definitions, intelligent design is science. But the controversy begs a larger question. Historically, the practice of science can be considered in two broad categories.
[[Image:Francis_Bacon.jpg|thumbnail|150px|[[Francis Bacon]]]]
First there is the inductive method espoused by [[Francis Bacon]]. Bacon pioneered the modern notion that science should let "evidence lead the inquiry" and "general axioms ought to be the end, not the beginning, of the scientific process."<ref>See, Cornelius G. Hunter, ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism, (Brazos Press, 2007), p. 15.</ref> Bacon specifically formulated his scientific method to ensure that religious speculation (including speculation about naturalism) was excluded from the scientific process. Thus, Bacon's scientific method proceeded based on observations of nature, and logical inferences derived from those observations.

Second, there is the deductive method espoused by René Descartes. Descartes argued that science needed mechanical, or naturalistic, descriptions that could explain, rather than merely label, the effects.<ref>See, Hunter, p. 17.</ref> According to Cornelius Hunter, in his book ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism,'' Descartes proposed a method of science in which "What science needed were naturalistic descriptions, even if they were not known to be true explanations. Thus, Cartesian explanations were hypothetical; Descartes argued that having a plausible yet incorrect description was better than no description at all."

Therefore, whether or not intelligent design is "science" depends on what approach one takes to science. If one takes the Baconian approach, letting the evidence lead the inquiry without presuppositions, intelligent design is science. Moreover, if one takes the Cartesian approach, intelligent design of biological systems can still be science; it depends on what hypothetical constraints are put upon scientific inquiry. Methodological naturalists place the "natural causes only" constraint on all scientific inquiry, and, therefore, define out of science the notion of any non-natural designer.

Intelligent design theorists maintain that the "natural causes only" constraint might be correct for operational science, but for historical sciences in which one is attempting to reconstruct a historical narrative based on present-day evidence, such a constraint does not make sense. For one thing, intelligent design theorists maintain that there is a difference between inductive and/or deductive sciences (each of which can be used in experimental sciences), and the "historical sciences". Intelligent design is scientific in both inductive and historical sciences (and deductive, without limiting biases), but can have its greatest value as a historical science.

The broad categories of "experimental sciences" and "historical sciences" ask different kinds of questions and use different kinds of methods. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates. The historical sciences, on the other hand, ask different kinds of questions. Rather than trying to understand how the natural world operates, the historical sciences seek to understand how things came to be. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer develops this line of thought fully in an article entitled ''Science and the Laws of Nature''.

The distinction between experimental and historical sciences is not an ID-inspired idea. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) makes the same distinction to defend the historical nature of evolution. In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'', the NAS responds to the question, "How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?":

<blockquote>
This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. . . . Something that happened in the past is thus not "off limits" for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions.<ref>''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' (Washington DC, National Academy Press, 1998), p. 55</ref>
</blockquote>

With respect to hypothesis testing, see, Carol Cleland, '''''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method''''', (''Geology'', November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11, 987-990).

The fact is that historical sciences operate by different methods, including different methods of testing, than do experimental sciences. Historical sciences attempt to construct a historical narrative to explain current observed phenomena. The only way to "test" historical narratives is by comparing with competing historical narratives to see which one more closely aligns with the observed phenomena.

Intelligent design, therefore, is not only science, but as a competing historical narrative, it is a valuable scientific challenge to the naturalistic historical narrative of Darwinism. Without it, Darwinism ceases being science, and becomes an unchallengeable dogma.

== History of Intelligent Design ==
[[File:Aristotle.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Aristotle]] ]]
In many respects the history of intelligent design corresponds to the history of science in general; since the days of [[Aristotle]] most scientists have assumed design based on the clear evidence at hand. Moreover, the history of the modern intelligent design movement must be seen in the context of the ages-old tension between materialistic science and non-materialistic science. For a timeline directed specifically to the history of intelligent design and the creation - evolution controversy, see the '''IDEA Center's''' ''"Primer: History of intelligent design and the creation - evolution controversy".'' <ref>http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1119</ref>

Plato and Aristotle both argued that nature is ''teleological'', a term that comes from the Greek ''telos'' meaning "directed by goal or purpose". In other words, the evidence of nature leads logically to the idea that behind the purely natural is some kind of rational, non-natural order, something Plato referred to as "Form" and which Aristotle referred to as "Idea". Both were led to their conclusions by the commonsense notion that if the world really did consist of chance configurations of atoms, then knowledge would be impossible. (See Nancy Pearcey, ''Total Truth'', Appendix 3, p. 390.)<ref>Nancy R. Pearcey, ''Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity'' (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004)(http://www.amazon.com/Total-Truth-Liberating-Christianity-Captivity/dp/1581347464/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195005366&sr=1-1)</ref>

[[Image:Pearcey.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Nancy Pearcey]]
Modern intelligent design theory is simply a response to the resurgence of dominant materialistic thought, primarily as expressed by institutions of science such as universities and various academies of science. As '''Nancy Pearcey''' states: "By tracing the debate over Darwinism all the way back to [[Epicurus]] (a Greek materialist) we can place the theory in a much larger context. Darwinism was not entirely new, invented out of whole cloth." Likewise, the modern intelligent design movement can be placed in a larger context as a challenge to modern materialistic thought as enforced in modern science.

For more indepth study of the history of intelligent design, see '''William Dembski's''' work entitled ''Intelligent Design''.<ref>http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.08.Encyc_of_Relig.htm</ref> In particular, Dembski's bibliography and comments are reproduced here:

Bibliography
<blockquote>

Beckwith, Francis J. Law, Darwinism, and Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design. Lanham, Md., 2003. 

Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York, 1996. 

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. New York, 1986. 

Dembski, William A. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Lanham, Md., 2002. 

Forrest, Barbara. “The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream.” In Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, edited by Robert T. Pennock, pp. 5–53, Cambridge, Mass., 2001. 

Giberson, Karl W. and Donald A. Yerxa. Species of Origins: America’s Search for a Creation Story. Lanham, Md., 2002. 

Hunter, Cornelius G. Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Grand Rapids, Mich., 2002. 

Manson, Neil A., ed. God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. London, 2003. 

Miller, Kenneth R. Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. San Francisco, 1999. 

Rea, Michael C. World without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism. Oxford, 2002. 

Witham, Larry. By Design: Science and the Search for God. San Francisco, 2003. 

Woodward, Thomas. Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design. Grand Rapids, Mich., 2003. 
</blockquote>

Bibliographic Essay

<blockquote>[[Larry Witham]] provides the best overview of intelligent design, even-handedly treating its scientific, cultural, and religious dimensions. As a journalist, Witham has personally interviewed all the main players in the debate over intelligent design and allows them to tell their story. For intelligent design’s place in the science and religion dialogue, see Giberson and Yerxa. For histories of the intelligent design movement, see Woodward (a supporter) and Forrest (a critic). See Behe and Dembski to overview intelligent design’s scientific research program. For a critique of that program, see Miller. For an impassioned defense of Darwinism against any form of teleology or design, see Dawkins. Manson’s anthology situates intelligent design within broader discussions about teleology. Rea probes intelligent design’s metaphysical underpinnings. Hunter provides an interesting analysis of how intelligent design and Darwinism play off the problem of evil. Beckwith examines whether intelligent design is inherently religious and thus, on account of church-state separation, must be barred from public school science curricula.

</blockquote>

== Global intelligence design movement ==

''See also:'' [[Global intelligent design movement]]

''Evolution News and Views'' reported concerning the intelligent design movement:
{{cquote|Along with the absurd stereotype that support for ID is limited to right-wing fundamentalist Christians … there’s also the Darwinist agitprop point that advocates of the theory are rare outside the United States. Hardly! An unacknowledged strength of the ID movement is its international character.

Asia is an up-and-coming ID hot spot, as ENV has reported. See here for Signature in the Cell and Explore Evolution [links omitted for Discoveroid books] in their recent and handsome Korean editions.

Europe and Asia aside, how about Brazil? From South America’s most populous nation, accounting for half the continent’s total population, comes news of the First Brazilian Intelligent Design Congress, scheduled for November 14–16 this year at [details of the event].<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/intelligent_des_20090211.html Intelligent Design's Secret Weapon: The World] by David Klinghoffer October 3, 2014 11:53 AM</ref>}}

==Resources==
=== Quick Start ===
For a quick, concise overview of what intelligent design is all about, link to the following relatively short articles:

'''''Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution'''''.<ref>http://idnetohio.cinti.net/media/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf</ref> Written by William S. Harris and John H. Calvert (of '''Intelligent Design Network, Inc.'''),<ref name="ReferenceA">http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/</ref> this article is a one-stop mini-compendium on what intelligent design is, what it claims, and why it's important.

'''''The Evolution Controversy: Understanding the Basic Issues in the Debate Between Biological Evolution and Intelligent Design'''''. By Jody F. Sjogren, Robert P. Lattimer, and Douglas D. Rudy, and presented by Science Excellence for all Ohioans (SEAO).<ref>http://www.sciohio.org/start.htm</ref> Read and understand this and you will, as the title says, understand the basic issues.

'''''Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.'''''<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC - Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science - MainPage&id=2177</ref> By Stephen C. Meyer of the Center for Science & Culture,<ref name="http://www.discovery.org/csc">http://www.discovery.org/csc/</ref> this article first appeared in the peer reviewed Proceeding of the Biological Society of Washington, August 20, 2005. Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.

===Web Based Resources===
====The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture====
'''The Center for Science and Culture'''<ref name="http://www.discovery.org/csc"/> is a '''[[Discovery Institute]]''' program that encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, as well as supporting the work of scholars who challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory and scholars who are working on the scientific theory known as intelligent design.

In addition to scientific research and scholarship, the Center's '''Evolution News and Views''' blog<ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/</ref> presents analysis of that relevant news coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution.

A related website, '''intelligentdesign.org'''<ref>http://www.intelligentdesign.org/</ref> provides up-to-date information and learning resources.

====Access Research Network====
The '''[[Access Research Network]] (ARN)'''<ref name="arn.org">http://www.arn.org/</ref> is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing accessible information on science, technology and society.

'''ARN's''' articles and publications cover a host of issues which focus on such topics as intelligent design theory, genetic engineering, euthanasia, computer technology, environmental issues, creation/evolution, fetal tissue research and medical issues. ARN provides information needed to orient one's self in today's scientific and technological world in order to make informed decisions.

====The Intelligent Design Network====
'''Intelligent Design Network, Inc.'''<ref name="ReferenceA"/> is a nonprofit organization that seeks institutional objectivity in origins science. Objectivity results from the use of the [[scientific method]] without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?

The Intelligent Design Network produced a Statement of Objectives <ref name="intelligentdesignnetwork.org"/> regarding origins science. The Statement acknowledges that explanations of the origin of the universe and of life and its diversity are scientifically controversial. Further, due to its controversial nature, Origins Science requires a scientific enterprise guided by '''scientific objectivity'' rather than a preconceived view of origins, whether Materialistic (e.g., Darwinism) or Teleological (e.g., creationism). For this reason, according to the Statement, government and public education institutions supporting Origins Science should strive for objectivity as they inform the public about the state of our scientific knowledge regarding origins.

====The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center====

The '''Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center'''<ref>http://www.ideacenter.org/</ref> is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design theory and fostering good - spirited discussion and a better understanding over intelligent design theory and the creation - evolution issue among students, educators, churches, and anyone else interested. The Center's primary focus is to help students form "IDEA Clubs" on university and high school campuses.

====ID the Future====
Intelligent Design's "Super Blog", '''ID the Future'''<ref>http://www.idthefuture.com/</ref> offers podcasts as part of its mission of exploring the issues central to evolution and intelligent design (ID). IDTF provides listeners with the most current news and views on evolution and ID through brief interviews with key scientists and scholars developing the theory of ID, as well as insightful commentary from '''Discovery Institute''' senior fellows and staff on the scientific, educational and legal aspects of the debate.

====Uncommon Descent====
The intelligent design weblog of [[William Dembski]], Denyse O'Leary, and friends, '''Uncommon Descent'''<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/</ref> holds that...
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution—an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.

====Real Science Radio====
Denver-based Real Science Radio has interviewed a dozen scientists and scholars associated with Seattle's Discovery Institute including Paul Nelson, Stephen Meyer, Richard Sternberg, Ann Gauger, and Doug Axe, all listed on RSR's single Intelligent Design page<ref>https://rsr.org/id/</ref>.

====The Post-Darwinist====
Toronto-based '''Denyse O'Leary's''' blog,<ref>http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/</ref> covering the intelligent design movement from a journalist/author's perspective.

===Books, Tapes, DVD's===

====Discovery Institute====
The '''Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture''' "Essential Readings" list<ref>http://www.discovery.org/csc/essentialReadings.php</ref> includes links to books and articles by leading intelligent design proponents.

====Access Research Network====
Books available from '''Access Research Network's'''<ref name="arn.org"/> book catalog<ref name="astore.amazon.com">http://astore.amazon.com/a0ed97-20</ref> and videos/tapes (including DVD's)<ref name="astore.amazon.com"/><ref>[http://www.arn.org/origins-101.html ARN Videos]</ref> include the latest information on the subject of intelligent design.

==See also==

*[[Intelligent design movement]]
*[[Atheism and reason]]
*[[Irreligion and superstition]]
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Living fossil]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ IntelligentDesign.org]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Intelligent Design| ]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Intelligent design

2019-01-24T14:47:29Z

BobEnyart: /* Web Based Resources */ added a dozen radio interviews with Disc Inst scientists

:''Not to be confused with [[creationism]]''
[[Image:Intelligent design.jpg‎|alt= Intelligent design|thumbnail|300px|right|Intelligent design theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When [[evolution]]ist [[Richard Dawkins]] was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.]]

'''Intelligent design''' '''(ID)''' is the empirically testable<ref>"Dembski and Wells argue calmly and convincingly that intelligent design theory is empirically testable (in spite of Darwinists' shrill protests to the contrary) by indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory, namely a clear demonstration that systems exhibiting [[irreducible complexity]] with specified complexity can in fact arise spontaneously by purely material processes" source: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Design-Life-Discovering-Intelligence/dp/0980021308 The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems - Amazon page]</ref> theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.<ref>
An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ ID Defined]</ref> As [[Jonathan Wells]] wrote, "ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes." <ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/wired_science_one_long_bluff028441.html</ref> Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the [[evolution|Darwinian]] assertion that the features of living things are "inexplicable on the theory of [[creation]]" but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/9151</ref>

The central idea of Intelligent Design theory is that [[design]] is empirically detectable, just as the detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial, and often intuitive (see: [[design detection]]). With respect to the origin and development of cosmological and biological systems, Intelligent Design theory holds that the same principles provide a logical inference of design in nature. That is, without necessarily "proving" actual intelligent design in nature, the observable material evidence provides a reasonable basis from which to infer design, and such an inference supports a legitimate scientific hypothesis of ''intelligent'' design. As such, Intelligent Design theory is a scientific disagreement with the core claim of materialistic theories of [[evolution]] such as chemical and Darwinian evolution <ref>Darwinian Evolution: A materialistic theory of the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors through a process of descent with modification. The theory postulates that evolutionary change is the result of material causes [i.e., unintelligent causes due to the interactions of matter, energy, and the forces of nature], driven primarily by random variation and natural selection. The forces include gravity, the electromagnetic force and the weak and strong nuclear forces that define the structure of atoms. With respect to explaining the cosmos, the laws of chemistry and physics such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics dictate that material causes operate in generally periodic or regular patterns at best, and in entropy-increasing randomness at worst. ''See'', "Thirty-eight Nobel Laureates, ''Nobel Laureates Initiative,'' (The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, September 9, 2005), stressing to Kansas State Board of Education: “[E]volution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.”</ref> that the design exhibited in our universe is merely ''apparent'' design, i.e., ''unintelligent'' design caused by unguided, purposeless, natural forces of physics and chemistry alone.<ref>As used in this article, "materialism" is used synonymously with "naturalism". Naturalism is a philosophical doctrine that material causes alone are adequate to account for all natural phenomena and that teleological (design) conceptions of nature are invalid.</ref>

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection—how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence ('''[[SETI]]'''). An inference that certain cosmological and biological features of the natural world may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.<ref>For example, Stephen C. Meyer, Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, notes at [http://www.discovery.org/a/1671 A Note to Teachers Stephen C. Meyer and Mark Hartwig, Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins May 1, 1993], the problem with limiting explanations to only "natural" causes: "Archaeologists routinely distinguish manufactured objects (e.g., arrowheads, potsherds) from natural ones (e.g., stones), even when the differences between them are very subtle. These manufactured objects then become important clues in reconstructing past ways of life. But if we arbitrarily assert that science explains solely by reference to natural laws, if archaeologists are prohibited from invoking an intelligent manufacturer, the whole archaeological enterprise comes to a grinding halt."</ref>

Intelligent Design theory, like all theories of origins, is scientifically and religiously controversial. All theories of origins are scientifically controversial because they often amount to [[Subjectivism|subjective]] historical narratives that seek to explain unobserved and unobservable singular past events that occurred many years ago and that cannot be adequately tested in the laboratory. They are religiously controversial because all religions, including non-theistic religions, depend on a particular origins narrative. Intelligent Design proponents believe institutions of science, including government agencies, public schools and universities, should strive for objectivity and academic freedom in facilitating origins teaching and research. Objectivity in the evaluation and interpretation of material evidence ensures that all evidence-based explanations for natural phenomena can be considered fairly on their respective merits, regardless of their ultimate metaphysical or religious implications. Institutions of science should promote objectivity and academic freedom, especially where minority viewpoints challenge scientific orthodoxy.

