Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Creationism

2020-09-15T01:08:30Z

McCoy: Typo

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|alt=creationism|right|thumb|250px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the [[creation]] of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]
'''Creationism''' is false the belief that the [[earth]] and [[universe]] and the various kinds of animals and plants were created by [[God]]. Those that hold the false views of ''Creationism'' are referred to as ''Creationists''.<ref>"creationist." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 21 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationist>.</ref> Creationism runs contrary to the beliefs of actual scientists who proved that the universe was not created by God.<ref>[https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists - Question 15 deals with the idea that evolution is a religion]</ref> The vast majority of Christians and Christian leaders throughout history have accepted biblical creation.<ref name="Turpin"/>

[[Bible|Biblical]] creationism is primarily based on: the compelling testimony provided by [[Argument from beauty|God's wondrous creation]]; the [[Bible history|historical]] and [[Bible prophecy|prophetic]] evidence supporting the [[Bible]]; religious belief and on the [[science|scientific]] evidence provided through [[creation science]].
Biblical creationism, which includes the idea that man is created in the image of God, has profoundly affected [[Western Civilization]] in a positive way. Some of the areas it has benefited Western culture is in the areas of human rights and law, ethics and morality, economics, science, and the arts (see also: [[Christianity and science]] and [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]]).<ref>
*[https://creation.com/man-the-image-of-god Man: The Image of God]
*[https://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to belief in evolution]
*[https://creation.com/morality-and-ethics-questions-and-answers Morality and ethics - Creationism vs. evolutionism]
*[https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_2/j19_2_67-73.pdf The Christian foundations of the rule of law in the West: a legacy of liberty and resistance against tyranny]
*[https://creation.com/marxism-law-and-evolution Marxism, law and evolution]
*[https://creation.com/evolutionary-legal-theories Evolutionary legal theories—the impact of Darwinism on western conceptions of law]
*[https://creation.com/darwins-critical-influence-on-the-ruthless-extremes-of-capitalism Darwin's influence on the ruthless extremes of capitalism]
*[https://creation.com/christianity-islam-and-science Christianity, Islam and Science]
*[https://creation.com/looking-forward-to-the-eradication-of-christianity Looking forward to the eradication of Christianity - Christianity, creationism and the arts]
</ref>

[[Creation Ministries International]], a leading [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization, declared:
{{cquote|Creationist research is having a global effect that is worrying the [[atheism|atheists]] and secularists of this world. They have had it all their own way for over a century but things are slowly changing. For almost twenty five years now, ''[[Journal of Creation]]'' has been publishing cutting-edge creationist research that has been fueling the war against [[evolution]], creating little fires all around the world, including [[Great Britain]].

Atheist scientist, Prof [[Richard Dawkins]], speaking at the 20th anniversary of the Edinburgh International Science Festival in April 2008, said the rise of creationism in British schools raised a serious problem for science teachers.

It is a very worrying trend,’ he said, ‘and I think a lot of it has come over from [[United States|America]] and [[Australia]].’<ref>https://creation.com/growth-of-creation-science-in-uk-worries-prof-dawkins</ref>}}

Within creationism in the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, there are various ideas. In regards to those religions, one form of creationism holds that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old and is referred to as [[Young Earth Creationism]]. The other form of creationism is called [[Old Earth Creationism]] and holds that the earth and universe are billions of years old. Creationist scientists demonstrate that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal [[universe]] and they also demonstrate that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created.<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=310 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> Dr. [[Norman Geisler]] stated that "Both young- and old-earthers believe that God supernaturally, directly and immediately produced every kind of animal and human as separate and [[Genetics|genetically]] distinct forms of life." <ref name="johnankerberg.org">http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC0305W3.htm</ref> Dr. [[Norman Geisler]] also wrote that "both young- and old-earthers who are [[Evangelicalism|evangelical]] hold to the historicity of the Genesis account: They believe that [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] were literal people, the progenitors of the entire human race." <ref name="johnankerberg.org"/> Creation scientists assert that the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] is in conflict with the evidence provided by the physical sciences and often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[evolution]]).<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/21</ref>

Those who hold to young earth creationism point out that nearly every culture in the world has a [[creation]] story and a [[Great flood|flood story]].<ref name="katapi.org.uk">http://www.katapi.org.uk/BAndS/ChII.htm</ref><ref name="icr.org">https://www.icr.org/article/108/</ref><ref name="https://www.icr.org/article/570">https://www.icr.org/article/570/</ref><ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/18757/creation.htm</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/17051.htm</ref> Many of these creation accounts and flood accounts have commonalities with the account given in the book of Genesis although gross differences exist also.<ref name="katapi.org.uk"/><ref name="icr.org"/><ref name="https://www.icr.org/article/570"/> The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has taken the position that the similarities in regards to creation accounts to the Genesis account demonstrates that the main points of the Genesis account has been preserved.<ref name="icr.org"/> In regards to the assertion that the similarities in flood stories around the world show common origin, young earth creationist particularly assert that there are strong similarities between the [[Global flood|Genesis flood account]] and other world flood accounts.<ref name="https://www.icr.org/article/570"/><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/flood-legends</ref> Also, there are remarkable similarities between Native American creation myths and the biblical account given in Genesis concerning [[creation]].<ref>[https://creation.com/indian-creation-myths Indian creation myths - CMI]</ref>

== Global creationism ==

''See also:'' [[Global creationism]]
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] was a founder of [[Creation Ministries International]], a Christian ministry which is in four continents. ]]
[[Johns Hopkins University]] Press reported in 2014: "Over the past forty years, creationism has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames."<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2015/03/johns-hopkins-university-press-reported.html Creationism spreading in Europe]</ref> See also: [[Evolutionary indoctrination]]

On October 4, 2014, the ''Vancouver Sun'' reported that evolutionism is rejected by hundreds of millions of [[evangelicalism|evangelical Christians]] and [[Islam|Muslims]] around the world.<ref name="blogs.vancouversun.com">[http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/10/04/evolution-under-attack-from-muslims-and-evangelicals/ Evolution rejected by hundreds of millions of Muslims and evangelicals], ''Vancouver Sun'', October 4, 2014</ref>

Specifically, the ''Vancouver Sun'' declared:
{{cquote|Creationism, a religious world view that adamantly rejects Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, is on the rise among evangelical Protestants and most of the world’s Muslims.

It is not only the majority of residents in Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia and Turkey who strongly reject the teaching that humans and other species evolved over millions of years from less complex creatures. So do tens of millions of evangelical Christians in North America (as well as South America and Africa).

Overall, [Nidhal Guessoum, a Middle Eastern physics and astronomy professor] who teaches at the American University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates, estimates roughly 60 per cent of the world’s Muslims are creationists, including many living in the U.S. and Canada.

Even though poll results about evolution vary based on the questions asked, Salman Hameed reported in the journal ''Science'' that strong anti-evolution majorities exist in Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt and Pakistan. The latter is among Canada’s top six source countries for immigrants...