Despite its many strengths, many [[Young Earth Creationism|biblical creationists]], while acknowledging those strengths, criticize the Intelligent Design theory for refusing to specify the identity of the designer, refusing to bring the Christian God and the Bible into the picture, and for accepting long ages and a theistic theory of evolution.<ref name="Whitcomb"/><ref name="PurdomChapter13"/>

== Intelligent Design, Evolution, and the Nature of Origins Science ==
'''[[Origins science]]''' is the scientific inquiry about biological and cosmological origins.<ref>''See'', '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', definition of Origins Science, '''Intelligent Design Network''' http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf</ref> Scientists investigating such origins seek to propose explanations for the direct cause of unobserved events and processes that occurred in the very remote past that can not be duplicated under presently observable conditions and that are not amenable to experimental confirmation. Explanations can only be inferred from the evidence. Intelligent design theorists argue that the evidence naturally leads to an inference of design. Darwinists argue unguided purposeless causes ''despite'' the clear evidence of design. Because no explanation can be tested by experimental methods, the historical nature of origins science can only lead to inferences, and the question is simply which inference is most reasonable.
[[Image:Ernst_Mayr.jpg|thumb|150px|left|[[Ernst Mayr]]]]
Preeminent 20th century Darwinist [[Ernst Mayr]], billed as “one of the great shining figures of evolutionary biology” <ref>Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'' (New York: Basic Books, 2001); back cover, quote attributed to John Maynard Smith.</ref> correctly noted in his book entitled ''What Evolution Is'':

<blockquote>
"Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented. Evolution as a whole, and the explanations of particular evolutionary event, must be inferred from observations." <ref>Ernst Mayr, ''What Evolution Is'', (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 12.</ref>
</blockquote>
[[Image:Stephen Meyer.jpg|thumb|100px|right|Dr. [[Stephen Meyer]] Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute]]

In a more detailed description of the method for investigating and explaining origins Mayr said:

<blockquote>
“...Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science – the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. ''Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes.'' Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” <ref>Ernst Mayr, ''Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought'', p. 80, (July 2000, Scientific American) emphasis added.</ref>

</blockquote>

Mayr's statement does not define "evolution", but his point is valid.<ref>"Evolution" is in quotes because one of the problems faced in debating "evolution" is the lack of a precise definition. If "evolution" is used to mean "micro-evolution" (minor changes like finch beak variation observed within some species), then "evolution" is uncontroversial. However, if (as Mayr intends, but does not state) by "evolution" is meant "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems", then Mayr is correct -- "evolution" is not experimentally confirmable, and, exactly like Intelligent Design, can only be inferred from observations.</ref> More objectively, his statement should be that origins (whether cosmological or biological) are due to a historical process that cannot be proven . . . but must be inferred from observations. Thus the methods used to discern the cause of historical events and processes differ from those of inductive, experimental science, and inferences based on observations should not be limited only to inferences of unintelligent causation. As with other historical sciences like archeology, historical geology, forensics and cryptanalysis, origins science asks different kinds of questions and uses different methods than do inductive sciences. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates based on direct experimental observation. The historical sciences, on the other hand, use abductive reasoning that asks how certain or probable observable phenomena came to be, the answer to which often cannot be discovered through direct observation. Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] fully develops this line of thought.

The distinction between inductive and historical sciences is not an idea inspired by intelligent design theory. The '''[[National Academy of Sciences]]''' (NAS) makes the same distinction to defend "evolution" as science.<ref>As noted above, with respect to Mayr's statement, "evolution" is in quotes here again because the NAS fails to use the term with a precise meaning. If "evolution" is used to mean "micro-evolution" (the minor change like finch beak variation, usually inconsequential, but observed within some species), then of course "evolution" is scientific and verifiable by experimentation. However, if by "evolution" is meant "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems", then "evolution" is not experimentally confirmable, as the NAS notes. However, as the NAS notes, such lack of being able to be experimentally confirmed does not remove a hypothesis from the realm of science (otherwise, as the NAS confirms, "evolution" would not be science).</ref> In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'',<ref>''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' Washington DC, National Academy Press, (1998), p. 55.</ref> the NAS responds to the question, "How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?":

<blockquote>
This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. . . . Something that happened in the past is thus not "off limits" for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions.<ref>http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Intelligent design theorists agree; one must not take a “narrow view” of science, such that certain disciplines like archeology, the '''[[SETI]]''' project, forensics, and intelligent design are removed from the realm of science. Such disciplines propose hypotheses, and the testing of these hypotheses is often only effective by proposing competing hypotheses and objectively analyzing the evidence to determine which hypothesis correlates best with the evidence. As '''Carol Cleland''' elaborates in her paper entitled ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'', in actual practice historical researchers tend to search for “positive evidence—a smoking gun.” <ref>Carol Cleland, ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'' (Geology, November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11), pp. 987-990.</ref> Ms. Cleland explores the necessary role of hypothesis testing for scientific disciplines not amenable to classical experimental testing. Hypothesis testing by formulating multiple competing hypotheses is essential in the context of historical sciences, such as cosmology, geology, and biogenesis. According to Cleland, “A smoking gun is a trace that picks out one of the competing hypotheses as providing a better causal explanation for the currently available traces than the other.” <ref>Carol Cleland, ''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method'' (Geology, November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11) p. 988.</ref>

== Methods of Intelligent Design Detection ==

''See also:'' [[Irreducible complexity]] and [[Argument from beauty]]
[[File:Fire-investigator.jpg|275px|right|thumbnail|Design detection is used in a variety of [[science]]s including [[forensic]] science that investigates the cause of a death or fire.]]
Design detection asks whether an effect or pattern that arose unobserved in the past is due to intelligent or unintelligent material causes. Is the pattern or effect a design or just an occurrence?

Design detection is used in a variety of sciences including forensic science that investigates the cause of a death or fire. It is also used in archeology, anthropology, cryptanalysis, copyright infringement, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and the search for function or purpose in genetic sequences. It is key to the current debate over the origin of the cosmos and life. Are these “effects” or patterns that arose long ago the product of an intelligent or material cause? Are the effects designs, i.e., the result of intelligent manipulation, or just occurrences?

The question of causation turns on whether the characteristics of a given pattern or effect are within the capacity of the cause to which it may be attributable. Do unintelligent material causes have the ability or capacity to account for the occurrence of a replicating cell? Does Darwinism's unintelligent material causes, consisting of random variation and natural selection, have the capacity to account for the diversity of life once it gets started? To start the analysis, one should first compare and contrast the capacities of intelligent causes and unintelligent material causes and the kinds of patterns those capacities produce.

===The Capacity of Unintelligent Material Causes ===
Unintelligent material causes consist simply of the interactions of the properties of matter, energy and the forces. These interactions are generally governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, such as the laws of motion and thermodynamics. These causes do not have the capacity to “know” the environment within which they exist and then seek to change it for a particular future purpose. In other words, as stated by evolutionary biologist '''Douglas J. Futuyma''', they lack forward looking "foreknowledge. . . only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose.”<ref>“Darwin's immeasurably important contribution to science was to show how mechanistic causes could also explain all biological phenomena, despite their apparent evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. ......Darwin undid the essentialism that Western philosophy had inherited from Plato and Aristotle, and put variation in its place. He helped to replace a static conception of the world with the vision of a world of ceaseless change. Above all, his theory of random, purposeless variation acted on by blind, purposeless natural selection provided a revolutionary new kind of answer to almost all questions that begin with "Why?" It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that before Darwin, both philosophers and people in general answered "Why?" questions by citing purpose. Only an intelligent mind, one with the capacity for forethought, can have purpose. Thus questions like "Why do plants have flowers?" or "Why are there apple trees?"? or plagues, or storms? were answered by imagining the possible purpose that God could have had in creating them.” Douglas J. Futuyma, '''Evolutionary Biology''', Third Edition,(Sinauer Associates, Inc. 1998) p. 5, 8.</ref>

Material causes are to nature as thoughts are to a dead man. The past, present and future is irrelevant to material causes for they can’t comprehend it. Unintelligent material causes are not merely blind watchmakers, they are mindless, purposeless, and meaningless. Lacking a mind, they lack the capacity to “make” anything. Unintelligent material causes can adequately account for physical systems like the occurrence of rocks, rivers, wind and rain. However, it is not clear how they account for time-dependent living systems or themselves.

The laws of motion explain that matter stays in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it. Thus, patterns produced by material causes reflect an intersection of forces which start or stop the motion of matter. An intervening warm spell that melted a glacier carrying rocks and boulders caused them to come to rest in an unsorted pattern as glacial till. Similarly, when the Mississippi River hits the Gulf of Mexico it drops a load that forms a fan-shaped delta.

The starting and stopping of matter may also be produced by interactions due to the properties of atoms, electrons and molecules. In a snowflake, the particular chemical properties of hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms at a specific temperature and pressure, necessitate that they join together and stop in regular hexagonal lattices. Crystals of salt and other minerals “grow” through the stopping of atoms otherwise in motion until the source of new material is depleted or the conditions conducive to the growth change.

With this combination of law and chance, unintelligent material causes produce patterns both random and regular. Sand dunes and snowflakes exhibit regular and periodic patterns driven by constant forces. Random patterns also arise as systems are suddenly interrupted as in the case of an auto accident or a melting glacier that drops an unsorted load.

Although material causes can move matter uniformly and also start it and stop it suddenly, physical systems generally move from states of order to states of disorder per the second law of thermodynamics.

===The Capacity of Intelligent Causes===
Intelligent causes produced by minds are ubiquitous to the natural world. Humans have minds, as do birds and beavers. We are also finding that cellular systems appear to have a kind of internal intelligence. The immune system consists of cells that act as forward observers that look for foreign invaders. Those observers on the front line send messages to command central that develops weapons to be used to defend against the attack.

Intelligent causes differ from unintelligent material causes in that intelligent causes have minds hooked up to input and output devices that have the capacity to manipulate unintelligent material causes for a purpose. Intelligent causes perceive the present, store the perception in memory to build experience and then process the experience and knowledge to predict what will occur in the future. Intelligent causes have knowledge that can be processed by processors to generate “foreknowledge,” while unintelligent material causes have neither. Intelligent causes also have the capacity to choose to change the future so that a desired or intended goal or purpose is achieved and to generate outputs efficient to achieve the purpose. Intelligent causes use unintelligent material causes and the stuff unintelligent material causes produce to make a bird’s nest, a beaver’s dam or an aqueduct.

Patterns produced by a mind like the dam, nest or aqueduct often reflect millions of precise starting and stopping points not found in systems driven only by the uniform motion of regular natural forces, stopped only by accidental opposing forces. Patterns produced by intelligent causes integrate starts and stops for a purpose. The integration becomes clear when the pattern is both complex and useful. The integrated stopping points are evident in the case of the nest, dam and aqueduct. But for the stopping of matter at integrated precise points, the assembly would not function as a whole. This article reflects thousands of instances where matter has been started and then stopped – integrated - to produce precise, and hopefully understandable, meaning. Unlike patterns produced by the chemical and physical necessity of matter in uniform motion, designs consist of patterns of stopping points that are integrated for a particular purpose. Minds tie events together to for a purpose. Material causes do not. When the patterns are both complex and purposeful the inference to an intelligent cause is compelling.
[[Image:Saint Thomas Aquinas.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|[[St. Thomas Aquinas]] ]]
In the 13th Century, the famous Christian Philosopher, [[Thomas Aquinas]], noted that systems which have a purpose either have a mind or are driven by one:

<blockquote>
"We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end....... Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer."<ref>St. Thomas Aquinas, '''The Summa Theologica''', (1265-1274).
</ref> </blockquote>

Thus design detection begins with a search for purpose. If a pattern exhibits an apparent purpose, the inquiry turns to whether the apparent purpose is just an illusion. Perhaps the pattern can be adequately explained by unintelligent material causes alone. If not, then logic suggests that mind may be the more adequate explanation for the pattern.

===Formal Design Detection Methodology===

Formal design detection is not often used. Design detection methodology is not often employed because the human mind has an inherent capacity to distinguish between patterns arranged by a mind for a purpose and those that have not. Scientists have found that minds engage in subconscious pattern matching, which is a means of intuitively distinguishing between designs and occurrences.

Formal analysis is employed when a dispute arises about the cause of a pattern. Examples include investigations of deaths and peculiar fires that look for signs of murder or arson. Archaeologists debate over whether a rock is a rock or an artifact. Astronomers analyze radio and light waves in search of messages from alien minds. So far all of the tests of extraterrestrial radio waves for intelligence have been negative. The cause of life and its diversity are major areas of dispute as much is at stake. Religious and other world views depend on the best explanation for those events.

====Formal Design Detection -- ''The Explanatory Filter''====
[[Image:Wm Dembski.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|Dr. [[William Dembski]] ]]
Dr. [[William Dembski]] is a leading intelligent design theorist, and has written several books on the subject, including ''Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology'',<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Between-Science-Theology/dp/083082314X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194228951&sr=1-2</ref> and ''The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory)''.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Design-Inference-Eliminating-Probabilities-Probability/dp/0521678676/ref=sr_1_7/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194229141&sr=1-7</ref> Dr. Dembski has a Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, and an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary. One of Dembski's contributions to the intelligent design movement is to set forth one method of detecting design, a method he describes as the "[[explanatory filter]]".

Dembski describes his three-part '''explanatory filter''' together with an example of its use in a paper published at '''Access Research Network'''.<ref>http://www.arn.org</ref> In the paper, entitled ''The Explanatory Filter: A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design'',<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm</ref>

Dembski found that all formal design detection methodologies can be reduced to three logical steps in what he refers to as an explanatory filter. The filter first asks whether a given pattern is best explained by some chemical or physical necessity or law? If not, can it be explained by chance. If chance and necessity can’t explain the pattern, does it exhibit a “specification” or apparent purpose? If a complex pattern reflecting the integration of numerous stopping points does exhibit purpose and can’t be explained by chance or necessity, then the scientific, logical inference to the best explanation is design.

===Informal Design Detection Methodology===
====Intuition, Common Sense and Confirmation====
An inference of design first springs from intuition – subconscious pattern-matching that alerts the mind to a pattern that reflects a purpose or pre-existing intention. We see knives in the back of dead man and intuitively start looking for a mind that arranged the event – a suspect. If the data are strong enough common sense causes us to follow up on that lead, not ignore it. Common sense reflects a judgment about the most prudent of a set of possible choices. If the evidence leads toward design, then common sense suggests an exploration of the lead in an effort to confirm or disconfirm it.

Therefore, at a basic level design detection is a matter of common sense, an intuitive determination we all make based on our everyday experiences with intelligently designed things. The intuitive, common sense approach is the primary method used by scientists such as archaeologists. No one expects an archaeologist to provide a rigorous "proof" that a pot or sculpture found in the ground is the result of an intelligent being. The archaeologist may not know who made the pot or why (and usually has no way to find out), but the fact of intelligent design is rarely in question. As in a similar concept of attaching intelligent agency to an event in law, we can rationally say ''res ipsa loquitur'', or "the thing speaks for itself". There is no principled reason to ignore the common sense approach when it comes to living biological systems. We may not know who made living systems or why, but the fact of intelligent design can be easily and intuitively grasped.
[[File:WilliamPaley3.jpg|thumb|230px|left|William Paley]]
Perhaps the best example of the common sense approach to design detection was that put forth by William Paley in his famous "watchmaker analogy". William Paley (July 1743 – May 25, 1805) was a British theologian and philosopher. He used the watchmaker analogy as an argument for the existence of God in his book ''Natural Theology''. Paley states his analogy:
<blockquote>
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.

</blockquote>

Scientists who hold Darwinism dogmatically object to the common sense approach, not based on the fact of design, but on the metaphysical implications of considering true, intelligent design. Attempting to conflate the "what" of design with the "who" in biological systems is the tactic of those philosophically opposed to a supposed supernatural designer, i.e., those who fear a "divine foot in the door" of science. But such fear should not be tolerated by true scientists; design can be detected independent of any inquiry into the identity of the designer. Imagine archeology being rejected as science because there is absolutely no way to identify the designer of a clearly designed pot; such notions should be rejected by true scientists. Permitting the logical, common sense inference of intelligent design in the face of material evidence of design should be expected of honest scientists.

== Evidence for Intelligent Design in Nature ==

''See also:'' [[Irreducible complexity]] and [[Anthropic principle]]

[[Image:Phillip_johnson_arn.gif|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Phillip E. Johnson]], Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law, Emeritus]]
Virtually all scientists, including evolutionists,<ref>The term "evolutionist" is used in its "strong form" to describe those who hold and defend the position that all the variety of life is the result solely of naturalistic processes. Therefore, the term refers to those who rule out any intelligent causation for any aspect of life (if intelligence plays any role whatsoever, then whatever the theory, it is a form of intelligent design). While everyone is an "evolutionist" if "evolution" is defined in its weak form as simply "change over time" or "micro-evolution" such as finch beak variation, not everyone is an "evolutionist" if "evolution" is used, as herein, to mean "unguided, purposeless processes to produce new and beneficial changes in living systems". Evolutionists who oppose Intelligent Design believe that unintelligent processes of physics and chemistry can explain the creation of every novel and beneficial feature of the various species, including wings, eyes, and brains. Darwinism is the leading naturalistic evolutionary theory, holding that all life forms descended as modified forms of previous life forms in an unguided, unintelligent process, i.e., Darwin's "descent with modification".</ref> observe design in nature. Fossils exhibit design. Living body plans exhibit design. Micro-biological features such as DNA exhibit design. The evidentiary question is not a question of the '''''existence''''' of design in nature, but the '''''cause''''' of design in nature.

Only two causes are available to explain the design evident in nature: '''''unintelligent''''' causes and '''''intelligent causes'''''. '''Unintelligent causes''' include the natural actions of physics and chemistry, operating alone by natural laws in space and time. Unintelligent causes cannot produce true design, so Darwinists dismiss the evident design in nature as merely the "appearance" of design.

Intelligent design proponent [[Phillip E. Johnson]] illustrates the obstinancy of evolutionary scientists to recognize intelligent causation of design in nature when he wrote the following:
[[Image:Francis Crick.jpg|thumb|px130|left|[[Francis Crick]], co-discoverer of the structure of [[DNA]]]]
{{cquote|"One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir [[Francis Crick]], the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner...In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are."<ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html</ref>}}

'''Intelligent causes''' include the actions of an intelligent agent (which may be unknown, such as in anonymous works of art, or in archeological finds) manipulating physics and chemistry to create something that physics and chemistry alone cannot. Only intelligent causes can produce true design.

The question is not, therefore, "is there evidence of design in nature?" Rather, the scientific question is, "Based on the evidence of design observed in nature, what causes best explain design?" Framed this way, potential explanations, or theories, are not limited by a predetermined bias, such as only unintelligent causes (e.g., Darwinism) or only intelligent causes (e.g., creationism). The question simply asks, "in accordance with the scientific method, what causes can be logically inferred from the evidence?"

With the proper question in mind, it is easy to see that virtually all the evidence used to support Darwinism is equally evidence in support of Intelligent Design. '''Cosmological''' evidence for design is described at '''[[Evidence for intelligent design in cosmology]]''' section. '''Biological''' evidence for intelligent design includes '''''general evidence''''' and '''''special evidence''''', and both are discussed at '''[[General and Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology]]'''. For all material evidence, the evidentiary value can be determined by use of the '''[[Evidence Filter]]'''.

=== Anthropic principle ===

''See also:'' [[Anthropic principle]]

There is a strong body of evidence for a Designer that comes from the fine-tuning of the universal constants and the solar system.<ref name="creation.com">[http://creation.com/the-universe-is-finely-tuned-for-life The universe is finely tuned for life] by Jonathan Sarfati</ref>

The anthropic principle states that the reason the constants of nature appear so finely tuned to life, is that if it were otherwise, life such as ourselves would not have developed. Hence we should not be surprised that the laws of physics are enable life such as ourselves to exist.

Former [[Atheism|atheist]] Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] states, "commonsense interpretation of the facts is that a super-intelligence has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces in nature."<ref name="creation.com"/>

==Examples of Intelligent Design Theory Used in Science==
[[File:11943452 115b299206.jpg|thumbnail|275px|right|[[Forensic]] scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime. ]]
Intelligent design detection is uncontroversial in many well-accepted scientific disciplines. In each of the scientific disciplines listed below, scientists evaluate the evidence objectively, that is, there is no pre-determined rule of interpretation that dictates that only ''unintelligent'' causes can be considered.

'''Forensic sciences''': [[Forensic]] scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime. For example, a forensic investigator investigating a death uses scientific evidence to determine whether the death was caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., murder).

'''Archeology''': Archaeologists are virtually dependent upon the science of design detection. Working with present-day evidence left from the past, archaeologists seek to determine whether artifacts were caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., clay) or intelligent causes (i.e., a clay pot).

'''Cryptanalysis''': Cryptanalysis is the scientific endeavor of code breaking. Code breakers examine the observable evidence of a string or pattern of characters to determine if it contains a message or if it is simply a string of random, meaningless characters.

'''Arson investigation''': Arson investigators observe evidence and attempt to explain the cause of a fire; was it caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., accidental ignition), or by intelligent causes (i.e., arson).

'''Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence''': The name says it all. These scientists are observing evidence in the form of radio signals to determine if the signals are the result of unintelligent causes (i.e., background radiation in space), or by intelligent causes (i.e., extraterrestrial intelligence).

Each of the above scientific disciplines utilize design detection to determine if the cause of observed evidence is due to unintelligent or intelligent agency. Usually, such as in the case of archaeologists observing clay pots, the detection and determination of design is intuitive and assumed without further justification. No rigorous analytical method is required of archaeologists to support a finding of design; nothing beyond the simple, rational recognition of what is consistent with the human experience of intelligent design is necessary.

== Intelligent design theorists and life on other planets ==

[[The Privileged Planet]] is an intelligent design theory documentary which argues that the earth contains a rare and finely-tuned array of factors which makes earth suitable for complex life.<ref>[http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ The Privileged Planet documentary website]</ref>

The proposal that first life came about through natural processes has not fared well in recent times. The prominent [[origin of life]] researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.<ref name="Why Abiogenesis is impossible">[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]</ref>

== Religious Implications of Origins Science ==
Any theory of origins unavoidably impacts religion.<ref>One should not make the mistake of equating "religion" with only traditional theistic religions like [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]], or [[Islam]]. As used herein the term is used as defined in the Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science: Religion: A broad range of theistic and non-theistic religions and religious belief systems.</ref> As stated in Article II.C of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''':<ref name="intelligentdesignnetwork.org">http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf</ref>
<blockquote>
Implications of scientific explanations of origins unavoidably impact religion, ethics, morality, government and politics. The implications of materialistic explanations (such as Darwinism) of origins support the central tenets of non-theistic religions,<ref>Non-theistic religions are religions and belief systems that presuppose that no God intervenes in the natural world and that material causes, such as unguided evolutionary change, are adequate to explain natural phenomena. Non-theistic religions include [[atheism]], [[Secular Humanism]], and [[Scientism]], as well as some forms of [[Buddhism]] and other eastern religions. By way of example, the Humanist Manifesto I sets forth the first two "affirmations" of religious humanism as "FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created; and, SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process." Thus, Darwinism supports the central tenets of a religious belief.</ref> while the implications of teleological<ref>Teleological: Exhibiting or relating to design or purpose, especially in nature. ''See'', Merriam-Webster Online</ref> explanations (such as Intelligent Design) support the central tenets of theistic religions. Both theistic and non-theistic religions and worldviews address questions of ethics, morality, government and politics.<ref>ibid, Article II.C</ref>
</blockquote>
[[Image:Atheism.jpg|thumb|right|195px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789) was an early advocate of [[atheism]] in [[Europe]].]]
Therefore, it should not be surprising that most theists are sympathetic to intelligent design because the science of intelligent design supports the theology of theistic religions like [[Christianity]]. Likewise, it is not surprising that virtually all atheists are Darwinists because the science of Darwinism supports the theology of non-theistic religions such as religious humanism (having a theology of atheism). The simple fact is that worldviews and interpretations of evidence go hand in hand. If, for example, your world view prohibits explanations involving intelligent design, then you will reject intelligent design in spite of the evidence, not because of it.

For this reason, as stated in Article III.A. of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''', if '''truth''' is the goal:
<blockquote>
Institutions of science should ignore religious and ethical implications of competing historical hypotheses and strive for '''objectivity'''<ref>Objective: Not influenced by personal bias or prejudice; based on facts. An objective position is one that is Secular, Neutral, and Non-ideological.</ref> in the conduct and teaching of origins science. Institutional objectivity may be achieved by encouraging healthy competition among scientists holding differing scientific views regarding origins, consistent with the scientific method.<ref>ibid, Article III.A</ref>
</blockquote>

This is because, as stated in Article II.B. of the '''Statement of Objectives Regarding Origins Science''':
<blockquote>
The adequacy of scientific explanations of origins depends on an analysis of competing possibilities. Origins explanations use a form of '''abductive'''<ref>Abduction, or abductive reasoning, is the process of reasoning to the best explanations. In other words, it is the reasoning process that starts from a set of facts and derives their most likely explanations. See, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning</ref> reasoning that produces competing Historical Hypotheses, that lead to an inference to the best current explanation rather than to an explanation that is logically compelled by experimental confirmation. Due to inherent limitations on the experimental validation of historical hypotheses, testing requires rigorous competition between alternative hypotheses so that their relative strengths and plausibilities may be compared. While competition among multiple hypotheses decreases subjectivity, it may nevertheless result in no adequate current explanation.<ref>ibid, Article II.B</ref>
</blockquote>

==Objections to Intelligent Design==
===Creationist Objections to Intelligent Design===
Many Biblical creationists and other theists object to Intelligent Design as failing to identify the alleged designer and refusing to bring the Christian God and the Bible into the picture.<ref name="Whitcomb">Whitcomb, John C., Ph.D. (2006). [http://www.icr.org/article/history-impact-book-the-genesis-flood/ The History and Impact of the Book, "The Genesis Flood"]. ''ICR.org'' (from ''Acts & Facts. 35 (5)''). Retrieved October 26, 2016.</ref> This objection is expressed well by Georgia Purdom, Ph.D. of '''[[Answers in Genesis]]''' in an article entitled '''''Does the Identity of the Creator Really Matter?''''' Dr. Purdom sums up the major objection:

<blockquote>
However, the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement</ref>
</blockquote>

The reader is encouraged to read Dr. Purdom's full article, as it fairly and thoroughly deals with the objection at hand. Building on the same thoughts, the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]], Dr. [[Carl Wieland]], notes:

<blockquote>
The Intelligent Design Movement’s motivation appears to be the desire to challenge the blind acceptance of the materialistic, godless, naturalistic philosophy of Darwinian evolution. They confront many of the philosophical underpinnings of today’s evolutionary thinking. As a movement, they are unwilling to align themselves with biblical creationism.<ref name="CMI IDM">[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2560 CMI’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement]</ref>
</blockquote>

Referring to Intelligent Design as the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM), Weiland pinpoints the specific objection as:
<blockquote>
The IDM’s refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God, and in particular with the history in the Bible, means that:
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.<ref>See the 2004 book by CMI speaker Gary Bates: Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection. [footnote in original]</ref> In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
There is no philosophical answer to their opponents’ logically-deduced charge that the Designer was monstrous and/or inept (‘look at all the horrible, cruel, even defective things in the living world’), since bringing up the Fall is deliberately, tactically excluded. (However, the Fall was a major event in history, that changed everything. The world we are looking at now is a world that has been corrupted by sin, not the original world that God designed). Thus, the movement’s success could very likely even be counterproductive, by laying the Biblical God open to ridicule and contempt in new ways.<ref name="CMI IDM" />
</blockquote>

In addition to the fair criticisms listed above, biblical creationists also criticize the intelligent design theory for continuing to accept long ages and the theory of evolution along with the existence of some designer.<ref name="PurdomChapter13">Purdom, Georgia, Dr. (May 6, 2010). [https://answersingenesis.org/intelligent-design/is-the-intelligent-design-movement-christian/ Chapter 13 - Is the Intelligent Design Movement Christian?]. ''Answers in Genesis'' (from ''The New Answers Book 2''). Retrieved October 25, 2016.</ref>

====Response to Creationist Objections====
[[Image:Carl wieland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] ]]
Intelligent design theorists appreciate the criticisms of creationists such as Purdom and Wieland, and, in fact, most intelligent design theorists are creationists themselves. And while most intelligent design theorists would agree with Dr. Purdom that the Creator and his creation "reflect on each other," they would disagree that "the Creator and His creation cannot be separated." The "separation" is epistemological, that is, there is a distinction between ''how'' one can know anything about the creation versus the creator. Just as a painter can be separated from a painting, so that the painting is labelled "anonymous", and just as an archaeologist can infer a designer of a clay pot without knowing the designer's actual identity, the ''fact'' of a creator in nature can be determined scientifically, but the ''specific'' creator cannot.

Intelligent design theorists recognize that the scientific method places limits as to the kind of knowledge that can be determined scientifically. Intelligent design theorists hold that intelligent design is a logical inference based on observation of material evidence in nature. That is, intelligent design can be determined as a matter of science alone in full accord with the scientific method. But science can say little about who the designer is.

The intelligent design position is expressed well in an article by Casey Luskin entitled '''''Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why Intelligent Design Doesn’t Identify the Designer'''''. Luskin states, referring to a law review article he co-authored:

<blockquote>
David DeWolf, John West and I also address this issue in our recent Montana Law Review article:
It is important to stress that the refusal of ID proponents to draw scientific conclusions about the nature or identity of the designer is principled rather than merely rhetorical. ID is primarily a historical science, meaning it uses principles of uniformitarianism to study present-day causes and then applies them to the historical record in order to infer the best explanation for the origin of the natural phenomena being studied. ID starts with observations from “uniform sensory experience” showing the effects of intelligence in the natural world. As Pandas explains, scientists have uniform sensory experience with intelligent causes (i.e. humans), thus making intelligence an appropriate explanatory cause within historical scientific fields. However, the “supernatural” cannot be observed, and thus historical scientists applying uniformitarian reasoning cannot appeal to the supernatural. If the intelligence responsible for life was supernatural, science could only infer the prior action of intelligence, but could not determine whether the intelligence was supernatural.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=4306, citing David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin, “Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover,” 68 Montana Law Review 7, 30 (Spring, 2007) (internal citations removed).</ref>

</blockquote>
Further, it appears that Dr. Weiland's concern that "[a]cceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions" is unfounded. Certainly some who are honestly convinced of true intelligent design might entertain "sci-fi notions," but the evidence supports the opposite—i.e., those convinced of design are more likely to entertain thoughts of a supernatural God. Like Aristotle of ancient Greece, those who reasonably and honestly are convinced of true design in nature are more likely to follow the pattern Dr. Pordum highlighted from Romans 1:18-20. That is, the creation speaks to a supernatural, infinite, eternal creator.

Take the example of former atheist Anthony Flew, as discussed by intelligent design theorist Phillip E. Johnson, in an article entitled '''''Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects'''''. First Johnson reiterates:

<blockquote>
The goal of the Intelligent Design Movement is to achieve an open philosophy of science that permits consideration of any explanations toward which the evidence may be pointing.<ref name="discovery.org">http://www.discovery.org/a/3914</ref>
</blockquote>

However, Johnson notes with respect to the practical effects of such an open philosophy:

<blockquote>
One early sign of the way the world is headed came in December 2004, when there was much comment in newspapers and internet discussion groups about famed atheist philosopher Anthony Flew. Flew had just announced that he had converted to philosophical theism (though not to Christianity or any other specific religion, at least as yet), on the basis of scientific discoveries and related reasoning, which had convinced him that there is an intelligent designer of the natural universe. Flew seems to have investigated the phenomenon of design in the natural world for reasons similar to my own. He wanted to decide for himself whether evidence and logic point in the direction of a creating intelligence, or whether God is nothing more than a subjective idea created by human imagination. Perhaps these questions about the reality of god are religious in nature, but they are important questions that deserve to be investigated dispassionately instead of being barred from consideration because powerful groups define “science” as committed a priori to naturalism.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>

Although as yet Flew does not adhere to Christianity or any other creedal faith, he has taken a giant step in that direction. In an article in the London Independent for December 27, 2004, an Oxford University theologian wrote: “What kind of God could it [i.e. Flew’s designer] refer to? One who created the universe–elementary particles, strong and weak forces, atoms and molecules, yet, for example, has no relation to the emergence of a clever humanity? Or could it be a God who was intelligent enough to create galaxies, and amazingly intricate systems like DNA, yet not intelligent enough to communicate with humankind? Although Flew does not believe in revelation, and may not feel that the Book of Genesis provides a useful account of creation, he does not seem to have quite this kind of minimalist God in mind either. In fact when pressed as to whether his ‘First Cause’ embraced omniscience, Flew admits that a First Cause, if there is one, has clearly produced everything that is going on, and this implies creation ‘in the beginning.’”<ref name="discovery.org"/>

</blockquote>

Intelligent design theorists leave the identity of the designer open as a matter of scientific discipline. Even though everyone, including creationists must rely on special revelation (i.e., the Bible) to know specifics about the designer, everyone can know the fact of design based on general revelation (i.e., nature).

===Methodological Naturalist Objections to Intelligent Design===
Many scientists object to intelligent design on the basis that intelligent design "is not science."

The validity of this objection depends on what is meant by the terms "intelligent design" and "science". If "science" is defined objectively (as in Websters dictionary: 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.<ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science</ref>) and "intelligent design" is defined as in this article, then intelligent design is clearly, without question "science", and the objection of methodological naturalists is overcome.

The term "methodological naturalism" describes a form of science in which science is assumed to be necessarily practiced as if naturalism were itself true (see also [[scientific materialism]]). Of course, "naturalism", which is a philosophy that holds there is no immaterial substance in the universe, i.e., all is matter alone, is an assumption-based philosophy. "Naturalism", like "materialism" as a philosophy holds that there is no supernatural in the universe, no spirit, no soul, and, of course, no God.

Methodological naturalists are scientists that, while perhaps not themselves being full-fledged naturalists (although growing numbers are), insist that science be practiced as if naturalism were true. If this method of practicing science is adhered to, then intelligent design cannot be science, because intelligent design posits the possibility of a ''supernatural'' designer.

One way to illustrate the objection is this: Consider two definitions of science:

<blockquote>
1. Science is the activity of seeking explanations for natural phenomena.

</blockquote>
<blockquote>
2. Science is the activity of seeking only natural (i.e., unintelligent) causes as explanations for natural phenomena.

</blockquote>
The first definition above is an objective, bias-free definition, for which intelligent design qualifies as science. However, the second definition above is one in which the objective definition has been qualified by the term "natural", which assumes there ''are'' natural, i.e., unintelligent, causes for natural phenomena.