An Angus-Reid survey found 43 per cent of Americans accept the creationist teaching that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, which means they reject the...view the universe began roughly 13 billion years ago.<ref>[http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/10/04/evolution-under-attack-from-muslims-and-evangelicals/ Evolution rejected by hundreds of millions of Muslims and evangelicals], Vancouver Sun, October 4, 2014. 9:12 am</ref>}}

Belief in creation has regrown<ref name="Turpin">Turpin, Simon (December 29, 2016). [https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/articles/response-age-earth-plea-geo-chronological-non-dogmatism/ A Response to “The Age of the Earth: A Plea for Geo-Chronological Non-Dogmatism”]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved December 31, 2016.</ref><ref>It should be clearly and strongly noted that creation was the dominant theory in Europe and Christianity prior to the "Enlightenment", when Christians and XINOs began to compromise on this issue.</ref> rapidly in [[Europe]], as can be seen by secularist hysteria over the occurrence.<ref>Turpin, Simon (December 26, 2016). [https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/creation-invasion-in-europe/ Creation Invasion in Europe]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved January 1, 2016.</ref>

== Rapid growth of biblical creation belief in China ==

''See also:'' [[China and biblical creationism]]

[[Evangelical Christians|Evangelical Christianity]] is growing rapidly in China (see: [[Growth of Christianity in China]]). China may have one of the largest populations of biblical creationists in the world by 2030 (see: [[China and biblical creationism]]).

Jun-Yuan Chen Research Professor Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology was quoted in the ''Wall Street Journal'' as saying, "In China we can criticize [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] but not the government. In America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin."<ref>[http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/two-views-about-how-darwinism-stays-in-place-with-but-one-difference/ Two views about how Darwinism stays in place, with but one difference]</ref>

== Growth of modern creationism and Christian apologetics ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism vs. Christian revival and Christian apologetics]]

The effect of evolutionism on the [[Western World]] and the world at large was mitigated by the growth of modern creationism and [[Christian apologetics]] in the latter half of the 20th century and today [[global creationism]], Christian apologetics and [[global Christianity]] are seeing rapid growth.<ref name="blogs.vancouversun.com"/><ref>[http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/thriving-christianity Thriving Christianity]</ref><ref name="brethrenassembly.com">[http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/Apol_001A.pdf Introduction To Integrated Christian Apologetics, Dr. Johnson C. Philip & Dr. Saneesh Cherian]</ref>

Johns Hopkins University Press reported in 2014: "Over the past forty years, creationism has spread swiftly among European Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims, even as anti-creationists sought to smother its flames."<ref>[https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/creationism-europe Creationism in Europe]</ref>

=== History of the growth of creationism and its effect on Christendom ===
Dr. [[Johnson C. Philip]] & Dr. Saneesh Cherian wrote in their work ''Introduction To Integrated [[Christian apologetics|Christian Apologetics]]'':
{{cquote|American evangelical Christians have began to notice in the fifties that compromise is a slow poison that ultimately destroys respect for truth. Some of them came together and started writing aggressively on themes defending the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible. This gave birth to the modern interest in Apologetics and Creationism. At the dawn of the twenty-first century the influence of this revival has spread all over the world, and today more than one hundred and fifty organizations function around the world, devoted solely to apologetics. Their influence has be so strong that a large number of Seminaries all around the world have begun assert the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible...

...with the birth of the modern creationism and apologetics, a revival set in motion among the evangelical Christians. This group became quite vocal and aggressive in the sixties, and by seventies they started exerting significant influence among theologians, thinkers, and the Bible teachers all over the world.

Thousands of apologetic books, hundreds of magazines, and tens of thousands of articles have been produced defending the Bible since. In turn, this has started to diminish the influence of [[rationalism|rationalists]] and radicals on Christians.

From the middle of the nineteenth to the middle of the twentieth century the rationalists had their heyday, snatching away millions of young people from their Christian faith and commitment. The wounds of this loss can been seen in Christendom even today, but at the same time this loss has been greatly minimized now because of the work of Christian apologists.

Today anyone desiring to know about the Bible, and its connection with science, evolution, history, archaeology, has read any number of books on this topic. Literally thousands of titles are available, and he can choose anywhere from the most simple books to the most technically advanced ones. Thus the modern apologetics movement has been able to arrest the way in which rationalists have been bleeding the Christian church.<ref name="brethrenassembly.com">[http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/Apol_001A.pdf Introduction To Integrated Christian Apologetics, Dr. Johnson C. Philip & Dr. Saneesh Cherian]</ref>}}

== Internet creationism ==

''See also:'' [[Internet creationism]]

On February 24, 2015, the ''Science Nordic'' website declared:
{{Cquote|Creationism, the belief that a god -- not evolution -- shaped life on Earth, is ... spreading in the very stronghold of evolution, Europe. That’s the conclusion of five years of research that’s been put into new book on creationism. The book details how creationism is on the march throughout most of Europe.

"Creationism is most dominant in Eastern Europe and Turkey, but even some schools in the Netherlands are teaching creationism," says one of the book’s authors Hans Henrik Hjermitslev, University College South Denmark. "Politicians in some German federal states are advocating that schools use creationist books alongside those about evolutionary theory in their lessons. This kind of struggle is going on on a small scale in many places."...

"Over the last ten years we’ve seen the emergence of big-city creationism. London is a good example," says Kjærgaar.

Here, noticeably more young people have been signed up to various local and religious groups.

"And this doesn't just apply to young Muslims as many people might think. Christian groups are also recruiting young people...

Creationism has particularly been on the rise in step with the internet, which according to Peter Kjærgaard has made it much easier for people to become activists...<ref>[http://sciencenordic.com/scientists-warn-creationism-rise-europe Scientists warn: creationism is on the rise in Europe], ''Science Nordic''</ref>}}

[[Answers in Genesis]], [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[Institute for Creation Research]] have websites which consists of thousands of web pages and their respective websites receive significant web traffic.

Creation Ministries International has a [https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists web page] which features questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer, an interactive survey, videos and articles on various creation vs. evolution topics.

== Creationism and Intelligent Design ==

''See also:'' [[Intelligent design]]
[[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.]]
Believers in the Abrahamic faiths who hold to creationism believe that the natural world has been designed by God. Recently, there have been articles which were favorable to the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640</ref> Believers in the Abrahamic faiths have points of agreement and disagreement with the intelligent design movement. They agree that the natural world has an intelligent cause and was designed as mentioned previously. However, some advocates of creationism believe that the intelligent design movement divorces the Creator from creation by not explicitly stating that the cause of creation is a supernatural being and also failing to state explicitly who that supernatural being is.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement</ref>

There is considerable disagreement on whether or not intelligent design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism. This is due to the concept having many different definitions and proponents espousing different ideas.