The second definition is the definition that methodological naturalists insist be adopted as ''the'' definition for science. However, the "natural causes alone" criteria for gaining scientific knowledges is based upon an assumption that there ''is'' a natural cause for all natural phenomena. If intelligent design is true, scientists operating by the second definition above will never be able to come to the truth. The insistence on only "natural causes" imports a philosophical bias into the objective definition, which is then defended based not on '''''knowledge''''', but an '''''assumption'''''. Therefore, methodological naturalists "define out" of science intelligent design based on a philosophical assumption.

====Response to Naturalist Objection====

The simple response to methodological naturalism, which is the only principled basis for excluding intelligent design from science, is that methodological naturalism improperly and unnecessarily restricts the realm of science.

By any objective definition of science, including dictionary definitions, intelligent design is science. But the controversy begs a larger question. Historically, the practice of science can be considered in two broad categories.
[[Image:Francis_Bacon.jpg|thumbnail|150px|[[Francis Bacon]]]]
First there is the inductive method espoused by [[Francis Bacon]]. Bacon pioneered the modern notion that science should let "evidence lead the inquiry" and "general axioms ought to be the end, not the beginning, of the scientific process."<ref>See, Cornelius G. Hunter, ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism, (Brazos Press, 2007), p. 15.</ref> Bacon specifically formulated his scientific method to ensure that religious speculation (including speculation about naturalism) was excluded from the scientific process. Thus, Bacon's scientific method proceeded based on observations of nature, and logical inferences derived from those observations.

Second, there is the deductive method espoused by René Descartes. Descartes argued that science needed mechanical, or naturalistic, descriptions that could explain, rather than merely label, the effects.<ref>See, Hunter, p. 17.</ref> According to Cornelius Hunter, in his book ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism,'' Descartes proposed a method of science in which "What science needed were naturalistic descriptions, even if they were not known to be true explanations. Thus, Cartesian explanations were hypothetical; Descartes argued that having a plausible yet incorrect description was better than no description at all."

Therefore, whether or not intelligent design is "science" depends on what approach one takes to science. If one takes the Baconian approach, letting the evidence lead the inquiry without presuppositions, intelligent design is science. Moreover, if one takes the Cartesian approach, intelligent design of biological systems can still be science; it depends on what hypothetical constraints are put upon scientific inquiry. Methodological naturalists place the "natural causes only" constraint on all scientific inquiry, and, therefore, define out of science the notion of any non-natural designer.

Intelligent design theorists maintain that the "natural causes only" constraint might be correct for operational science, but for historical sciences in which one is attempting to reconstruct a historical narrative based on present-day evidence, such a constraint does not make sense. For one thing, intelligent design theorists maintain that there is a difference between inductive and/or deductive sciences (each of which can be used in experimental sciences), and the "historical sciences". Intelligent design is scientific in both inductive and historical sciences (and deductive, without limiting biases), but can have its greatest value as a historical science.

The broad categories of "experimental sciences" and "historical sciences" ask different kinds of questions and use different kinds of methods. The inductive sciences, on the one hand, ask questions about how the natural world generally operates. The historical sciences, on the other hand, ask different kinds of questions. Rather than trying to understand how the natural world operates, the historical sciences seek to understand how things came to be. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer develops this line of thought fully in an article entitled ''Science and the Laws of Nature''.

The distinction between experimental and historical sciences is not an ID-inspired idea. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) makes the same distinction to defend the historical nature of evolution. In its publication ''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'', the NAS responds to the question, "How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?":

<blockquote>
This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. . . . Something that happened in the past is thus not "off limits" for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions.<ref>''Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science'' (Washington DC, National Academy Press, 1998), p. 55</ref>
</blockquote>

With respect to hypothesis testing, see, Carol Cleland, '''''Historical Science, Experimental Science and the Scientific Method''''', (''Geology'', November 2001, Vol. 29, No. 11, 987-990).

The fact is that historical sciences operate by different methods, including different methods of testing, than do experimental sciences. Historical sciences attempt to construct a historical narrative to explain current observed phenomena. The only way to "test" historical narratives is by comparing with competing historical narratives to see which one more closely aligns with the observed phenomena.

Intelligent design, therefore, is not only science, but as a competing historical narrative, it is a valuable scientific challenge to the naturalistic historical narrative of Darwinism. Without it, Darwinism ceases being science, and becomes an unchallengeable dogma.

== History of Intelligent Design ==
[[File:Aristotle.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Aristotle]] ]]
In many respects the history of intelligent design corresponds to the history of science in general; since the days of [[Aristotle]] most scientists have assumed design based on the clear evidence at hand. Moreover, the history of the modern intelligent design movement must be seen in the context of the ages-old tension between materialistic science and non-materialistic science. For a timeline directed specifically to the history of intelligent design and the creation - evolution controversy, see the '''IDEA Center's''' ''"Primer: History of intelligent design and the creation - evolution controversy".'' <ref>http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1119</ref>

Plato and Aristotle both argued that nature is ''teleological'', a term that comes from the Greek ''telos'' meaning "directed by goal or purpose". In other words, the evidence of nature leads logically to the idea that behind the purely natural is some kind of rational, non-natural order, something Plato referred to as "Form" and which Aristotle referred to as "Idea". Both were led to their conclusions by the commonsense notion that if the world really did consist of chance configurations of atoms, then knowledge would be impossible. (See Nancy Pearcey, ''Total Truth'', Appendix 3, p. 390.)<ref>Nancy R. Pearcey, ''Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity'' (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004)(http://www.amazon.com/Total-Truth-Liberating-Christianity-Captivity/dp/1581347464/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195005366&sr=1-1)</ref>

[[Image:Pearcey.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Nancy Pearcey]]
Modern intelligent design theory is simply a response to the resurgence of dominant materialistic thought, primarily as expressed by institutions of science such as universities and various academies of science. As '''Nancy Pearcey''' states: "By tracing the debate over Darwinism all the way back to [[Epicurus]] (a Greek materialist) we can place the theory in a much larger context. Darwinism was not entirely new, invented out of whole cloth." Likewise, the modern intelligent design movement can be placed in a larger context as a challenge to modern materialistic thought as enforced in modern science.

For more indepth study of the history of intelligent design, see '''William Dembski's''' work entitled ''Intelligent Design''.<ref>http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.08.Encyc_of_Relig.htm</ref> In particular, Dembski's bibliography and comments are reproduced here:

Bibliography
<blockquote>

Beckwith, Francis J. Law, Darwinism, and Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design. Lanham, Md., 2003. 

Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York, 1996. 

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. New York, 1986. 

Dembski, William A. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Lanham, Md., 2002. 

Forrest, Barbara. “The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream.” In Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, edited by Robert T. Pennock, pp. 5–53, Cambridge, Mass., 2001. 

Giberson, Karl W. and Donald A. Yerxa. Species of Origins: America’s Search for a Creation Story. Lanham, Md., 2002. 

Hunter, Cornelius G. Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Grand Rapids, Mich., 2002. 

Manson, Neil A., ed. God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. London, 2003. 

Miller, Kenneth R. Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. San Francisco, 1999. 

Rea, Michael C. World without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism. Oxford, 2002. 

Witham, Larry. By Design: Science and the Search for God. San Francisco, 2003. 

Woodward, Thomas. Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design. Grand Rapids, Mich., 2003. 
</blockquote>

Bibliographic Essay

<blockquote>[[Larry Witham]] provides the best overview of intelligent design, even-handedly treating its scientific, cultural, and religious dimensions. As a journalist, Witham has personally interviewed all the main players in the debate over intelligent design and allows them to tell their story. For intelligent design’s place in the science and religion dialogue, see Giberson and Yerxa. For histories of the intelligent design movement, see Woodward (a supporter) and Forrest (a critic). See Behe and Dembski to overview intelligent design’s scientific research program. For a critique of that program, see Miller. For an impassioned defense of Darwinism against any form of teleology or design, see Dawkins. Manson’s anthology situates intelligent design within broader discussions about teleology. Rea probes intelligent design’s metaphysical underpinnings. Hunter provides an interesting analysis of how intelligent design and Darwinism play off the problem of evil. Beckwith examines whether intelligent design is inherently religious and thus, on account of church-state separation, must be barred from public school science curricula.

</blockquote>

== Global intelligence design movement ==

''See also:'' [[Global intelligent design movement]]

''Evolution News and Views'' reported concerning the intelligent design movement:
{{cquote|Along with the absurd stereotype that support for ID is limited to right-wing fundamentalist Christians … there’s also the Darwinist agitprop point that advocates of the theory are rare outside the United States. Hardly! An unacknowledged strength of the ID movement is its international character.

Asia is an up-and-coming ID hot spot, as ENV has reported. See here for Signature in the Cell and Explore Evolution [links omitted for Discoveroid books] in their recent and handsome Korean editions.

Europe and Asia aside, how about Brazil? From South America’s most populous nation, accounting for half the continent’s total population, comes news of the First Brazilian Intelligent Design Congress, scheduled for November 14–16 this year at [details of the event].<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/intelligent_des_20090211.html Intelligent Design's Secret Weapon: The World] by David Klinghoffer October 3, 2014 11:53 AM</ref>}}

==Resources==
=== Quick Start ===
For a quick, concise overview of what intelligent design is all about, link to the following relatively short articles:

'''''Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution'''''.<ref>http://idnetohio.cinti.net/media/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf</ref> Written by William S. Harris and John H. Calvert (of '''Intelligent Design Network, Inc.'''),<ref name="ReferenceA">http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/</ref> this article is a one-stop mini-compendium on what intelligent design is, what it claims, and why it's important.

'''''The Evolution Controversy: Understanding the Basic Issues in the Debate Between Biological Evolution and Intelligent Design'''''. By Jody F. Sjogren, Robert P. Lattimer, and Douglas D. Rudy, and presented by Science Excellence for all Ohioans (SEAO).<ref>http://www.sciohio.org/start.htm</ref> Read and understand this and you will, as the title says, understand the basic issues.

'''''Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.'''''<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC - Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science - MainPage&id=2177</ref> By Stephen C. Meyer of the Center for Science & Culture,<ref name="http://www.discovery.org/csc">http://www.discovery.org/csc/</ref> this article first appeared in the peer reviewed Proceeding of the Biological Society of Washington, August 20, 2005. Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.

===Web Based Resources===
====The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture====
'''The Center for Science and Culture'''<ref name="http://www.discovery.org/csc"/> is a '''[[Discovery Institute]]''' program that encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, as well as supporting the work of scholars who challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory and scholars who are working on the scientific theory known as intelligent design.

In addition to scientific research and scholarship, the Center's '''Evolution News and Views''' blog<ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/</ref> presents analysis of that relevant news coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution.

A related website, '''intelligentdesign.org'''<ref>http://www.intelligentdesign.org/</ref> provides up-to-date information and learning resources.

====Access Research Network====
The '''[[Access Research Network]] (ARN)'''<ref name="arn.org">http://www.arn.org/</ref> is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing accessible information on science, technology and society.

'''ARN's''' articles and publications cover a host of issues which focus on such topics as intelligent design theory, genetic engineering, euthanasia, computer technology, environmental issues, creation/evolution, fetal tissue research and medical issues. ARN provides information needed to orient one's self in today's scientific and technological world in order to make informed decisions.

====The Intelligent Design Network====
'''Intelligent Design Network, Inc.'''<ref name="ReferenceA"/> is a nonprofit organization that seeks institutional objectivity in origins science. Objectivity results from the use of the [[scientific method]] without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?

The Intelligent Design Network produced a Statement of Objectives <ref name="intelligentdesignnetwork.org"/> regarding origins science. The Statement acknowledges that explanations of the origin of the universe and of life and its diversity are scientifically controversial. Further, due to its controversial nature, Origins Science requires a scientific enterprise guided by '''scientific objectivity'' rather than a preconceived view of origins, whether Materialistic (e.g., Darwinism) or Teleological (e.g., creationism). For this reason, according to the Statement, government and public education institutions supporting Origins Science should strive for objectivity as they inform the public about the state of our scientific knowledge regarding origins.

====The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center====

The '''Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center'''<ref>http://www.ideacenter.org/</ref> is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design theory and fostering good - spirited discussion and a better understanding over intelligent design theory and the creation - evolution issue among students, educators, churches, and anyone else interested. The Center's primary focus is to help students form "IDEA Clubs" on university and high school campuses.

====ID the Future====
Intelligent Design's "Super Blog", '''ID the Future'''<ref>http://www.idthefuture.com/</ref> offers podcasts as part of its mission of exploring the issues central to evolution and intelligent design (ID). IDTF provides listeners with the most current news and views on evolution and ID through brief interviews with key scientists and scholars developing the theory of ID, as well as insightful commentary from '''Discovery Institute''' senior fellows and staff on the scientific, educational and legal aspects of the debate.

====Uncommon Descent====
The intelligent design weblog of [[William Dembski]], Denyse O'Leary, and friends, '''Uncommon Descent'''<ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/</ref> holds that...
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution—an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.

====Real Science Radio====
Denver-based Real Science Radio has interviewed a dozen scientists and scholars associated with Seattle's Discovery Institute including Pal Nelson, Stephen Meyer, Richard Sternberg, Ann Gauger, and Doug Axe, all listed on RSR's single Intelligent Design page<ref>https://rsr.org/id/</ref>.

====The Post-Darwinist====
Toronto-based '''Denyse O'Leary's''' blog,<ref>http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/</ref> covering the intelligent design movement from a journalist/author's perspective.

===Books, Tapes, DVD's===

====Discovery Institute====
The '''Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture''' "Essential Readings" list<ref>http://www.discovery.org/csc/essentialReadings.php</ref> includes links to books and articles by leading intelligent design proponents.

====Access Research Network====
Books available from '''Access Research Network's'''<ref name="arn.org"/> book catalog<ref name="astore.amazon.com">http://astore.amazon.com/a0ed97-20</ref> and videos/tapes (including DVD's)<ref name="astore.amazon.com"/><ref>[http://www.arn.org/origins-101.html ARN Videos]</ref> include the latest information on the subject of intelligent design.

==See also==

*[[Intelligent design movement]]
*[[Atheism and reason]]
*[[Irreligion and superstition]]
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Living fossil]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ IntelligentDesign.org]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Intelligent Design| ]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Politics]]

March for Life

2019-01-24T14:10:47Z

BobEnyart: removed double period

[[File:PhpFvUL9cPM.jpg|right|300px]]
The '''March for Life''' is an annual rally held in [[Washington, D.C.]] in support of life and against [[abortion]]. It is held on a date near January 22, the date on which (in 1973) abortion on demand was upheld in ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''. {{before on after|2019|01|18|'''''The next march is being held on Friday, January 18, 2019.'''''|The 2019 march is taking place today.|}} 

The '''March on Life''' is among the largest annual gatherings in the [[United States]] of citizens engaging in [[self-government]]. '''The movement is a constantly growing crowd of currently about 400,000 people gathers annually'''.<ref name="March for Life">http://www.marchforlife.org/</ref> By comparison, the biggest sports events attract attendance of only 100,000–250,000, and the biggest cities can accommodate tourism of only about 200,000 at any particular time. The last March for Life was held on Friday, January 18, 2019, in [[Washington, D.C.]]

The March for Life began in 1974, on the first anniversary of ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' (1973). In addition, over 100,000 gather around the nation in various cities, such as on the West Coast. A historically significant March for Life in D.C. was held on Friday, January 25, 2013 – near the 40th anniversary of [[Roe v. Wade]].<ref name="March for Life"/>

The March for Life was founded by the late Miss [[Nellie Gray]], who led it for nearly four decades. She also set up a non-profit organization by the same name which provides educational workshops typically the day before the [[March]]. Many organizations and groups from across the nation attend the March for Life. For example, [[Conservapedia]] has led large groups to the March for Life each year beginning in 2009.

The influence of the March for Life might be estimated to be approximately 25 times its attendance, as the average person who attends is bound to communicate his participation to 25 others (at a conservative estimate).<ref>Some, such as clergymen, obviously influence far more.</ref> '''''An attendance of 400,000 thereby influences perhaps 10 million persons annually, and during a period of a decade the cumulative overall influence reaches perhaps 50 million persons in a personal way'''''.