For example, one major proponent of Intelligent Design is Young Earth Creationist Paul Nelson, while [[Michael Behe]], another major proponent, accepts [[common descent]]. [[William Dembski]] has stated unequivocally that Intelligent Design is not theistic evolution and they should not be considered the same.<ref>''What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design'' Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2), William Demsbki</ref> Dembski has also asserted that Intelligent Design is the [[Logos]] in terms of information theory,<ref>[http://touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=49] ''Signs of Intelligence:
A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent Design'' Touchstone Magazine, Volume 12, Issue 4 July–August 1999</ref> while Dembski and others have given other definitions that do not include any specific theological references. Arguably, intelligent design can be summarized as the notion that at some point in the past, in some way, some entity (possibly God) created life, or altered life at some point, or created the universe to be compatible with life.

Behe and others have stated that Intelligent Design is not religious in nature but in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover trial]], Judge John E. Jones III, a [[Republican]] and a US Federal District Judge, ruled as one of his findings that Intelligent Design was essentially religious in nature. The opinion borrowed heavily from the ACLU's briefs.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330]</ref> The Kitzmiller vs. Dover case did not take into account that [[Atheism is a religion|atheistic evolution is religious in nature]].<ref>https://creation.com/atheism-a-religion</ref><ref>http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_error_summary.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_Error.pdf</ref>

== Islamic creationism ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism vs. Islam]]
[[File:StarCresent.png|thumbnail|125px|right|Assuming patterns of net immigration do not change significantly, the Pew Forum thinks that there will be just over 5.5 million British Muslims, representing 8.2 per cent of the UK population, by 2030.<ref>[http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-will-britain-have-a-muslim-majority-by-2050/13690 FactCheck: will Britain have a Muslim majority by 2050?]</ref> See: [[Atheism vs. Islam]] ]]
According the news website ''The Commentator'': "Belief in evolution remains a minority position in virtually all Muslim societies around the world today. According to studies, 22 percent of Turks, 16 percent of Indonesians, 14 percent of Pakistanis, 11 percent of Malaysians, and 8 percent of Egyptians believe in evolution."<ref>[The Muslim theory of evolution] by Ghaffar Hussain
On 14 January 2013 10:03</ref>

In 2010, the Islamic creationist [[Harun Yahya]] was chosen among the top 500 most influential Muslims by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies center in Jordan.<ref>[http://www.csicop.org/si/show/harun_yahyas_islamic_creationism_what_it_is_and_isnt/ Harun Yahya’s Islamic Creationism: What It Is and Isn’t] by Stefano Bigliardi Volume 38.1, January/February 2014</ref>

In 2009, ''The Guardian'' reported:
{{cquote|Mass migration has led to a rise in creationist beliefs across Europe, according to a British scientist.

Michael Reiss, who is a professor of education at the Institute of Education in London and an Anglican priest, said the evolution-creationism debate could no longer be thought of as something that happened elsewhere and that more and more people in the UK did not accept evolution.

Reiss told the Guardian that countries with a higher proportion of Muslims or fundamentalist Christians in their population were more likely to reject evolution. He added: "What the Turks believe today is what the Germans and British believe tomorrow. It is because of the mass movement of people between countries.

"These things can no longer be thought of as occurring in other countries. In London, where I work, there are increasingly quite large numbers of highly intelligent 16, 17 and 18-year-olds doing Advanced Level biology who do not accept evolution. That's either because they come from a fundamentalist Christian background or from Muslim backgrounds."<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/nov/13/migration-creationism-evolution-michael-reiss Migration is spreading creationism across Europe, claims academic] by Riazat Butt, religious affairs correspondent, Friday 13 November 2009 07.49 EST</ref>}}

=== New atheist Richard Dawkins on Islamic creationism and multiculturism ===

''See also:'' [[Causes of the New Atheism movement#New Atheism as a reaction to creationism|New Atheism as a reaction to creationism]]
[[File:Richard Dawkins - March 2005.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] declared "[[Christianity]] may actually be our best defence against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world".<ref>[http://www.christiantoday.com/article/richard.dawkins.says.christianity.is.worlds.best.defence.against.radical.islam/76416.htm Richard Dawkins says Christianity is world's best defence against radical Islam], Christianity Today, January 2016</ref> See also: [[Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations|Richard Dawkins and Islam]] ]]
The British newspaper ''The Telegraph'' reported in an article entitled ''[[Richard Dawkins]]: Muslim parents 'import creationism' into schools'':
{{cquote|Prof Dawkins, a well-known atheist, also blamed the Government for accommodating religious views and allowing creationism to be taught in schools.

"Most devout Muslims are creationists so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught," Prof Dawkins said in a Sunday newspaper interview.

"Teachers are bending over backwards to respect home prejudices that children have been brought up with. The Government could do more, but it doesn't want to because it is fanatical about [[multiculturalism]] and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come."<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2494397/Richard-Dawkins-Muslim-parents-import-creationism-into-schools.html ''Richard Dawkins: Muslim parents 'import creationism' into schools''], ''The Telegraph''</ref>}}

== Biblical creation publications ==

''See also:'' [[Biblical creation journals]]

Some prominent biblical [[creation]] publications are given below:

*[[Creation magazine]]

*[[Journal of Creation]] - Peer reviewed

*[[Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]] - peer reviewed

== Adherents and Opponents of Creationism ==

Traditionally, [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism.<ref>James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/558/ Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.</ref> [[Orthodox Judaism]] currently has diverse opinions regarding young earth creationism.<ref>Rabbinical Council of America, [http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100635 Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design].</ref> Ultra-Orthodox Judaism accepts young earth creationism.<ref>Winnick, Pamela R.,[http://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/toledo_winnick030702.htm Evolutionary War] ''Toledo City Paper'', March 7, 2002.</ref>

In addition, a majority of the early church fathers supported the young earth creationist view.<ref>Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1].</ref> While Young Earth Creationism is prominent in many conservative [[Protestantism|Protestant]] denominations, theologically liberal Protestant and Jewish denominations generally reject it.<ref>[[Henry Morris|Morris, Henry]], [https://www.icr.org/article/816/6/ Old-Earth Creationism] ''Back to Genesis'' April 1997.</ref><ref>[http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8029_1.html What Conservative Protestants Believe] (beliefnet).</ref><ref>Jarvik, Elaine, [http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635177399,00.html Beliefs on Darwin's evolution vary from religion to religion] Deseret Morning News 19 January 2006.</ref> The [[Roman Catholic Church]] has a cautiously positive view of the theory of evolution.<ref>https://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-04-11-pope-evolution-creation_N.htm</ref><ref>Heneghan, Tom, [http://www.beliefnet.com/story/182/story_18220.html Catholics and Evolution: Interview with Cardinal Christoph Schönborn] (beliefnet).</ref>

Islam has a variety of opinions regarding creationism and the theory of evolution.<ref>http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_151_200/muslim_responses_to_evolution.htm</ref>

[[Atheism|Atheists]] do not believe in young earth creationism and a vast majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position since [[World War II]] have been atheists.<ref>Batten, Don, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32
December 1997.</ref><ref>http://www.creationists.org/nas.html</ref> In his autobiography [[Charles Darwin]] wrote about the diminishment of his religious faith and Darwin stated that he was an [[agnostic]].<ref name="update.uu.se">http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm</ref> Darwin wrote the following: "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."<ref name="update.uu.se"/> On the other hand, Charles Darwin in his private diaries [[Charles Darwin#Religious Views|stated he was a materialist]] which a type of atheist. While [[Agnosticism|agnostics]] do not believe in young earth creationism there have been some notable statements of skepticism regarding the theory of evolution from agnostics.<ref>Woodward, Thomas E., [http://www.apologetics.org/doubts.html Doubts About Darwin] (Apologetics Press).</ref><ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/03/agnostic_philosopher_caught_in_conspirac.html Agnostic Philosopher Caught in Conspiracy to Question Darwinism] ''Evolution News & Views'', ([[Discovery Institute]]).</ref> On the other hand, [[Thomas Huxley]] was a staunch proponent of the theory of evolution and he stated he was an agnostic.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1025</ref><ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/desmond171.htm</ref>

The leftist [[mainstream media]], unsurprisingly, hates creation, just as it does with anything related to conservatism and biblical Christianity that contradicts left-wing views and secularism.<ref>Hallett, Vicky (December 30, 2016). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/now-theres-a-theory-that-dinosaurs-were-wiped-out-in-noahs-flood/2016/12/30/92bec544-cc59-11e6-a747-d03044780a02_story.html?utm_term=.fa8a013cacfc Now there’s a theory that dinosaurs were wiped out in Noah’s flood]. ''The Washington Post''. Retrieved January 1, 2016.</ref>

[[Jobe Martin]], president of the Biblical Discipleship Ministries of Rockwall, [[Texas]], questions various tenets of evolution:
<blockquote>
Evolutionists admit to each other that "the creationists have the better argument." This is because what we see in life and in the fossils does not display emerging kinds of plants or animals. Evolution from one cell to man is not scientifically observable at all. 

The universe is young - on the order of several thousand, not billions of years old. Man, dinosaur, and mastodon walked the earth at the same time. The "missing links" are missing. God created discrete plants and aninals in the beginning and, with minor variations, these are what we see today. Mutations in the genes do not generate new life forms or even improve present life forms. Mutations harm or kill the organism into which they come. Prehistoric man was either apem monkey, or man and not some genetically evolving apelike man or manlike ape. 

The religious quest to prove evolution from the [[Big Bang]] to man will occupy the singular life of many but will end in despair for all who pursue the myth of evolutinary faith.<ref>[[Jobe Martin]], ''The Evolution of a Creationist: A Layman's Guide to the conflict between The Bible and Evolutionary Theory'', Rockwall, [[Texas]]: Biblical Discipleship Publishers, 1994, p. 199.</ref>
</blockquote>

== Recommended books ==

* J.D. Mitchell, ''The Creation Dialogues - A Response to the Position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Evolution, Christianity and the Bible'', Pleasant Word (Winepress Pub), 2010 ISBN 1414118007<ref>http://www.creationengineeringconcepts.org/index.php?p=1_35_THE-CREATION-DIALOGUES</ref><ref>http://www.christianbook.com/dialogues-american-association-advancement-evolution-christianity/j-d-mitchell/9781414118000/pd/118002</ref>
*Dr. [[Grady S. McMurtry]], ''Creation: Our Worldview'', TEC Publications, Columbus, GA 2010 ISBN 0-9674006-1-9
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creation.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890512582
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002,[http://www.creation.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)] ISBN 0890513872

{{Creation vs. evolution}}

== See also ==
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Creation science]]
*[[Atheism and the origin of the universe]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Lists of Creationists]]
*[[Christian apologetics]] (Evidence for Christianity)
*[[Creationism table]]
*[[Ground of being]]
*[[Essay: Sharing your creationist videos on YouTube and the internet]]

==External links ==
===Young Earth Creationist Organizations ===

*[http://associationforcreation.org/ The International Association For Creation]
*[http://creationnetwork.org/ The Creation Network]
*[http://visitcreation.org/ The Big Map of Creation]
*[https://creation.com Creation Ministries International]
*[https://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers In Genesis - Get Answers]
*[http://www.creationworldview.org/ Creation Worldview Ministries]
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]

'''Anti-Darwinism/creationist, French/English website:'''

*[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/ Samizdat]

'''Young earth articles and other resources:'''

*[https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth -101 evidences for a young earth and universe]
*[https://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]]
*[http://creationsciencehalloffame.org/ Creation Science Hall of Fame] - Organization that honors and remembers biblical creationists and their work
*[https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/young-earth/most-compelling-scientific-evidence-of-young-earth/ What Is the Most Compelling Scientific Evidence of a Young Earth?], by Dr. Terry Mortenson at [[Answers in Genesis]]. Originally published on February 27, 2006.

=== Old Earth Creationists ===
* [http://www.reasons.org Reasons To Believe, an Old Earth Creationist Ministry]

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

[[Category:Creationism| ]]
[[Category:Abrahamic Religions]]