The March for Life has grown to participation by about 1 in every 400 Americans from East of the [[Mississippi River]].<ref>The population East of the Mississippi River is estimated to be about 178 million.</ref> Additional people from across the nation and out West also travel to attend the March for Life. In Canada, a March for Life is held on May 12th each year.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Year
!Estimated Attendance
|-
|1974
|20,000<ref name="Estimates1">http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=31298</ref>
|-
|1975
|50,000<ref name="Estimates2">http://www.marchforlife.org/content/view/13/26/</ref>
|-
|1976
|65,000<ref name="Estimates2"/>
|-
|2000
|100,000<ref name="Estimates2"/>
|-
|2005
|200,000<ref name="Estimates2"/>
|-
|2008
|225,000<ref name="Estimates1"/>
|-
|2009
|300,000
|-
|2010
|400,000
|-
|2011
|400,000<ref>http://prolifeleague.com/articles/60-march-for-life-2011.html . The cold weather -- 10 degrees below normal in D.C. and even colder at many points of departure -- caused some to postpone their attendance until 2012.</ref>
|-
|2012
|400,000<ref>http://ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=4725 . Also, an onsite report by a bus driver to a ''Conservapedian'' said there were more buses in 2012 than in 2011, when the crowd was 400,000, despite the cold rain throughout the day.</ref>
|-
|2013
|500,000<ref>http://www.catholicvirginian.org/archive/2013/2013vol88iss7/pages/2013vol88iss7.html</ref>
|-
|2014
|300,000
|-
|2015
|500,000
|-
|2016
|100,000<ref>A State of Emergency existed in D.C. and surrounding states due to a massive snowstorm.</ref>
|}
[[File:Marchforlife.jpg|center]]

== Photos from 2016 March for Life by ''Conservapedia'' ==
<gallery caption="Our photos from the March for Life 2016!" widths=200px perrow = 2>
File:March for Life 2016-1.jpg|The starting of the 2016 March for Life.
File:March for Life 2016-2.jpg|Crowd around the Washington Monument at the 2016 March for Life.
File:March for Life 2016-3.jpg|Rally with the crowd hearing speakers at the 2016 March for Life.
File:March for Life 2016-4.jpg|The march on Constitution Avenue during the 2016 March for Life.
File:March for Life 2016-5.jpg|The march on Constitution Avenue, with banners from the Netherlands and France and the [[Cross]].
File:March for Life 2016-6.jpg|Seminarians from Poland during the 2016 March for Life.
</gallery>

== Photos from 2015 March for Life by ''Conservapedia'' ==
<gallery caption="Live from March for Life 2015!" widths=200px perrow = 2>
File:LargeCrowdConstitutionAveMfL2015.jpg|A large crowd fills Constitution Avenue to the vanishing point during the 2015 March for Life.
File:LaMarchersMfL2015.jpg|These marchers from Louisiana relax on the steps of the Longworth House Office Building on Independence Avenue after the 2015 March for Life.
File:LifeCountsMfL2015.jpg|"Life Counts!" say these participants as they march up Constitution Avenue during the 2015 March for Life.
File:FranceJoinsMfL2015.jpg|A French-speaking delegation joins the 2015 March for Life, proclaiming, literally, the "right to be born."
File:AnotherReasonMfL2015.jpg|A marcher at the 2015 March for Life gives another reason for marching up Constitution Avenue on such a cold day.
File:DetroitJoinsMfL2015.jpg|Young activists from Detroit join the 2015 March for Life.
File:Rally1MonumentMfL2015.jpg|March for Life 2015 participants gather for the rally on the National Mall. Note the Washington Monument in the background.
File:DefendLifeMfL2015.jpg|"Defend Life" say the signs these participants carry at the 2015 March for Life.
File:StLucyBronxJoinsMfL2015.jpg|Activists from the Bronx join in the 2015 March for Life.
File:FlaStateUJoinsMfL2015.jpg|These two activists came to the 2015 March for Life from Florida State University.
</gallery>

== Photos from 2014 March for Life by ''Conservapedia'' ==

[[File:March_for_life_2014_600_by_450.jpg]]

== Photos from 2013 March for Life by ''Conservapedia'' ==

<gallery perrow="3">
File:March2013a.jpg
File:March2013c.jpg
File:March2013d.jpg
File:March2013f.jpg
File:March2013g.jpg
File:March2013h.jpg
File:March2013i.jpg
File:March2013j.jpg
File:March2013l.jpg
</gallery>

== Photos from 2012 March for Life by ''Conservapedia'' ==
<gallery perrow="3">
File:March for Life 2012_2.jpg
File:23jan2012MarchForLife.jpg
File:March for Life Mall 2012.jpg
</gallery>
 

== Photos from 2011 March for Life by ''Conservapedia'' ==
<gallery perrow="3">
File:PhpMGlmDfPM.jpg
File:PhpUImy4EPM.jpg
File:Php3sfokfPM.jpg
File:Php9T6BjXPM.jpg
File:PhpeokG1ZPM.jpg
File:PhpzD3YBWPM.jpg
File:PhpUrImgrPM.jpg
</gallery>

== Photos from 2010 March for Life by ''Conservapedia'' ==
<gallery perrow="3">
File:March for Life 2010 Along Route.JPG
File:March for Life 2010 Mall.jpg
File:March for Life 2010 Mall Capitol.jpg
</gallery>

== Photos from 2009 March for Life by ''Conservapedia'' ==
<gallery perrow="3">
File:March for Life 2009 Sup Ct.JPG|March for Life 2009 outside [[U.S. Supreme Court]]
File:March for Life 2009 Mall.JPG
</gallery>

==See also==
*[[Thine Eyes]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/19/march-for-life-look-at-largest-anti-abortion-rally-in-united-states.html March for Life: A look at the largest anti-abortion rally in the United States], by Madeline Farber, Fox News.
*March for Life signs: [https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-best-signs-we-saw-at-the-2018-march-for-life][https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/20/photos-the-best-signs-at-the-45th-annual-march-for-life/]

== References ==
<references />
{{Conservatism}}
[[Category:United States Politics]]
[[Category:Abortion]]
[[Category:Pro-Life]]

Talk:List of atheist shooters and serial killers

2019-01-14T15:05:19Z

BobEnyart: Agreement with comment and request for input on creating a related article.

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

== Why are there people on this list who aren't atheists? ==
I removed [[Kimveer Gill]] and [[James Eagan Holmes]] because there's no evidence that they have ever been [[atheist]]s. They've been reinstated without justification, or even edit summaries. The ref for KG does not mention atheism. The link for JEH explicitly states that he was an [[agnostic]]. By definition, agnostics aren't atheists. A list of atheists should obviously not include anyone who has never been an atheist. [[User:Qaz|Qaz]] ([[User talk:Qaz|talk]]) 16:19, 27 April 2018 (EDT)
: I agree of course with Qaz. Separately though, there's a much longer list, on a related (but highly politically incorrect) topic: [https://kgov.com/homosexual-mass-murderers kgov.com/homosexual-mass-murderers] and there's a perhaps surprising list of pothead mass murderers that includes Holmes at kgov.com/pot. Wondering if anyone could suggest whether either of those lists might be acceptable to create here at Conservapedia. --[[User:BobEnyart|Bob Enyart, 20-year conservative radio talk host on America's #1 most-powerful Christian radio station]] ([[User talk:BobEnyart|talk]]) 10:05, 14 January 2019 (EST)

Is Genesis History?

2017-03-23T13:18:41Z

BobEnyart:

{{Infobox Film
| name= Is Genesis History?
| image=Is Genesis History.jpg
| caption=Movie poster, prior to the subsquent re-showings
| director=Thomas Purifoy, Jr.
| producer=Thomas Purifoy, Jr.
| writer=Thomas Purifoy, Jr.
| narrator=Del Tackett
| starring=Del Tackett +13 scientists and scholars
| music=
| cinematography=
| editing=
| distributor=Compass Cinema Fathom Events
| released=February 23, 2017 (U.S.) March 14, 2017 (Canada)
| runtime=101 minutes Q&A/Credits: 17 min<ref>[http://isgenesishistory.com/overview Overview: Synopsis]. ''Isgenesishistory.com''. Retrieved March 11, 2017.</ref>
| country=United States Canada
| language=English
| budget=
| gross=
| preceded_by=
| followed_by=
| website=http://isgenesishistory.com/
| amg_id=
| imdb_id=6360332
}}
'''''Is Genesis History?''''' is a 2017 [[Christian]] [[Young-Earth creationism|young Earth creationist]] documentary film that shows that [[Genesis]] 1-11 records real history. Produced by Compass Cinema, the film stars [[Del Tackett]], the former president of the Focus on the Family Institute and a key person in the ''Truth Project'', "a DVD curriculum distributed by [[Focus on the Family]]" that teaches a strong biblical worldview.<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/movies/speak-up/ A Passion for Truth - Answers Magazine]. ''[[Answers in Genesis]]''. July 1, 2016. Retrieved September 21, 2016.</ref>

Hosted by Fathom Events<ref name="Fathom">[https://www.fathomevents.com/events/is-genesis-history Is Genesis History? - Fathom Events], Fathom Events</ref>, the film screened in nearly 700 theaters in the [[United States]] and was originally planned for a one-time showing only on February 23, 2017, but encore presentations were added for March 2 and March 7, 2017.

==Background==
''Is Genesis History?'' was first conceived when the daughter of Thomas Purifoy Jr., the film's director, started asking him questions on the creation/evolution topic after the [[Ken Ham]]/[[Bill Nye]] debate in February 2014.<ref>Storm, Christie (February 18, 2017). [http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2017/feb/18/daughter-s-queries-prompted-genesis-fil-1/ Daughter's queries prompted Genesis film]. ''Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref> Purifoy read dozens of books on the creation/evolution topic, many of which he recommended, for the film.<ref>Purifoy Jr, Thomas (March 15, 2017). [http://isgenesishistory.com/notes/reading-list-making-film/ My Reading List for Making the Film]. ''isgenesishistory.com''. Retrieved March 15, 2017.</ref>

==Synopsis==
''Is Genesis History?'' is hosted by Del Tackett.<ref>Law, Jeannie (February 16, 2017). [http://www.christianpost.com/news/evidence-of-young-earth-creationism-will-debunk-current-scientific-paradigm-filmmaker-says-175074/ Evidence of Young Earth Creationism Will Debunk Current Scientific Paradigm, Filmmaker Says]. ''The Christian Post''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref> The film's main question, as the title shows, is whether the Book of [[Genesis]] in the [[Bible]] records real historical events.<ref>Graham, Efrem (February 24, 2017). [http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/entertainment/2017/february/bible-documentary-answers-one-question-is-genesis-history Bible Documentary Answers One Question: 'Is Genesis History?']. ''CBN News''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref><ref>Boatwright, Phil (February 3, 2017). [http://www.bpnews.net/48282/movies-is-genesis-scientific-history MOVIES: Is Genesis scientific history?] ''Baptist Press''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref><ref name="Tomlin">Tomlin, Gregory (November 29, 2016). [http://christianexaminer.com/article/is-genesis-history-film-aims-to-answer-questions-of-creation-evolution-global-flood/51252.htm IS GENESIS HISTORY? Film aims to answer questions of creation, evolution, global flood]. ''ChristianExaminer''. Retrieved January 19, 2017.</ref><ref>[http://religionnews.com/2016/11/29/where-does-everything-come-from-documentary-is-genesis-history-explores-the-biggest-questions/ Where does everything come from? Documentary ‘Is Genesis History?’ explores the biggest questions]. ''Religion News Service''. November 29, 2016. Retrieved January 19, 2017.</ref> Tackett tackles many questions<ref>[https://www.isgenesishistory.com/big-picture/ The Big Picture]. ''IsGenesisHistory.com''. Retrieved September 21, 2016.</ref> concerning Genesis 1-11 and its historical accuracy. In addition, he interviews 16 experts in various scientific or theological fields who all hold PhDs and are biblical creationists. Through these interviews, Tackett shows that an overwealming amount of evidence ''for'' a young Earth exists, as well as ''against'' the pseudoscientific theory of evolution.

==Cast==
All the scientists and scholars Tackett interviews have Ph.Ds, many of them from secular universities. Additionally, they all have done exemplary work in their respective fields. Here is the list of interviewed people:<ref>[https://www.isgenesishistory.com/experts/ Experts]. ''IsGenesisHistory.com''. Retrieved September 21, 2016.</ref><ref>[http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/is-genesis-history-documentary-screens-tonight-64982/ ‘Is Genesis History’ Documentary screens tonight]. ''The Global Dispatch''. February 23, 2017. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref>
*[[Kevin Anderson]], microbiologist
*[[Steve Austin]], geologist
*[[Steven Boyd]], Hebraist
*[[Robert Carter]], marine biologist
*[[Art Chadwick]], taphonomist
*[[Danny Faulkner]], astronomer
*[[George Grant]], pastor
*[[Paul Nelson]], philosopher of science
*[[Douglas Petrovich]], archaeologist
*[[Marcus Ross]], paleontologist
*[[Andrew Snelling]], geologist
*[[Kurt Wise]], paleontologist
*[[Todd Wood]], biologist

==Release and success==
''Is Genesis History?'' was released for one night in theaters on February 23, 2017. It performed very well—143,000 people watched it in 704<ref name="BoxOfficeMojo">[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=isgenesishistory.htm Is Genesis History?]. ''Box Office Mojo''. Retrieved March 14, 2017.</ref> theaters and many theaters were sold-out. Its box office on its opening night was $1,796,182<ref name="BoxOfficeMojo"/>—the highest box office of any film in the United States that night,<ref name="LawCP">Law, Jeannie (March 4, 2017). [http://www.christianpost.com/news/is-genesis-history-film-on-young-earth-creationism-returns-to-theaters-for-encore-screening-176559/ 'Is Genesis History?' Film on Young Earth Creationism Returns to Theaters for Encore Screening]. ''The Christian Post''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref><ref name="AdventistReview">Standish, Timothy G. (March 7, 2017). [http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/story4881-strong-one-day-attendance-to-biblical-creation-film-prompts-additional-showings Strong One-Day Attendance to Biblical Creation Film Prompts Additional Showings]. ''Adventist Review''. Retrieved March 13, 2017.</ref><ref name="Ham2/28/17">Ham, Ken (February 28, 2017). [https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2017/02/28/is-genesis-history-encore-showings-in-theaters/ Is Genesis History? Encore Showings in Theaters]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref> more than five times the average of all other movies that night.<ref name="AMFMMag">[http://www.amfm-magazine.com/is-genesis-history-one-night-only-fathom-event-hits-1-in-box-office-returns-to-theaters-march-2nd-and-7th/ IS GENESIS HISTORY? FATHOM EVENT HITS #1 IN BOX OFFICE, RETURNS TO THEATERS MARCH 2nd and 7th]. ''AM FM Magazine''. February 27, 2017. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref> Although originally scheduled to be shown only on one night,<ref>Ham, Ken (February 16, 2017). [https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2017/02/16/is-genesis-history-theaters-next-week/ Is Genesis History? in Theaters Next Week!]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref> ''Is Genesis History?'' performed so well that it was given two encore showings on March 2 and 7 of that year.<ref name="LawCP"/><ref name="Ham2/28/17"/><ref name="AMFMMag"/>

''Is Genesis History?'' was shown in some [[Canada|Canadian]] theaters on March 14.<ref name="AdventistReview"/><ref>https://www.facebook.com/isgenesishistory/photos/a.358811944473403.1073741828.270913396596592/399909587030305/?type=3&theater</ref>

''Is Genesis History?'' was later released on DVD and Blu-ray.<ref name="DVDBluRay">Ham, Ken (March 8, 2017). [https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2017/03/08/is-genesis-history-documentary-dvd-blu-ray/ Is Genesis History? Documentary Available Soon on DVD and Blu-ray]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref> The DVD/Blu-ray release will include bonus features, including interviews with scientists and other scholars that were not able to make it into the final film cut.

==Reception==
The [[Christian apologetics]] ministry [[Answers in Genesis]] endorsed ''Is Genesis History?'' prior to its release. AiG's enthusiasm for the film did not decrease after its release in theaters.<ref name="Ham2/28/17"/><ref name="DVDBluRay"/> The words of AiG President [[Ken Ham]] on January 6, 2017:<ref>Ham, Ken (January 6, 2017). [https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2017/01/06/genesis-history-film-coming-theaters/ ''Is Genesis History?'' Film Coming to Theaters]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved January 19, 2017.</ref>
{{cquote|I’m thrilled to recommend the brand-new documentary-style film Is Genesis History?, coming to theaters Thursday, February 23, 2017, for one night only. This film delves into various scientific disciplines to see if the evidence confirms evolution and millions of years or creation in six days and the global Flood.}}

Other Christian creationists also highly reviewed the film. The [[Institute for Creation Research]] stated that "Dr. Tackett and Compass Media produced a high-quality documentary and took an unapologetic stand for a historical Genesis. Those of us at ICR who have seen the film wholly endorse it."<ref>Hebert, Jake, PhD.; Thomas, Brian, M.S. (March 1, 2017). [http://www.icr.org/article/9868/ Reviewing 'Is Genesis History?']. ''Institute for Creation Research''. Retrieved March 11, 2017.</ref>

Jerry Newcombe, in ''WorldNetDaily'', endorsed the film after conducting several interviews with participants in the film:<ref>Newcombe, Jerry (February 14, 2017). [http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-genesis-history-a-must-see-movie/ 'Is Genesis History?' -- a must-see movie]. ''WND''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref>
{{cquote|It is my view that those who see "Is Genesis History?" – which is beautifully shot – will come away with the same conviction [as George Grant in the film on the importance of Genesis]. Perhaps, the tagline for the film says it all: "Two competing views … one compelling truth."}}

[[Jonathan Sarfati]] of [[Creation Ministries International]] highly endorsed the film, saying that "after the spectacular footage and important scientific and exegetical information, the documentary closes with a very effective explanation about why Genesis matters for the Christian faith."<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan. [http://creation.com/is-genesis-history-doco-review Is Genesis History?: Review of new documentary]. ''Creation Ministries International''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref>

Henry B. Smith of [[Associates for Biblical Research]] also strongly endorsed the film.<ref>Smith, Henry B., Jr. (January 18, 2017). [http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2017/01/18/A-Great-New-Film-Is-Genesis-History.aspx A Great New Film: Is Genesis History?]. ''Associates for Biblical Research''. Retrieved March 8, 2017.</ref>

Anthony Hayes of the ''Baltimore Post-Examiner'' positively reviewed the film, stating that "''Is Genesis History?'' succinctly lays out the scientific case for a special creation; then asks the question, 'How does a little information from the past affect how one lives today?'"<ref>Hayes, Anthony (February 25, 2017). [http://baltimorepostexaminer.com/genesis-history-new-film-ably-addresses-age-old-question/2017/02/25#sthash.sD6XN8Fb.WEJO6gFv.dpbs Is Genesis History? New film ably addresses age-old question]. ''Baltimore Post-Examiner''. Retrieved March 14, 2017.</ref>

==Film's resources==
*[http://isgenesishistory.com/videos Videos], on the film's website
*[http://isgenesishistory.com/downloads Downloads], on the film's website
*[https://isgenesishistory.com/notes/full-interviews/ Partial list of full interviews], more to come

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[https://www.isgenesishistory.com/ Official website]
*[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=isgenesishistory.htm Box Office Mojo profile]

{{Creation vs. evolution}}

[[Category:Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category:Greatest Conservative Movies]]
[[Category:Documentary Films]]
[[Category:Christian Movies]]

King James Only

2016-05-30T15:30:47Z

BobEnyart:

'''King James Only''' is a movement that promotes the superiority of the [[King James Version]] of the Bible. It arose in the 1970s. It is a common view among Fundamentalist Christians in the U.S., especially the [[Independent Baptist]]s.

The KJO view was articulated by Benjamin G. Wilkinson (1872–1968), a Seventh-day Adventist missionary, in the book ''Our Authorized Bible Vindicated'' (1930). This book was plagerized by Jasper James Ray (1955) and by [[Peter Ruckman]] (1964). In 1970, Wilkinson's writing was republished in ''Which Bible?'' (1970), properly attributed this time. This book is a collection of essays edited by David Otis Fuller. Fuller added numerous footnotes to correct errors and misunderstandings in the Wilkinson text, some of which involve basic matters of church history.<ref>Kutilek, Doug, "[http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_wilkinson_incred.htm Wilkinson's Incredible Errors]", ''Baptist Biblical Heritage'', Vol. I, No. 3; Fall, 1990. Fuller presents the footnotes as if they were written by Wilkinson, so Wilkinson's lack of expertise is not as apparent in the 1970 edition as it was in earlier editions.</ref> Several major Bible translations appeared in the early 1970s, making Fuller's treatment topical. Fuller's book got far more attention than earlier works on this subject. It is considered responsible for kicking off KJO as a movement.

KJO authors claim that ''[[Textus Receptus]]'', the Greek text used by KJV, is a more reliable text than the so called Alexandrian text that is used by modern translations. TR was edited by Erasmus in 16th century and is based on several 12th century Byzantine manuscripts.

Modern translations are based on ''[[Codex Vaticanius]]'' and ''[[Codex Sinaiticus]]'', both fourth century manuscripts. These two manuscripts are said to be "Alexandrian" because they have same type of text as ''[[Codex Alexandrinus]]'', a fifth century manuscript. (No one knows where they were produced.) In 1881, B.F. Westcott (1825-1903) and F.J.A. Hort produced a "Critical Text" based on these two manuscripts.<ref>Modern Bible translations are based on Greek texts edited by [http://www.nestle-aland.com Nestle Aland] and the [http://www.unitedbiblesocieties.org United Bible Societies]. These are similar to Westcott-Hort, but take into account manuscripts and papyrus fragments that were discovered later.</ref> Westcott and Hort figure prominently in KJO demonology, where the "Westcott and Hort Only" movement is denounced.<ref>Stringer, Dr. Phil, "[http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/wh-only.htm The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy]"</ref>

KJO has been comprehensively rejected by religious leaders, fundamentalist and otherwise. Dr. John Rice, editor of ''[[The Sword of the Lord]]'' and the best known fundamentalist writer of the 1960s and 1970s, wrote:

<blockquote>
And now to have many, many common and rather ignorant people - more women than men -- writing that Westcott and Hort, St. Augustine, any Catholic who had any part in the translation, anybody who now raises a question about the proper wording of some passage in the King James, are perverts or modernists or hypocrites or ignorant fools (much of the language which they got from Dr. [Peter Ruckman]), is a sorry business, and you and I will be answerable to God if we develop that kind of attitude among common Christians.

I do not want to grow a generation of Christians, who, if you show them that the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 of the King James Version is not the proper translation but it ought to be "passover," as is true, will decide that we have no Bible, there is no authority in the Bible. To have anybody making such weighty decisions on an immature judgment about a word or two is not right, and I do not want to put a burden on common people that they must assume a scholarship they do not have, in order to understand the Bible.<ref>"[http://www.kjvonly.org/bob/ross_rice_reply_to_fuller.htm Dr. John R. Rice's reply to Dr. David Otis Fuller on the KJV]", ''The Sword of the Lord'', November 28, 1975</ref>
</blockquote>

Rice died in 1980 and ''The Sword of the Lord'' now supports KJO. However, the publication is no longer influential. Bob Jones University, the leading Independent Baptist educational institution, has the following statement on its site: "Bob Jones University does not hold to a King James Only position...we have never taken the position that there can be only one good translation in the English language."<ref>"[http://www.bju.edu/about/what-we-believe/translation.php Statement about Bible Translations]", Bob Jones University.</ref>

The ''New King James Version'' (1982) was written in response to the arguments regarding text used by KJO writers. Unlike other modern translations, it is translated from TR rather than from the Critical Text. It includes numerous footnotes that give alternative readings and explain which reading comes from which text.

==References==
{{Reflist|1}}

==Further reading==
*Carson, D. A., ''The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism'', Baker Book House Company (1979).
* John Ankerberg, John Weldon, ''Facts on King James Only Debate'', Harvest House, (2010).
*Ruckman, Peter, ''The Alexandrian Cult'', Bible Baptist Bookstore (1978-1981)
*White, James R., ''The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations'', Bethany House, (2009).
*Wilkinson, George Wilkinson, ''A Review of or Objections to 'Our Authorized Bible Vindicated''' (2000).

==External links==
*[http://www.kjvonly.org The King James Only Resource Center] "Dedicated to the defense of the Bible as originally written."
*[http://tiny.cc/kjo-debate KJO Debate at TheologyOnline.com] with never before publicized photos of translators notes from a 1602 Bishops' Bible
[[Category:Bible Study]]

North American Indians

2013-05-11T18:08:58Z

BobEnyart: spelling: covert to convert

[[File:American indians map.jpg|thumb|400px|North American indians map, Census 2000. See larger map: [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:American_indians_map_big.jpg]]]
'''North American Indians''' (also '''Native Americans''') are the original inhabitants of the Americas. The Native Americans of [[North America]] are typically considered to be all those tribes north of Central [[Mexico]]. While technically part of North America, most archaeologists tend to place the civilizations of Central Mexico into a separate category.<ref>Swidler, Nina, Dongoske, Roger. 1997. ''Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground.'' Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.</ref> Tribes in North America maintained a wide variety of [[subsistence pattern]]s, from hunting and gathering, to intensive agriculture. North America is also home to two of the most unusual groups of hunter-gatherers, the Northwest Coast tribes, and the Aleuts. The first Native Americans are believed to have migrated from Asia via the [[Bering land bridge]], the exposed continental shelf through Alaska between Asia and North America during the last Ice Age.

While the American Indian population once numbered over 100 million, over 90% were killed by [[smallpox|European diseases]] augmented by changes in the natural habitat caused by the new arrivals.<ref>[http://www.powersource.com/cocinc/history/trail.htm Trail of Tears]</ref>

== Culture Areas of North America ==

American Indians of North America are generally divided into culture areas according to similarities in geography, environment, subsistence patterns, language family, and similar social practices. According to the ''Handbook of North American Indians'', there are ten such cultural areas.<ref>Washburn, Wilcomb E. 1998. ''Handbook Of North American Indians, Vol. 4, History of Indian-White Relations.'' Washington: Smithsonian Institute.</ref>
;Arctic
:Greenland, extreme northern Canada, and the northern and western coastlines of Alaska: [[Inuit]].
;Subarctic
:Most of central Canada and interior Alaska.
;Northeast
:New England, Nova Scotia, the Great Lakes region, the Chesapeake Bay area, and most of current day W. Virginia, the Ohio River valley, and Illinois: [[Huron]]s, [[Shawnee]], [[Iroquois]].
;Southeast
:N. Carolina excluding the NE corner, western Virginia, southern W. Virginia, and all the southern states east of the Mississippi River, in addition to parts of Arkansas, Louisiana, and eastern Texas: [[Cherokee]], [[Creek]], [[Seminole]].
;Plains
:the entire Midwest United States from Texas north to southern parts of Canada: [[Sioux]], [[Cheyenne people|Cheyenne]].
;Southwest
:Central Mexico north into W. Texas, NM, and AZ: [[Navajo]], [[Pueblo]], [[Apache]].
;Great Basin
:Nevada, Utah, N. Arizona, W. Colorado, W. Wyoming, S. Idaho, SE Oregon, and parts of W. California: [[Shoshone]], [[Ute tribe|Utes]].
;California
:Interior and Coastal California and N. Baja: [[Modoc]].
;Northwest Coast
:N. California to S. Alaska along 1500 miles of coastline: [[Tlingit]], [[Tsimshian]].
;Plateau
:Parts of Oregon, Washington, N. Idaho, W. Montana, and SW Canada: [[Nez Perce]].

==Historical role of disease and war on Indian populations==

===Deaths by disease===

Indian populations suffered substantial losses over time, mainly due to disease and warfare. As author Guenter Lewy reports, great disparities exists in estimates of native American Indian populations before the arrival of Europeans, from around 1.2 million to 12 million, with assertions being given of inflation or deflation of numbers. However, it is generally accepted that that only 250,000 native Americans were alive in the territory of the United States at the end of the 19th century. The major cause of the reduction of population is understood by many scholars to be ''virgin-soil epidemic'', that of death through the the spread of highly contagious diseases to which the Natives had no immunity. The principal pathogen was smallpox, the effects of which also killed by hunger by reducing the food gatherers. Other killers included measles, influenza, whooping cough, diphtheria, typhus, bubonic plague, cholera, and scarlet fever. It is estimated that between 75 to 90 percent of all Indian deaths resulted from such killers. While there is evidence that some Europeans promoted this decimation, and certain liberal historians are given to ideological-driven charges, specific accounts of such are in dispute, but poor medical understanding, as well as poor conditions and later forced relocations, such as that of Cherokee resettlement 1838, certainly fostered it. However, the largest loss of life occurred well before such forced relocation, and sometimes after only little contact with European traders from Europe.

====Death by war====

[[Puritans]] first regarded the Natives as potential friends and converts, and relations for some time were amicable. However, later developments would result in the Puritan seeing the Indians as hostile. The murder of several colonists in late 1636 by the feared (by colonists and other Indians alike) Pequot tribe, resulted in increased alarm and hostilities. Torture of prisoners was a routine practice for most Indian tribes, and the Pequots in particular had a reputation for cruelty and ruthlessness, and openly flayed the skin of one of their captors alive, and cut off his fingers and toes, while roasting another. Some Indians also engaged in cannibalism, eating certain body parts of their enemies. While the colonists sometimes engaged in torture in order to gain information, and the means of war on both sides could be brutal, the revelation of the type of cruelty these warring Indians engaged in resulted in a fear and a determination to subdue them.

A particularly brutal war followed, that of King Philip’s War (1675-76), in which fifty-two of New England’s 90 towns were attacked, and seventeen were razed to the ground, and 25 were pillaged. Although Boston's colonial council in Boston had declared "that none be Killed or Wounded that are Willing to surrender themselves into Custody", this would not be English "civilized warfare", and Indian deaths were even higher, with many captured Natives being executed or sold into slavery to foreign countries. Soon, the colonists would become more like their enemies in brutality, albeit somewhat tempered in places by religious restraints.

Enlistment and incitement of Indians by the French, and expansion westward by European settlers resulted in escalating hostilities, and substantial deaths on both sides. The premise that force was the answer was challenged by a number of federal commissioners, but the Europeans overall had the upper hand, and both sides engaging in indiscriminate killing. True and perhaps exaggerated stories of savage killings by Indians spread, and with it increasing animosity toward them outside the East, and desire to exterminate them. The Reverend William Crawford reported in September 1864 that the attitude of the white population of Colorado was, “There is but one sentiment in regard to the final disposition which shall be made of the Indians: ‘Let them be exterminated—men, women, and children together.’” To which he added, "I do not myself share in such views." Violent conflicts due to the [[Gold Rush]] saw great decimation of the Indian population of California, mainly by disease but also by killing, with settlers sometimes killing any who were in their way, and retaliating to Indian savagery with greater intensity.<ref>[http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html Guenter Lewy, ''Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?'']</ref>

For a more through and balanced account of wars between the Indians and settlers, the reader is directed to the main source for the above, [http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html ''Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?''], by Guenter Lewy.

=====Deaths by internecine conflicts=====
In addition to decimation by war with European groups (in contrast to those who worked to convert Indians to faith in Christ), armed conflict and ritual violence between Indians themselves are of considerable antiquity in North America. In ''North American Indigenous Warfare and Ritual Violence'', it is evidenced that in contrast to revisionist history that tribal warfare was more like football games, recent findings provide more evidence that from antiquity Indians fought each other, that internecine "warfare was ubiquitous; every major culture area of native North America reviewed herein has produced archaeological, ethnohistorical, osteological, or ethnographic evidence of armed conflict and ritual violence." This could involve the taking of human trophies being encouraged before contact with Europeans, and hostilities that at least among some areas resulted in "the massacre and mutilation of men, women, and children."

While the effects of wars by European against Indians are not to be minimized, trade with Europeans could reduce traditional forms of intergroup conflict during the early contact period. However, as unjust warring is the usually the result of lust (Ja, 4:2) tribal warfare also could shift from "raiding each other based on revenge, and a desire to acquire prestige goods and status, to an extremely violent pattern of engagements arising from unequal access to foreign trade goods and the quest for war booty, revenge killings, status intensification, and slaves", as it did among Northwest Coast Indians.<ref>[http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/catalogs/dlg_show_excerpt.php?id=1872&title=North+American+Indigenous+Warfare+and+Ritual+Violence&subtitle=&author=Edited+by+Richard+J.+Chacon%3B+Rub%E9n+G.+Mendoza ''North American Indigenous Warfare and Ritual Violence'', summary]</ref>

==Praying Indians==
===New England praying Indians===

A once numerous class of Christian Indians existed in America known as ''praying Indians'' mainly in New England. These helped the the [[Patriot]] cause in the American Revolution, but were treated shamefully due to distrust by most of the Colonialists during the period of [[King Phillip's War]], reducing their numbers from an estimated estimated 20 percent of Massachusetts Indians to a few hundred.

[[Roger Williams]] of [[Rhode Island]] and and Thomas Mayhew of [[Martha's Vineyard]] were the first English missionaries to seek the conversion of New England's natives, but [[John Eliot]] was much more successful, largely because of his command of the complex native Algonquian language (spoken by many Indian nations) which was without a written tradition, but which Eliot provided and translated the Bible into.

Historian and author Robert D. Hall stated that “Eliot was a genius." "He was a missionary, a teacher, a linguist. He founded the Roxbury Latin School. He learned the Algonquin tongue and translated it into English.’’

Between 1646 to 1674, Eliot saw some 1100 Massachusetts natives convert to the Christian religion, and played a central role in establishing fourteen “Praying Indian” communities in the eastern part of Massachusetts.<ref>"Talk on first Christian Indians," The Boston Globe Newspaper, May 13, 2010</ref> <ref>http://www.braintreehistorical.org/NewsLetters/March2007.pdf</ref>

The praying town of Natick is considered the oldest, being founded in 1651, and by 1674 six more principal praying towns existed: Hassanamesit, Magunkaquog, Nashobah, Okommakamesit, Punkapog, and Wamesit. However, the praying Indians were practically destroyed by the other Native Americans in [[King Philip's War]] circa 1675 and by the English, both of whom viewed them as traitors. From a estimated population of 1,100 in 1674, they were reduced to only 300 by 1680. <ref>"praying Indians," The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2008. Encyclopedia.com; http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/praying_Indians.aspx</ref>
<ref>The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2008</ref>

====Mission work with John Eliot====
John Eliot (1605 - 1690), born in Widford, Hertfordshire, [[England]] in 1604, was the younger son of Bennett Eliot, a wealthy landowner. At the age of only fifteen he entered Jesus College at Cambridge University, where he soon was recognized as a brilliant linguist and classical scholar.

In 1631 Eliot joined a great migration of Puritans to North America, resulting from the persecution of nonconformists (men who in conscience toward God could not assent to the [[Church of England]]. Eliot found a home in [[Boston]], [[Massachusetts]], and was immediately hired as a substitute for the then-absent Reverend John Wilson. Although the Boston congregation wanted Eliot to be an associate minister when Wilson returned from England, he chose to become the pastor of the church of neighboring Roxbury. Eliot served in that pastorate for almost sixty years, while also fathering six children during his long and happy union with his wife, Ann (Mumford) Eliot, which lasted until his death in 1690.

Eliot learned the language of the local Native Americans, and some fifteen years after his arrival in America he began his missionary work to the American Indians. In addition to his personal burden, Eliot had official support during that period, as the English government had required of the Bay Colony that conversion of the natives be a high priority in granting its charter in 1628. The seal of the Mass Bay Colony even featured an Indian pleading with the English to “Come over and help us,” based on Acts 16:9, but very little had been accomplished as yet.

In a letter written to Thomas Thorowgood in 1660 concerning his work in translating and printing the Bible in the language of the Algonquin people, Eliot expressed his motive for engaging in the work:
<blockquote>
The Godly undertakers of this plantation had it so much in their hearts, to make the conversion of the Indians one end of their coming, as that they made it one clause in their patent, which did lay a publik ingagement upon us thereunto: and when God was pleased to put me upon that work of preaching to them, that publik ingagement, together with pitty to the poor Indians, and desire to make the name of Christ chief in these darke ends of the earth, and not the rewards of men, were the very first, and chief movers, if I know what did first, and chiefly, move in my heart.
<ref>[http://www.tyndalesploughboy.org/eliot-bible/ Tyndal's ploughboy, ''Eliot Bible'']</ref></blockquote>

However, Eliot found hardness of heart in his first attempt mid-1646, that being was to the Indian community under Sachem Cutshamekin at Neponset (in Dorchester), as the older Sachem rejected the gospel and his braves openly ridiculed and mocked the clergyman.