Obama's Religion

2020-09-15T01:05:55Z

McCoy: /* Evidence does not exist that Obama is Muslim */Typo

This article examines the evidence concerning the former U.S. President [[Barack Obama]]'s religion.
==Evidence does not exist that Obama is Muslim==
Opinion polls taken in 2010 and 2012 showed that one in five [[America]]ns conclude that Barack Hussein Obama is a [[Muslim]].<ref name=pew13>{{cite web|url=http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Little-Voter-Discomfort-with-Romney%E2%80%99s-Mormon-Religion.aspx|title=Little Voter Discomfort with Romney’s Mormon Religion|date=July 26, 2012|accessdate=January 6, 2013|work=Pew Research Center|quote= Currently, 17% of registered voters say that Obama is Muslim}}</ref><ref name=pew10>[https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41248.html August 2010 Pew Research poll]</ref> '''''The following is a partial list of examples suggesting that Obama is a Muslim''''':
[[Image:OBAMA MUSULMAN.jpg|right|thumb|'''Then-Senator Obama wearing traditional African garb''', a gift from his hosts while visiting Kenya<ref>[http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-wore-muslim-gear-during-kenya-trip]</ref> Obama was disappointed that even in his parental homeland, the native Kenyans seemed to extend "white privilege" to tourists and visitors.]]
*Obama pursued a foreign policy toward the Arab world that was so pro-Muslim that only a Muslim commander-in-chief could have authorized it.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nikitas3.com/7000/obama-foreign-policy-pro-muslim-disaster/|title=Obama Foreign Policy is a Pro-Muslim Disaster|date=August 8, 2014|accessdate=June 3, 2014}}</ref> President Obama even sent an unprecedented $1.7 billion in actual cash to [[Iran]].<ref>https://zeldin.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-zeldin-president-obamas-17-billion-cash-payment-iran-was-direct</ref>
*Obama addressed the United Nations on September 25, 2012 to affirm support for freedom for religious worship. He said "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obamas-tragic-pander-the-future-must-not-belong-to-those-who-slander-the-prophet-of-islam/</ref><ref name="obamawhitehouse.archives.gov">{{cite news|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly|title=Remarks by the President to the UN General Assembly|accessdate=June 2, 2017}}</ref>
*In a rare speech from the [[Oval Office]], on Dec. 6, 2015 Obama devoted much of his 14-minute presentation to promoting [[Islam]] to the [[American]] people.
*Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," and recited "with a first-class [[Arabic]] accent" the opening lines: [[Allah]] is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ...."<ref>https://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=78309</ref>
*Obama said that "[[John McCain]] has not talked about [[my Muslim faith]],"<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw]</ref> in an interview with [[George Stephanopoulos]]. George Stephanopoulos—who had previously been a high-ranking Democrat in the [[Clinton Administration]]—then suggested that Obama change his answer to refer instead to "Christian faith."<ref>[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/07/obama-verbal-slip-fuels-his-critics/?page=all Christina Bellantoni, "Obama’s verbal slip fuels his critics", ''Washington Times'']</ref>
*Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know because I am one of them."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Obama-To-The-Turkish-Parliament/|title=REMARKS BY PRESIDENT OBAMA TO THE TURKISH PARLIAMENT|date=April 6, 2009|accessdate=January 8, 2013}}</ref><ref>http://middleeast.about.com/b/2009/04/06/obama-in-turkey-at-the-gates-of-islam.htm</ref>
*He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."<ref>[http://www.newsweek.com/id/145971 Barack Obama's Christian Journey | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008]</ref>
*In early 2016, after issuing public statements praising Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] and the former [[First Lady]] [[Nancy Reagan]], President Obama attended a memorial service at the Supreme Court for Scalia but did not attend the [[Christian]] funeral services for either. Islam is unique among belief systems in disfavoring entry into a church.<ref>disfavors or even prohibits entering churches. [https://islamqa.info/en/111832] However, "[s]ome Muslim legal scholars assert that attending the funeral of a non-Muslim friend or relative can be wholly consistent with Islamic principles." [http://people.opposingviews.com/haram-attend-nonmuslim-funerals-7543.html]</ref>
*When Obama recited the [[Gettysburg Address]], he used a draft that omitted the words "under God," even though historical evidence is that Lincoln inserted and spoke those words.<ref>https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/why-president-obama-didnt-say-under-god-while-reading-gettysburg-address/355288/ - a [[liberal]] article providing an implausible excuse for Obama, as it commonly does</ref>
*Obama's wife [[Michelle Obama|Michelle]] did not accompany him to Muslim nations because [[Sharia law]] would require her to wear a head covering as the wife of a Muslim man in a Muslim nation; on a presidential trip she was with him until [[France]], but then returned home.
*From ages six to 10, Obama lived in the [[Islam]]ic country of [[Indonesia]], where he attended a Catholic school and later a public school. Fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity in areas with high concentrations of Muslims.<ref>http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17736/barack-obama-2</ref><ref>http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm. During the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class, according to the LA ''Times''. [http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,0,1634059,print.story?coll=bal_news_nation_promo Campaign downplays his connection during boyhood in Indonesia, Baltimore Sun, March 16, 2007]</ref> Although Obama attended a [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] school while in Indonesia, he was a part of the Muslim society there.<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012400371_pf.html</ref> But high Muslim retention rates are in areas with high concentrations of Muslims. In the United States, the retention rate for those raised a Muslim is 76%.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-atheists-have-lowest-retention-rate-compared-to-religious-groups-78029/ Study: Atheists Have Lowest 'Retention Rate' Compared to Religious Groups]. Christian Post</ref> In addition, Obama spent most of his childhood in multicultural Hawaii. Presently, Hawaii has 5,000 or so Muslims — less than 1 percent of the state's population.<ref>[https://apnews.com/d296daac0ed546b89e18dde2a6f87d12/travel-ban-challenge-puts-hawaiis-few-muslims-spotlight Travel ban challenge puts Hawaii’s few Muslims in spotlight]</ref>
[[File:Dollard why believe Obama.png|thumbnail|right|300px]]
*Obama's middle name (Hussein) references '''Husayn''', who was the grandson of [[Muhammad]].<ref>A Brief History of The Fourteen Infallibles. Qum: Ansariyan Publications. 2004.</ref><ref>al-Qarashi, Baqir Shareef (2007). The life of Imam Husain. Qum: Ansariyan Publications.</ref> Only after Obama became politically ambitious did he declare himself to be a [[Christian]], yet he never replaced his [[Muslim]] name "Hussein" with a Christian one as some do when they undergo a religious conversion. For example, when the Italian journalist Magdi Allam recently converted to Christianity, he took a new name: "Cristiano".<ref>http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=30814</ref> When Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to "[[Saint Paul|Paul]]"; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Muslim name of [[Muhammad Ali]]. "It is common for those converting to a new religion to change their name on conversion"<ref>http://www.ukdp.co.uk/pages/religiousconversion.php</ref> or adopt a Christian name at [[baptism]].<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/christian-name</ref> Obama also used his middle name when sworn in as President. However, even if he were actually a [[Muslim]], he would ''not'' necessarily have to change his name according to Muslim tradition.<ref>.http://zawaj.com/articles/do-muslim-converts-have-to-change-their-names.html</ref>
*Obama's unusual selection of [[Chuck Hagel]], a former Republican senator most sympathetic to Muslim positions in the Middle East, to be Secretary of Defense despite intense objections by both political parties. Iranian State Press approves of the choice.<ref>[https://freebeacon.com/iran-state-tv-praises-obamas-anti-israel-hagel-selection/ Iran State TV Praises Obama’s ‘anti-Israel’ Hagel selection]</ref>
*Obama seems to emotionally hold a Muslim view about Israel, in contrast with Americans who have been educated as Obama has. Obama never visited Israel during his first term as president despite repeated criticisms of his failure to do so, he oddly waited many days before even mentioning the rocket attacks on Israel in late 2012, and he appears very uncomfortable even discussing issues related to Israel on television.
*Obama stated that the ''Autobiography of [[Malcolm X]]'', which was co-written by Alex Haley, inspired him in his youth.<ref>For example, Obama writes in his own autobiography, "Only Malcolm X's autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me. The blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will. ... [E]ven as I imagine myself following Malcolm's call, one line in the book stayed with me. He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, thereby an act of violence, might somehow be expunged."[https://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/does_obama_know_america.html] https://youtu.be/yeDuOR6vkLM</ref>
*It was reported in 2008 that in 1996 then-state Senator Obama hired several staffers belonging to the Nation of Islam.<ref>[https://www.wnd.com/2008/06/66167/#! The nation of Islam activists on Obama camp payroll, WND, June 3, 2008]</ref>
*Obama raised nearly $1 million and campaigned for a [[Kenyan]] presidential candidate who had a written agreement with [[Muslim]] leaders promising to convert Kenya to an Islamic state that bans Christianity.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78324] Text of the agreement, as three images: [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78323]</ref>
*Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.<ref>In his book, Obama oddly claims to have been baptized without giving his age or date, and later gave a date that postdates his political ambition (1992); he is claimed to have joined the United Church of Christ in 1988.[http://www.ucc.org/barack-obama-candidate]</ref>
*Obama required that a religiously affiliated college take the extraordinary action of concealing with wood the monogram "IHS", which represents the name of Jesus, during a speech by Obama there.
*In 2007, while Obama was a candidate, the White House military office assigned him the [[Secret Service]] code name "Renegade".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/16/AR2007061601079.html?hpid=topnews|title='Renegade' Joins Race for White House|date=June 17, 2007|work=Washington Post|accessdate=January 8, 2013}}</ref> "[[Renegade]]" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior, but its first usage was to describe someone who has turned from their religion. It is a word derived from the [[Spanish]] ''renegado'', which originally meant "Christian turned Muslim."<ref>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3452281/Renegade-and-Renaissance-Obama-to-replace-Trailblazer-and-Tempo-Bush-in-the-White-House.html</ref>
*In the book ''Obama,"Renegade"'' his friends say that "he actually really wasn't much of a churchgoer." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/06/16/wolffe-president-missed-rev-wright-s-racist-rants-because-he-wasn-t-much- Wolffe: President Missed Rev. Wright’s Racist Rants Because 'He Wasn’t Much of a Churchgoer'] NewsBusters.org, June 16, 2009</ref>
*On the 2008 campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by [[Fareed Zakaria]],<ref>http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=fa8cf1bf-2cc8-4d6e-b72d-a07d406e19ff</ref> which was a general discussion of US foreign policy that was on the non-fiction best-seller lists for weeks.<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/</ref> Although Zakaria had Muslim ancestors, he is a non-Muslim educated at Yale with a Ph.D. from Harvard.
*Contrary to [[Christianity]], the Islamic doctrine of [[taqiyya]] allows adherents to deny they are Muslim if it would be dangerous not to.
*Obama was thoroughly exposed to Christianity as an adult in [[Chicago]] prior to attending law school, yet no one at law school saw him display any interest in converting. Obama unabashedly explained how he became "churched" in a 2007 speech: "It's around that time [while working as an organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago] that some pastors I was working with came around and asked if I was a member of a church. 'If you're organizing churches,' they said, 'it might be helpful if you went to a church once in a while.' And I thought, 'I guess that makes sense.'"<ref>[http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15363 Obama, ACORN, and the churches] SperoNews, October 7, 2008</ref>
[[File:Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi in Dimashq.jpg|left|175px|thumb|''"I really endorse and support the policies that he has adopted,"'' [[Libya]]n leader [[Muammar Gaddafi]] said of President Barack Obama as reported by the ''[[Washington Post]]''.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042604170.html ''Man's worst friend?''] By Dana Milbank, ''Washington Post'', April 27, 2010.</ref> Obama had Gaddafi murdered by jihadists<ref>https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/gaddafi_and_obama_one_of_them_was_fighting_islamist_terrorists_in_libya.html</ref> after Gaddafi betrayed Islam and forged an alliance with the infidel West.<ref>https://youtu.be/rpT7fJChBRo</ref>]]
*Obama is mentioned as helping to organize the 1995 [[Million Man March]] led by black [[Muslim]] leader [[Louis Farrakhan]] from the [[Nation of Islam]].<ref>[http://www.nowpublic.com/world/obama-organized-farrakhan-s-million-man-march, Obama Organized Farrakhan’s ‘Million Man March’, NowPublic.com, April 2, 2008 ]</ref>
*Obama visited "more than one [[mosque]]" in [[Kenya]] while on a political trip there but did not visit any churches, although there are a large proportion of churches and even a National Temple in Kenya.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20120306215933/http://islamizationwatch.blogspot.com/2010/01/kenyan-delegation-visits-sderot-israel.html</ref>
*Obama enjoyed a bigger increase in voter support in 2008 (compared to 2004) by Muslims than by any other voting group, including blacks;<ref>http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/2873/</ref> "Muslim turnout in the U.S. elections reached 95 percent, the highest Muslim turnout in U.S. history."<ref>http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/11/is_obama_the_muslim_worlds_sup.html</ref>
*Obama rarely attends church or has church services in the White House. "President-elect [[Barack Hussein Obama]] has yet to attend [Sunday] church services since winning the [[White House]] earlier ..., a departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors."<ref>https://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15902.html</ref><ref>https://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-obama-religion26-2008dec26,0,1910913.story</ref>
*In 2009, Justice [[John Roberts]] failed to administer the [[oath of office]] correctly while Obama placed his hand on a Bible. To avoid any claims that Obama was not the real President because of misstating the oath, Roberts dropped by the White House to re-administering the oath the next day, but no Bible was used for that private re-do of the oath. In 2013, the oath was administered properly while Obama's hand was on a Bible.
*At the [[G-20]] summit in April 2009, Obama bowed deeply to [[Saudi Arabia|Saudi]] King Abdullah, a Muslim who is also the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEUif1--r38&feature=player_embedded Video of Obama bowing almost to King's waist]</ref> [[Image:Obamabow.jpg|thumb|right|250px|'''President Obama bowing to the King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia''', Custodian of the Islamic Holy Places - April 2009]] Obama later stated, "We have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect."<ref>http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/07/barack-takes-a-bow/</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71N34K9EVLU</ref> The White House denied it was a bow, and President Trump was put in a similar situation when the King presented him with a medal.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/20/trump-mocked-obama-for-bowing-to-a-saudi-king-and-then-he/?utm_term=.c34da4a06d16|title=Trump mocked Obama for bowing to a Saudi king. And then he …|work=Washington Post|date=May 20, 2017|accessdate=May 28, 2017}}</ref>
*In 2006, Obama gave an irreverent speech about using the Bible in public policy. It resembled a stand-up comedy act, with Obama making fun of the books of the [[Torah]], the [[Ten Commandments]], the [[Sermon on the Mount]] and other key Biblical passages.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnmS_vULPxw</ref>
*In 2012, Obama participated in a $40,000 per plate fundraiser on [[Holy Thursday]], which many devout Christians would find to be inappropriate.
*On September 25, 2012, in his address to [[United Nations General Assembly]], Obama said that "'''The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam'''."<ref>FOX News: [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/transcript-obama-address-to-un-general-assembly/ Transcript: Obama address to U.N. General Assembly] (September 25, 2012)</ref> This outrageous comment was predictably ignored by the [[lamestream media]], but rightly highlighted by Conservative commentators.<ref>FOX News: [https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/26/media-ignore-obama-attack-on-those-who-slander-prophet-islam/ Media ignore Obama attack on ‘those who slander the Prophet of Islam’] (September 26, 2012)</ref>
*Obama's spiritual mentor of 20 years, Rev. [[Jeremiah Wright]] explained in an interview "that Barack Obama was steeped in Islam when he first met him," <ref>[http://thenewamerican.com/component/k2/item/12165-obama-called-our-most-toxic-president?Itemid=667 Obama Called Our Most "Toxic" President, New American, July 20th 2012]</ref> and said he “made it comfortable” for Obama to accept Christianity without having renounce his Islamic background.<ref>[https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/jeremiah-wright-i-made-it-comfortable-for-obama-to-accept-christianity-without-having-to-renounce-islam/ Jeremiah Wright: I “Made It Comfortable” For Obama to Accept Christianity Without Having to Renounce Islam (Video Report), The Gateway Pundit, may 10, 2012]</ref>
*[[Obamacare]] has a provision enabling groups that have a religious objection to the [[individual mandate]] and who have forfeited the benefits of Social Security (such as the Amish) to claim a religious conscience opt-out of the individual mandate.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5000A 26 U.S.C. 5000A (d)(2)(A)]; [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1402 26 U.S.C. 1402(g)(1)]; [https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0110225035 "RM 10225.035 SSNs for the Amish and Mennonites (and Other Religious Exempt Communities)"]</ref> Muslims would not be eligible for a religious exemption from the individual mandate,<ref>[https://www.wnd.com/2010/04/137221/ Does your faith free you from forced Obamacare?]</ref> although other online commentators speculate that Muslims would be eligible for a religious exemption.<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/eric-burns/muslims-exempt-from-obamacare/ Muslims Exempt from ObamaCare? FrontPage Magazine, Oct. 14, 2011]</ref>
*Obama further impedes the Christian faith on gay rights, telling military chaplains a statutory provision that would allow military chaplains to opt-out of performing gay marriages is “unnecessary and ill-advised,” but he signed the bill into law anyway.<ref>[http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/obama-calls-conscience-clause-for-military-chaplains-ill-advised.html Obama calls Conscience Clause for Military Chaplains “Ill-Advised”, Fox News, January 3, 2013]</ref>
*On more than one occasion, Obama verbally attacks the economic livelihood of [[Las Vegas]] for unknown reasons, and Obama has also criticized state lotteries despite being heavily favored by most [[Democrats]]. The reason may be that [[gambling]] is forbidden in the [[Koran]].<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020203169.html Lawmakers upset over Obama's 2nd anti-Vegas remark, WashingtonPost, February 2, 2010]</ref>
*Obama supports a military invasion of Syria.{{fact}} This would involve working with the insurgency, which includes [[Al Qaeda|Al'Qaeda]]. Al'Qaeda killed over 3,000 Americans on our own soil and was the main enemy in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years.