Eliot found more hope among a small band of Indians under a native leader of somewhat lesser stature named Waban, "a wise and grave Indian" whom Eliot described as "one who gives more grounded hope of serious respect for the things of God, than any as yet I have known of that forlorn generation. Waban was son-in-law of the Sachem of Concord, whose community lived on the southwest slope of Nonantum Hill (presently on Brighton-Newton line.)

Accompanied by two of three other clergymen, Eliot delivered about a one hour sermon in the Algonquian language in October, 1646, followed later by extended exchanges with them, in which Eliot his fellow clergy gave further instruction and answered questions put forth to them by the Indians, such as:

*How may we come to know Jesus Christ?
whether Jesus Christ did understand, or God did understand Indian prayers?
*Whether Englishmen were ever at any time so ignorant of God and Jesus Christ as themselves?
*How is all the world become so full of people, if they were all once drowned in the flood?
*How came the English to differ so much from the Indians in the knowledge of God and Jesus Christ, seeing they had all at first but one father?'
*How may we come to serve God?

As a result of this ongoing evangelism many were convicted in heart of their sins and need of salvation in Christ, some to the point of weeping, and Waban turned to the Lord [[Jesus Christ]] and progressively many others of his people. The Indians offered all their children for Christian education, and some even reproved Englishmen: "An Indian seeing a profane Englishman fall a tree on the Sabbath said to him, 'Do you not know that this is the Lord's day in the Massachusetts, much matchet man, (i. e. much wicked man,) what, break you God's day?'" They also exhorted other Indians to turn to to the faith, and endured persecution, with at least one suffering martyrdom by being poisoned.

The official sanction of the work by the government also meant that the need for more land was made to Eliot, who interceded for them (leading liberal historians to impugn their motives)

On November 4 of the next month, the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony voted "for the good of the Indians" to give the desired land, with Eliot being part of the commission which was to handle the matter. Asked by the Indians what to call their Christian village, Eliot recommended that it be called Nonantum, which in English signifies rejoicing, because “they hearing the word, and seeking to know God, the English did rejoice at it."

In 1663 Eliot, with help from Christian Indians, completed the first Bible printed in America, a [[Bible]] written in the Massachusett-Natick Algonquian Indian language, which was a long and difficult task requiring much perseverance, as this language was completely oral. Martin Moore, in ''Memoirs of the life and character of Rev. John Eliot,'' stated,
<blockquote>
The enormous length of many of its words, the consequent slow communication of ideas, the harshness of their pronunciation, and its little affinity with the European tongues, would have discouraged any but a most determined student. "Our readers will stand aghast," says Mather, "at a few instances. The words ' our lusts' are expressed in Indian by a word of thirty two letters—Nummatchekodtantamoonganunnonash."
</blockquote>

Eliot had his translation printed at Harvard College by Christian Indians who were trained to read both languages and to set type. Entitled ''The Holy Bible Containing the Old Testament and the New. Translated into the Indian Language,'' the translation of the New Testament took ten years and came off the press in 1663, with printing of the Old Testament following in in 1665, with and one thousand copies of the Algonquin Bible being distributed to the Indian people. Eliot also prepared grammars and primers in the Algonquian language.

The Indian Bible was the first book printed in an American Indian language, and was also the second book of any kind printed in Massachusetts (''The Bay Psalm Book'' of 1640 being held as being the first, which Eliot is also credited as being an editor of). The Eliot Bible appeared some 120 years before the first complete English edition of the Bible was published in what is now the United States (due to the economics of printing versus importing)

In seventeenth-century New England, Christian practice was a way of life, and steady, dutiful habits and working towards economic stablity were part of what constituted true Christian faith, and which living in English-style buildings and maintaining English work rhythms on geographically defined homesteads was conducive to.

An early historian of Newton, pastor Jonathan Homer, provided the following description of the "Praying Indian" village of Nonantum:

Mr. Eliot...furnished them, by the public aid, with shovels, spades, mattocks, and iron crows, and stimulated the most industrious with money.... The houses of the meanest were found to be equal to those of the sachems or chiefs in other places. They surrounded the town with ditches...and with a stone-wall.

The Indians, thus settled, were instructed in husbandry, and were excited to a prudent as well as industrious management of their affairs. Some of them were taught such trades as were most necessary for them, so that they completely built a house for public worship, 50 feet in length and 25 feet in breadth.

However, in less than five years after its foundation, Eliot was obliged to migrate the entire population of this North American Christian Indian community to a 3,000-acre site some fifteen miles to the southwest, in the present town of Natick.<ref>[http://www.braintreehistorical.org/NewsLetters/March2007.pdf The Lantern] Braintree Historical Society, VOL March 2007 XXV No.3</ref><ref>http://hassanamesit.org/images/documents/History%20Report%20-%20Final%2012012006.pdf</ref>.<ref>http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trm036.html</ref><ref>http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trm004.html</ref><ref>http://www.tyndalesploughboy.org/eliot-bible/</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=FZ8DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA18&dq=rev+john+elliot&output=text Memoirs of the life and character of Rev. John Eliot], pp. 24-43</ref>

Twenty years after the arrival of Eliot, the Massachusetts General Court established Natick (meaning “Place of Searching”) as the praying Indian village/town in 1651, helping them to be able to to worship in peace. This is considered by some to be the first '''formally''' "Christian town" in America, and consisted at first of 51 inhabitants in seven villages, with seven more being later established. The beloved (by the Indians at least) Eliot became known as the “Apostle to the Indians.”

Other praying Indian Towns also were established, including Ponkapoag (Stoughton, MA) and Nashoba (Littleton, MA), but also covering portions of Dover, Wellesley, and Needham in addition to Dedham. By 1675, it is estimated that 20 percent of the Native Indians in New England lived in praying Towns.

====Removal and decimation====
The winter of 1675 began an intense trial in the wilderness for the Indians. The colonists, being largely distrustful of the these Praying Indians of a different language and culture, and being fearful that they might join "[[King Phillip]]" (Metacom), the mighty Wampanoag Indian Chief in an ongoing war, they forced the removal of the approximately 200 Natick Praying Indians to Deer Island at midnight on October 30. Despite only being given half an hour’s notice, the Indians made no opposition, and were left unprotected on the frigid Island, being forbidden to light fires, hunt game, build shelters, and so suffered from hunger and little clothing, though they may have been able to dig clams and fish. A month later this crime was multiplied as the praying Indian Villages of Ponkapoag and Nashoba were sent to suffer interment on the Island, which lasted until into 1676. An attempt by the now elderly Eliot going by boat to bring supplies to the Natives is said to have ended when the boat was capsized by some angry colonists. Despite that winter being one of the coldest winters on record, Eliot recorded that no word of complaint ever issued from their lips. Most of the 500 Indians died of cold and starvation, while some of the Praying Indians worked as spies for the colonists and fought for them.

After the death of King Phillip Pastor Eliot and Daniel Gookin secured the Indians release, personally removing the Indians from the Island and bearing the financial cost to do so. They returned to face the loss of homes and property, and means of survival. A remnant lived on however, as a testimony of enduring faith.

Deer Island today exists mainly as a sewage treatment plant, but with a park with an open walk which remembers the plight of the Natives that were once imprisoned there.<ref>[http://natickprayingindians.org/history.html Praying Indians of Natick and Ponkapoag]</ref> <ref>[http://www.helloboston.com/BookFiles/Pg_303-382.pdf The Memorial History of Boston 1630-1880 Vol. I, p. 321]</ref><ref>Blackwell Reference Online; A Dictionary of American Reference; Purvis, Thomas L. 1997</ref><ref>http://www.tyndalesploughboy.org/eliot-bible/</ref>

===Praying Indians in Delaware===

During the period of the 1730s to the 1770s, the Delaware Indians had been forced out of their homelands in the east and had found temporary refuge along the Ohio River.

Among these was a contingent of Moravian Indian converts in western Delaware. During the 1740s the Moravians had established communities of Indian Christians from Georgia to New York , but these were gradually moved westward further away from "civilization", due to increasing pressures of European settlements. Yet the Moravians believed that healthy communities could exist separate from both the negative influences of European society as well as the pagan customs of non-Christianized Indians.

In the early 1770s settlements of Christian Indians were established in Gnadenhutten, Salem and New Schonbrunn where Delawares, Mohicans, and other tribal affiliations mingled together as religious communities.

However, war between some of the Delawares outside these communities and the Americans broke out, resulting in the destruction of Coshocton on April 19, 1781, which was located in the middle of the warpath between the American forces at Pittsburgh, and the British stronghold of Detroit.

The Christian Indians in the Moravian villages were unarmed noncombatants and at this time were not molested, but in September 1781, certain Indian tribes who were allied with the British forced the Christian Indians and the white missionaries to move from their Moravian villages to a new village on the Sandusky. The missionaries were also taken to Detroit and tried for treason by the British, but were acquitted.

Being in need of food over 100 of the Christian Indians returned to their old Moravian villages in February of 1782, seeking to harvest the crops they had been forced to leave behind. However, war was still ongoing, and an adhoc militia of 160 Pennsylvania local frontiersmen led by Colonel David Williamson, seeking to destroy Indian villages and looking for Indian scalps, found the Christian Indians at Gnadenhutten. Although the pacifism of the Moravian Indians was well known, and they had been very helpful to the American cause, the militiamen accused them of taking part in ongoing raids against them, and sought to frame them as guilty. At a council called by Williamson, his men (some of whom had recently lost relations to Indians) voted to kill them all, with records showing only 18 voting to spare them.

A website<ref>http://gnadenhutten.tripod.com</ref> created to honor the slain (and the main source for this section), states,
{{cquote|
On the evening of the 7th, the Indians spent their last hours praying and singing, knowing that their spirits would soon be in the presence of their God. They did not resist, they did not struggle. The next morning the slaughter began. The women were killed in one building, the men in the other. The old, the young and the infants were all massacred. The lists of the victims contain the names of infants and toddlers who were killed. As the victims were brought into the slaughter houses, many sang hymns, others prayed. The word of God was on their lips as the mallet or tomahawk crashed into their skulls...

The other abandoned Moravian towns were then burned as well. Two Indian boys, one of whom had been scalped, survived to tell of the massacre. The bordermen who had committed the mass murder were hailed as heroes by most of their fellow frontiersmen, but were deemed as criminals by most of the rest of America.}}

90-96 Delaware (Lenni Lenape), Mohican, and other Indians who had been converted by Moravian missionaries to Christianity died, and as a result of the the massacre, Indian distrust of Americans and resistance to them much increased. <ref>[http://gnadenhutten.tripod.com Gnadenhutten Massacre]</ref><ref>[http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gwilli824/moravian.html Information on the Militia Criminals]</ref>

==Negative effects of resettlement==

Later, after the American Indian Peoples were rounded up onto reservations, the sudden dependence on the government created situations that are often associated with welfare situations. Both because of biology (Indian people like many Asian people do not break down alcohol the same way Europeans do) and the lack of being a "bread winner" that men throughout history find critical to identity as head of the family, alcohol and drug abuse became very common both among reservation and urban Indians, as is the case today.<ref>12% of Indian deaths are related to alcohol, several times the national average. http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug28/0,4670,IndianDeathsAlcohol,00.html</ref> A strong rise in child and spousal abuse occurred after the "welfare state" like existence for the men came into being. Without the need to provide for the family, depression sets in, and is a common problem on the reservation.

Conflicts between "traditionalists" and "modernists", between "Christian Indians" and "tribal religion" Indians, between urban Indians and reservation Indians, and "full bloods" and "mixed bloods" are common among Indian people and effect their politics and social life. In the 1980's, Indian reservations began to see a rise in gangs, often as a result of drugs and drug wars with other social cultures in large cities.

==Indian tribes today==

Indian People have a proud heritage and find strength there to renew their cultures. They are, as a people, generally both proud to be American and (since World War I), proud soldiers for this country. At any Indian gathering, the first people onto the dance floor, or introduced politically, or recognized for contributions to the tribe are the elder male veterans, then the elder women (non veterans), the all other veterans, and only then people who have not served in the US military.

Indian People have many problems to solve, but new social services, generally run and funded by the tribes themselves, along with new recognition of Indian People's contributions to society are ways that tribes and individuals are trying to change things.

Today, many Indian tribes are seeing a resurgence, such as in [[California]], with outreach programs working to reunite urban Indians with both their reservation families and other urban tribal members; programs set up both by the tribe themselves (often with assistance of state and local governments) to teach their languages and open schools that focus on a tribal way of life. Most tribes have been granted some limited power in self governance as well, significantly in the area of the sentencing of tribal members in various criminal and civil issues. Special tax breaks have helped Indian people and Indian reservations become more self-sufficient. Some states have even revisited the definition of 'reservation' based on the Dawes Act which originally provided for substantially more "reservation" land if the Indian people would buy it as individual land, and either market it or farm it (the intent was to help Indian Peoples integrate into the American social and economic systems). So for instance in [[Wisconsin]], Indian reservation land can include buying real estate in [[Milwaukee]] - far from the physical location of the tribes themselves. Laws have been enacted in some States that give Indians special privileges in allowing [[gambling]] in the form of slot machines and other gaming, resulting in economic gains but with increased addictive behavior, and at the expense of spiritual and social values. <ref>Don A. Cozzetto, "The Economic and Social Implications of Indian Gaming: The Case of Minnesota," American Indian Culture and Research Journal (Winter 1995), p. 126</ref> <ref>Judy Zelio, "The Fat New Buffalo," State Legislatures (June 1994): p. 38-41</ref> <ref> Marci McDonald, "Tribal Gamblers," Maclean's (May 30, 1994): p. 32-33</ref> <ref>Magnuson, "Casino Wars: Ethics and Economics in Indian Country," Christian Century (February 16, 1994): pp. 169-171</ref>

Self governance is a huge issue, with each of the over 300 recognized tribes having different rules and regulations placed on them by the Government. As with every other political system in the world, Indian People disagree with each other about many issues from how to spend government money to how "traditional" to become, to what religion should be the focal point of the tribe.

Other issues remain between recognized Sovereign Nations and the US government including mineral right issues, natural resource husbandry and mediation, conflicts with government run museums (as well as a few private museums) over who has the right to various artifacts, what rights modern Indian peoples should and should not have when dealing with artifacts that are clearly earlier than the oldest known existence of any particular tribe (for example, who has rights to archaeological finds at Mesa Verde, which represents an extinct tribe, the Anisazii).

== References ==
<references/>

==See also==

* [[American Indian]]
* [[Native American]]
* [[Colombian Exchange]]
* [[Cherokee]]
* [[Ethnic Groups Gallery]]

==Further reading==
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=Qmhumu27RG0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%E2%80%9CHistorical+Account+of+the+Doings+and+Sufferings+of+the+Christian+Indians+in+New+England&source=bl&ots=QdV_ofGv07&sig=rjN1PJHZYZj___JHtKJh1Zjsj_s&hl=en&ei=Xn-FS-6aBpTENu_npTQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false Daniel Gookin,''Historical Account of the Doings and Sufferings of the Christian Indians in New England in the years 1675-1677'']
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=xzH0-U6PaSgC&dq=north+american+indians+internecine+conflict&source=gbs_navlinks_s William L. Traxel, ''Footprints of the Welsh Indians: settlers in North America before 1492]
* [http://books.google.com/books?id=n78RAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false John McIntosh, ''The origin of the North American Indians'']
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=FZ8DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA13&dq=rev+john+elliot&output=text#PA13 Martin Moore, ''Memoirs of the life and character of Rev. John Eliot'']

[[category:Native Americans]]

Aron Ra

2012-11-12T19:10:51Z

BobEnyart: /* External links */

'''AronRa''' is a popular [[atheism|atheist]] and [[evolution|evolutionist]] on [[YouTube]]. The popular Christian YouTube channel [[shockofgod]] issued [[Essay: The question atheists fear|a challenge to the atheist community]] to provide proof and evidence that proves atheism is accurate and correct.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXIGs_cdj5Y</ref> AronRa failed to provide proof and evidence that [[atheism]] is accurate and correct.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXIGs_cdj5Y</ref>

The popular [[Christianity|Christian]] YouTube video maker [[Shockofgod]] has also challenged [[Texas]] YouTube atheists AronRa and [[Matt Dillahunty]] to answer the 15 questions for [[evolution|evolutionists]] which are featured in [[Creation Ministries International]]'s [[Question evolution! campaign]].<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I</ref> AronRa is unable to answer the questions.

In May of 2011, AronRa issued his own phylogeny challenge<ref>http://youtu.be/_r0zpk0lPFU</ref>. No one has yet responded or attempted to answer this challenge.