Obama tries to downplay his [[Islamic]] background by claiming that his [[Kenya]]n [[Muslim]] birth father was a "confirmed [[atheist]]" before Obama was born, but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, agnostics, or non-religious.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_14.html</ref> He also described his Indonesian step-father Lolo Soetoro as following "a brand of [[Islam]] that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths.".<ref>Obama, Barack (2004) [1995], ''Dreams from my father: a story of race and inheritance''. New York: Three Rivers Press. ISBN 1-4000-8277-3., p. 37.</ref> For most of his childhood, Obama was lived with his maternal grandparents who were Methodists. There is apparently no evidence of any Christian activities or local church participation by Obama while he was a student at Harvard Law School from 1988 to 1991. Finally, Obama abruptly left his United Church of Christ congregation in Chicago in 2008, when it became politically controversial, without first finding another church to join. On April 7, 2009, Obama toured a mosque in [[Istanbul]], [[Turkey]].<ref>https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-obama-turkey/obama-appeals-to-faiths-in-istanbul-idUKTRE5351HW20090407</ref>

== Obama's Claims to be a Christian ==
:''Main article: [[Counterexamples to Obama being a Muslim]]''
[[File:Evergreen-chapel-tree-of-knowledge.jpg|thumb|left|Evergreen Chapel at Camp David]]
While campaigning for president in 2008, the rumor led Obama to publicly state that he was [[Christian]] in an interview he gave to ''Christianity Today'' magazine.<ref name=ct/> Obama asserted, "I am a Christian and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals. There is one thing that I want to mention that I think is important. Part of what we've been seeing during the course of this campaign is some scurrilous e-mails that have been sent out, denying my faith, talking about me being a Muslim, suggesting that I got sworn in at the U.S. Senate with a [[Qu'ran]] in my hand or that I don't pledge allegiance to the flag. I think it's really important for your readers to know that I have been a member of the same church for almost 20 years, and I have never practiced Islam. I am respectful of religion, but it's not my own. One of the things that's very important in this day and age is that we don't use religion as a political tool and certainly that we don't lie about religion as a way to score political points. I just thought it was important to get that in there to dispel rumors that have been over the Internet. We've done so repeatedly, but obviously, it's a political tactic of somebody to try to provide this misinformation."<ref name=ct>{{cite web|url=http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html?start=2|title=Q&A: Barack Obama|date=January 2008|work=Christianity Today|accessdate=January 4, 2013}}</ref>

Obama is a welcomed member of the [[United Church of Christ]]. In 2007, the UCC magazine quoted him as saying:
<blockquote>You come to church in the first place precisely because you are of this world, not apart from it, Obama wrote. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey. It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity UCC on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ucc.org/barack-obama-candidate|title=Barack Obama, candidate for President, is 'UCC'|date=February 8, 2007|accessdate=May 28, 2017}}</ref></blockquote>

Obama also discussed his religious views each year in a speech at the annual National Prayer Breakfast.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/02/remarks-president-national-prayer-breakfast|title=Remarks by the President at the National Prayer Breakfast|date=February 2, 2012|accessdate=May 30, 2017|quote=I wake up each morning and I say a brief prayer, and I spend a little time in scripture and devotion. And from time to time, friends of mine, some of who are here today, friends like Joel Hunter or T.D. Jakes, will come by the Oval Office or they’ll call on the phone or they’ll send me an email, and we’ll pray together, and they’ll pray for me and my family, and for our country.}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/05/remarks-president-national-prayer-breakfast|title=Remarks by the President at National Prayer Breakfast|date=February 5, 2015|accessdate=May 28, 2017}}</ref>