== See also ==
*[[Christian apologetics|Evidence for Christianity]]
*[[Atheism and the internet]]
*[[Matt Dillahunty]] - The Atheist Experience Show
*[[Thunderf00t]]
*[[DonExodus2]]
*[[Essay: The question atheists fear|The question atheists fear]]
*[[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism]]
*[[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]
*[[Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]] ('''large collection''' of comedy/satire concerning [[atheism]] and [[evolution]])

== External links ==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plnwMNBm9z4 Creationist Ian Juby responds to AronRa's "8th Foundational falsehood of creationism"]
*[http://kgov.com/aronra AronRa's 2012 written and on air debates] with a young earth creationist Denver radio host
*[http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa AronRa] - YouTube channel
*[http://www.aronra.com/ AronRa website]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category: Shockofgod]]
[[Category: YouTube]]

Talk:Creation vs. evolution debates

2012-10-24T16:37:40Z

BobEnyart: /* Does anyone really "win" these debates? */

Is this true? I don't live in the USA, so I don't really know what is happening there. But in my country, like in most (all?) European countries, creation scientists don't win the debates at all. In fact, this debate does not even exist, because I have never heard of any "creation scientist" in my country, and most people here think creationism is ridiculous. Maybe this article should include information about other countries. [[User:Enkul|Enkul]] 05:37, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

Why delete the Talk page for this page of bilge? Maybe too many reasonable people were showing up and laughing in your face for the absurd assertion it is premised on? No creationist has ever won a debate with an evolutionary scientist... for the same reason that the Vatican didn't "win" the debate with Galileo that the Earth is at the center of the Solar System. Even when they imprisoned him, they were still ignorant (debate) losers. [[User:Joseph8th|Joseph8th]] 12:43, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:Unless we can reproduce the talk pages, which appear top have been [[Oversight]]ed in their entirely, this locked article is orginal research allowing no input or discussion from editors. It belongs in Essays. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:28, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
::Joseph, wrong! wrong! wrong! In January 2006, the BBC reported concerning Britain: "Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll. Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons. And this in Charles Darwin's homeland! Please see: [[evolution]] for citations. Plus, the [[Question evolution campaign]] appears to be filtering into England. If you think [[Richard Dawkins]], with his current "lady problems" (Elevatorgate) and his reputations for cowardice (see: [[Daniel Came]]), is going to be effective opposition, think again! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::That's off topic. The question is (A) where are the previous discussions to this mainspace article page? and (B) why is this original research essay in mainspace? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:29, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I don't know the answer to your first question. Second, I don't think it is original research (I cited sources) and even if it is, if memory serves, I think Conservapedia allows original research to be in main space articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:58, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Yes, we may need a page to clarify that. I look into it. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:05, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Fine, given that evolutionists have tried to inject their nonsense repeatedly into this article if memory serves, I did lock it. They hate admitting they get trounced in debates and they have turned into cowards by largely dodging debates now. Plus, I cited multiple excellent sources re: evolutionists losing debates so this is by no means original research. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:10, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

:::I have emailed the website owner and some fellow Sysops to keep the article, keep it locked, and to overly react to evolutionists opposition. I don't see a point in caving into atheist/evolutionists opposition for this important article nor do I see a point in engaging in wheel spinning. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:42, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

== Article title ==

This is a great article, but I think it should have a bit smaller title. Perhaps move it to essay? Or merge it with another article? [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:31, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:That's a good suggestion. We could merge it into [[Atheism and Debate]], maybe put it in a section called "[[Atheism and Debate#Creation_Scientists_Tend_to_Win_the_Creation-Evolution_Debates|Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates]]". ...oh, wait. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:37, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I have emailed the website owner and some fellow Sysops to keep the article, keep it locked, and to overly react to evolutionists opposition. I don't see a point in caving into atheist/evolutionists opposition for this important article nor do I see a point in engaging in wheel spinning. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:42, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Right now the big concern was over deleted and oversighted talk page discussions. User:Conservative said he wasn't responsible, and I believe him. Certainly trolling, foul language, abusive comments should be reverted and in extreme cases oversighted, but not wholesale deleting and oversighting of Archive discussions. Reader feedback & suggestions for improvement are a good thing.
:::::On a side note to User:Conservative, sorry I wasn't able to get back to you on our private correspondance. You and I are a lot alike, tuff skin, able to shake off intemperate and immoderate remarks directed at us, bullets bounce off our chests. Good to see you still standing on your feet! [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:09, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Oh no, I am not an evolutionist. This is a great article, and I think it should be kept. All I am suggesting is perhaps putting this info as part of another article, or perhaps find a better name. This is not a problem with the content, just the aesthetics of the title (and the fact that it is difficult for someone like me to search for). I appologize if my request came the wrong way. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:44, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Nick, thanks. Some of this information is incorporated into 3-5 Conservapedia articles including [[Atheism and Debate]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:50, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
::::No problem. I'm glad I could point that out. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:53, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::RobS, no problem. You have one up on me. I don't think I am willing to try the bullets bouncing off my chest experiment. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:35, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
Proposed Title, 9 characters shorter: Creation scientists tend to win debates with evolutionists. [[User:BobEnyart|Bob Enyart, 20-year conservative radio talk host on America's #1 most-powerful Christian radio station]] 12:36, 24 October 2012 (EDT)

== Shockofgod ==

I know it mentions Shock of God, but I have closely observed his channel, and there are plenty of examples of him winning debates against atheists. I remember a specific debate (I can't find it at the moment, but I'll try), where the atheists simply refused to even respond to his points, and then just claimed the themselves as the winner. Despite the fact that they invited Shock on to debate with them, they refused to even debate his famous question and instead focused on something completely irrelevent (I believe it had to do with the idea that Christianity is based off of Paul, not Jesus's, teachings. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:52, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I like [[Shockofgod]] and his question, but I deleted the material I added concerning him in this article as it was not germaine to the article's topic except in a very ancillary way as he mostly has been involved in atheism vs. theism/Christian issue. Only recently has [[Shockofgod]] been promoting the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Ah, I see what you mean. Anyways, keep up the good work, Mr. Conservative! [[User:NickP|NickP]] 22:32, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

==Does anyone really "win" these debates?==
Most creationism vs. evolution debates don't have a winner. One side presents their argument, the other presents their's. They don't really crown a winner at the end, whoever won is up to the viewer to decide.

Reply: I'm only a talk show host, but the debates I've had with plenty of evolutionary scientists have been easy: http://kgov.com/eugenie-scott http://kgov.com/michael-shermer http://kgov.com/aronra (he doesn't really count yet I guess) http://kgov.com/lawrence-krauss etc. They're rather easy to beat. And here's the test we've used for decades to determine at the least, who *thinks* that they won the debate: The side that promotes the debate is the side that at least thinks that they won :)

Talk:Creation vs. evolution debates

2012-10-24T16:36:36Z

BobEnyart: /* Article title */

Talk:Creation vs. evolution debates

2012-10-24T16:35:50Z

BobEnyart: /* Article title */

Is this true? I don't live in the USA, so I don't really know what is happening there. But in my country, like in most (all?) European countries, creation scientists don't win the debates at all. In fact, this debate does not even exist, because I have never heard of any "creation scientist" in my country, and most people here think creationism is ridiculous. Maybe this article should include information about other countries. [[User:Enkul|Enkul]] 05:37, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

Why delete the Talk page for this page of bilge? Maybe too many reasonable people were showing up and laughing in your face for the absurd assertion it is premised on? No creationist has ever won a debate with an evolutionary scientist... for the same reason that the Vatican didn't "win" the debate with Galileo that the Earth is at the center of the Solar System. Even when they imprisoned him, they were still ignorant (debate) losers. [[User:Joseph8th|Joseph8th]] 12:43, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:Unless we can reproduce the talk pages, which appear top have been [[Oversight]]ed in their entirely, this locked article is orginal research allowing no input or discussion from editors. It belongs in Essays. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:28, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
::Joseph, wrong! wrong! wrong! In January 2006, the BBC reported concerning Britain: "Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll. Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons. And this in Charles Darwin's homeland! Please see: [[evolution]] for citations. Plus, the [[Question evolution campaign]] appears to be filtering into England. If you think [[Richard Dawkins]], with his current "lady problems" (Elevatorgate) and his reputations for cowardice (see: [[Daniel Came]]), is going to be effective opposition, think again! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::That's off topic. The question is (A) where are the previous discussions to this mainspace article page? and (B) why is this original research essay in mainspace? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:29, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I don't know the answer to your first question. Second, I don't think it is original research (I cited sources) and even if it is, if memory serves, I think Conservapedia allows original research to be in main space articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:58, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Yes, we may need a page to clarify that. I look into it. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:05, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Fine, given that evolutionists have tried to inject their nonsense repeatedly into this article if memory serves, I did lock it. They hate admitting they get trounced in debates and they have turned into cowards by largely dodging debates now. Plus, I cited multiple excellent sources re: evolutionists losing debates so this is by no means original research. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:10, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

:::I have emailed the website owner and some fellow Sysops to keep the article, keep it locked, and to overly react to evolutionists opposition. I don't see a point in caving into atheist/evolutionists opposition for this important article nor do I see a point in engaging in wheel spinning. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:42, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

== Article title ==

This is a great article, but I think it should have a bit smaller title. Perhaps move it to essay? Or merge it with another article? [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:31, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:That's a good suggestion. We could merge it into [[Atheism and Debate]], maybe put it in a section called "[[Atheism and Debate#Creation_Scientists_Tend_to_Win_the_Creation-Evolution_Debates|Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates]]". ...oh, wait. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:37, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I have emailed the website owner and some fellow Sysops to keep the article, keep it locked, and to overly react to evolutionists opposition. I don't see a point in caving into atheist/evolutionists opposition for this important article nor do I see a point in engaging in wheel spinning. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:42, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Right now the big concern was over deleted and oversighted talk page discussions. User:Conservative said he wasn't responsible, and I believe him. Certainly trolling, foul language, abusive comments should be reverted and in extreme cases oversighted, but not wholesale deleting and oversighting of Archive discussions. Reader feedback & suggestions for improvement are a good thing.
:::::On a side note to User:Conservative, sorry I wasn't able to get back to you on our private correspondance. You and I are a lot alike, tuff skin, able to shake off intemperate and immoderate remarks directed at us, bullets bounce off our chests. Good to see you still standing on your feet! [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:09, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Oh no, I am not an evolutionist. This is a great article, and I think it should be kept. All I am suggesting is perhaps putting this info as part of another article, or perhaps find a better name. This is not a problem with the content, just the aesthetics of the title (and the fact that it is difficult for someone like me to search for). I appologize if my request came the wrong way. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:44, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Nick, thanks. Some of this information is incorporated into 3-5 Conservapedia articles including [[Atheism and Debate]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:50, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
::::No problem. I'm glad I could point that out. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:53, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::RobS, no problem. You have one up on me. I don't think I am willing to try the bullets bouncing off my chest experiment. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:35, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
Proposed Title, 9 characters shorter: Creation scientists tend to win debates with evolutionists. Regarding the point of this article, I'm only a talk show host, but the debates I've had with plenty of evolutionary scientists have been easy: http://kgov.com/eugenie-scott http://kgov.com/michael-shermer http://kgov.com/aronra (he doesn't really count yet I guess) http://kgov.com/lawrence-krauss etc. They're rather easy to beat. And here's the test we've used for decades to determine at the least, who *thinks* that they won the debate: The side that promotes the debate is the side that at least thinks that they won :) [[User:BobEnyart|Bob Enyart, 20-year conservative radio talk host on America's #1 most-powerful Christian radio station]] 12:33, 24 October 2012 (EDT)

== Shockofgod ==

I know it mentions Shock of God, but I have closely observed his channel, and there are plenty of examples of him winning debates against atheists. I remember a specific debate (I can't find it at the moment, but I'll try), where the atheists simply refused to even respond to his points, and then just claimed the themselves as the winner. Despite the fact that they invited Shock on to debate with them, they refused to even debate his famous question and instead focused on something completely irrelevent (I believe it had to do with the idea that Christianity is based off of Paul, not Jesus's, teachings. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:52, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I like [[Shockofgod]] and his question, but I deleted the material I added concerning him in this article as it was not germaine to the article's topic except in a very ancillary way as he mostly has been involved in atheism vs. theism/Christian issue. Only recently has [[Shockofgod]] been promoting the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Ah, I see what you mean. Anyways, keep up the good work, Mr. Conservative! [[User:NickP|NickP]] 22:32, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

==Does anyone really "win" these debates?==
Most creationism vs. evolution debates don't have a winner. One side presents their argument, the other presents their's. They don't really crown a winner at the end, whoever won is up to the viewer to decide.

Talk:Creation vs. evolution debates

2012-10-24T16:33:16Z

BobEnyart:

Is this true? I don't live in the USA, so I don't really know what is happening there. But in my country, like in most (all?) European countries, creation scientists don't win the debates at all. In fact, this debate does not even exist, because I have never heard of any "creation scientist" in my country, and most people here think creationism is ridiculous. Maybe this article should include information about other countries. [[User:Enkul|Enkul]] 05:37, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

Why delete the Talk page for this page of bilge? Maybe too many reasonable people were showing up and laughing in your face for the absurd assertion it is premised on? No creationist has ever won a debate with an evolutionary scientist... for the same reason that the Vatican didn't "win" the debate with Galileo that the Earth is at the center of the Solar System. Even when they imprisoned him, they were still ignorant (debate) losers. [[User:Joseph8th|Joseph8th]] 12:43, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:Unless we can reproduce the talk pages, which appear top have been [[Oversight]]ed in their entirely, this locked article is orginal research allowing no input or discussion from editors. It belongs in Essays. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:28, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
::Joseph, wrong! wrong! wrong! In January 2006, the BBC reported concerning Britain: "Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll. Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons. And this in Charles Darwin's homeland! Please see: [[evolution]] for citations. Plus, the [[Question evolution campaign]] appears to be filtering into England. If you think [[Richard Dawkins]], with his current "lady problems" (Elevatorgate) and his reputations for cowardice (see: [[Daniel Came]]), is going to be effective opposition, think again! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::That's off topic. The question is (A) where are the previous discussions to this mainspace article page? and (B) why is this original research essay in mainspace? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:29, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I don't know the answer to your first question. Second, I don't think it is original research (I cited sources) and even if it is, if memory serves, I think Conservapedia allows original research to be in main space articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:58, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Yes, we may need a page to clarify that. I look into it. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:05, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Fine, given that evolutionists have tried to inject their nonsense repeatedly into this article if memory serves, I did lock it. They hate admitting they get trounced in debates and they have turned into cowards by largely dodging debates now. Plus, I cited multiple excellent sources re: evolutionists losing debates so this is by no means original research. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:10, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

:::I have emailed the website owner and some fellow Sysops to keep the article, keep it locked, and to overly react to evolutionists opposition. I don't see a point in caving into atheist/evolutionists opposition for this important article nor do I see a point in engaging in wheel spinning. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:42, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

== Article title ==

This is a great article, but I think it should have a bit smaller title. Perhaps move it to essay? Or merge it with another article? [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:31, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:That's a good suggestion. We could merge it into [[Atheism and Debate]], maybe put it in a section called "[[Atheism and Debate#Creation_Scientists_Tend_to_Win_the_Creation-Evolution_Debates|Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates]]". ...oh, wait. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:37, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I have emailed the website owner and some fellow Sysops to keep the article, keep it locked, and to overly react to evolutionists opposition. I don't see a point in caving into atheist/evolutionists opposition for this important article nor do I see a point in engaging in wheel spinning. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:42, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Right now the big concern was over deleted and oversighted talk page discussions. User:Conservative said he wasn't responsible, and I believe him. Certainly trolling, foul language, abusive comments should be reverted and in extreme cases oversighted, but not wholesale deleting and oversighting of Archive discussions. Reader feedback & suggestions for improvement are a good thing.
:::::On a side note to User:Conservative, sorry I wasn't able to get back to you on our private correspondance. You and I are a lot alike, tuff skin, able to shake off intemperate and immoderate remarks directed at us, bullets bounce off our chests. Good to see you still standing on your feet! [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:09, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Oh no, I am not an evolutionist. This is a great article, and I think it should be kept. All I am suggesting is perhaps putting this info as part of another article, or perhaps find a better name. This is not a problem with the content, just the aesthetics of the title (and the fact that it is difficult for someone like me to search for). I appologize if my request came the wrong way. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:44, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Nick, thanks. Some of this information is incorporated into 3-5 Conservapedia articles including [[Atheism and Debate]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:50, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
::::No problem. I'm glad I could point that out. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:53, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::RobS, no problem. You have one up on me. I don't think I am willing to try the bullets bouncing off my chest experiment. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:35, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
Proposed Title, 9 characters shorter: Creation scientists tend to win debates with evolutionists. Regarding the point of this article, I'm only a talk show host, but the debates I've had with plenty of evolutionary scientists, http://kgov.com/eugenie-scott http://kgov.com/michael-shermer http://kgov.com/aronra (he doesn't really count yet I guess) http://kgov.com/lawrence-krauss etc., they're rather easy to beat. And here's our decades-long test for who at least thinks that they won our debates: The side that promotes the debate, is at least the side that thinks that they won :) [[User:BobEnyart|Bob Enyart, 20-year conservative radio talk host on America's #1 most-powerful Christian radio station]] 12:33, 24 October 2012 (EDT)

== Shockofgod ==

I know it mentions Shock of God, but I have closely observed his channel, and there are plenty of examples of him winning debates against atheists. I remember a specific debate (I can't find it at the moment, but I'll try), where the atheists simply refused to even respond to his points, and then just claimed the themselves as the winner. Despite the fact that they invited Shock on to debate with them, they refused to even debate his famous question and instead focused on something completely irrelevent (I believe it had to do with the idea that Christianity is based off of Paul, not Jesus's, teachings. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:52, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I like [[Shockofgod]] and his question, but I deleted the material I added concerning him in this article as it was not germaine to the article's topic except in a very ancillary way as he mostly has been involved in atheism vs. theism/Christian issue. Only recently has [[Shockofgod]] been promoting the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Ah, I see what you mean. Anyways, keep up the good work, Mr. Conservative! [[User:NickP|NickP]] 22:32, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

==Does anyone really "win" these debates?==
Most creationism vs. evolution debates don't have a winner. One side presents their argument, the other presents their's. They don't really crown a winner at the end, whoever won is up to the viewer to decide.