The Obama family has attended several Protestant churches since moving to Washington, D.C., in 2009, including Shiloh Baptist Church and St. John's Episcopal Church. The Obamas also worship at Evergreen Chapel at [[Camp David]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1908437,00.html|title=The Obamas Find a Church Home — Away from Home|work=Time Magazine|date=June 29, 2009|accessdate=May 30, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/us/as-the-obamas-celebrate-christmas-rituals-of-faith-stay-on-the-sidelines.html|last=Parker|first=Ashley|title=As the Obamas Celebrate Christmas, Rituals of Faith Become Less Visible|work=The New York Times|date= December 28, 2013|accessdate=June 3, 2017|quote=Part of Mr. Obama’s decision to largely opt-out of religious services reflects a desire to avoid disruptions by his Secret Service detail and security requirements, echoing concerns of Ronald Reagan, who presidential historians say rarely went to church.}}</ref><ref>Gilgoff, Dan. "[https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/06/30/time-report-white-house-reaction-raise-more-questions-about-obamas-church-hunt TIME Report, White House Reaction Raise More Questions About Obama's Church Hunt]," ''U.S. News & World Report'', June 30, 2009. Retrieved May 28, 2017.</ref><ref>"[http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/04/22/first-lady-we-use-sundays-for-naps-if-were-not-going-to-church/ First Lady: We Use Sundays For Naps If We're Not Going To Church]," ''CBS DC'', April 22, 2014. Retrieved May 28, 2017.</ref>

[[Donald Trump]], who later was elected U.S. President, investigated both the rumor that Obama was born outside the United States and that he was a Muslim. He concluded that the rumors were started by Obama's 2008 primary opponents and that they were false.<ref name=trump>{{cite news|url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/16/trump-clinton-trade-barbs-over-obama-birther-movement.html|title=Trump says Obama born in US, ‘period’ – after new ‘birther’ dust-up|date=September 16, 2016|work=Fox News|accessdate=May 26, 2017}}</ref>

There are direct refutations of the claims made above by those seeking to spread the "Obama is a Muslim" rumor.
__TOC__

=== Public eating of pork and drinking of alcohol and smoking ===

[[File:Pig.jpg|200px|thumbnail|right|Very few Muslims eat pork and drink alcohol as the Koran does not permit it.]]

Many Muslims drink beer, but there is a misconception that the [[Koran]] forbids it. In fact, only some alcoholic drinks are prohibited in Islam. (Koran 2:173; 2:219; 5:90-91; 6:118-119,121). The Koran forbids the eating of pork (Koran 2:173).

Barack Obama has been seen eating [[Spam]],<ref>
*[http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20248609,00.html Barack Obama Snacks on Hawaiian Spam Sushi]
*[http://archive.boston.com/news/politics/gallery/073009_beer_summit_obama/ Obama beer summit]
*[https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+wine&rlz=1C1PRFG_enUS744US744&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwia1rns9Y_UAhWBUiYKHTj2CTcQ_AUIBygC&biw=819&bih=510#tbm=isch&q=obama+beer 1st set of pictures of Obama drinking alcohol]
*[https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+wine&rlz=1C1PRFG_enUS744US744&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwia1rns9Y_UAhWBUiYKHTj2CTcQ_AUIBygC&biw=819&bih=510 2nd set of pictures of Obama drinking alcohol]
</ref> which is most popular in [[Hawaii]] where Obama grew up,<ref>[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/Menuism/why-do-hawaiians-love-spam-so-much_b_1901306.html Why is spam so popular in Hawaii], Huffington Post</ref> and which Muslims are not allowed to eat.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/23/larger-implications-of-ob_n_153200.html|title=Larger Implications Of Obama’s Taste For Spam Uncovered|date=Jan 23, 2009|accessdate=May 28, 2017}}</ref><ref>The Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America certifies the foods that Muslims are allowed to eat, and neither Hormel nor Spam is on the list. http://www.ifanca.org/Pages/Certified-Products.aspx</ref>

Pictures of Obama drinking alcohol can be found [https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+wine&rlz=1C1PRFG_enUS744US744&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwia1rns9Y_UAhWBUiYKHTj2CTcQ_AUIBygC&biw=819&bih=510#tbm=isch&q=obama+beer HERE] and [https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+wine&rlz=1C1PRFG_enUS744US744&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwia1rns9Y_UAhWBUiYKHTj2CTcQ_AUIBygC&biw=819&bih=510 HERE.]

The first Muslim [[fatwa]]s discouraging the use of tobacco dates from 1602,<ref>{{cite news|title=How tobacco firms try to undermine Muslim countries' smoking ban|url=http://www.observerbd.com/2015/04/21/84683.php|accessdate=May 29, 2017|publisher=[[The Bangladesh Observer]]|date=April 21, 2015}}</ref> and Muslim leaders continue to discourage smoking for health reasons. Observant Muslims do not smoke, although smoking is increasing among young people in predominantly Muslim countries. Obama has smoked for most of his life, although he has tried to quit since becoming President.

=== Donations to Charity ===
Zakat, one of the five pillars of Islam,<ref name=pillars/> requires all Muslims to give at least 2.5% of their income to charity or other good causes. The publicly released Obama tax returns show that he and Mrs. Obama give an average of less than 1% of their income to charity.

=== Homosexuality ===
People spread the rumor that candidate Obama was a Muslim to create a fear that he would advance a Muslim agenda as President. The fact that he went on to advocate same-sex marriage and homosexuals in the military shows that the fear was unfounded.

As in the [[Bible]], the [[Koran]] has anti-homosexuality passages (Koran 7:80-81; 26:165) and so does the [[Hadith]]. Among Islamic scholars, there is a consensus that homosexuality is unnatural and sinful. There are Islamic countries that have anti-homosexuality laws, as do some states in the United States. So, President Obama's actions as President undercut the claim that he is a Muslim.
=== Praying five times a day ===

Devout Muslims pray five times a day facing Mecca.<ref name=pillars>[https://www.islam-guide.com/ch3-16.htm Five Pillars of Islam]</ref> No Secret Service agents have reported that he prayed toward Mecca while in the White House or under their protection.

=== Obama and the month of Ramadan ===

Every year during the month of Ramadan devout Muslims fast from dawn until sundown and during this time they abstaining from food, drink, and sexual relations.<ref name=pillars/> No former Secret Service agents have reported that Obama observes Ramadan.

===Pilgrimage to Mecca===
Devote Muslims travel to Mecca on a religious pilgrimage.<ref name=pillars/> Only Muslims are allowed access to the holy sites in Mecca. Despite all of the power and access of the Presidency, Obama never attempted to travel to Mecca.
=== Obama, Muslims and dogs ===

Muslims commonly (though not all Muslims) have a very low opinion of dogs and consider them impure due to their interpretation of the Koran. For example, the ''International Business Times'' reported in 2014: "Owning a dog in Iran could result in 74 lashes under a new law passed by the Iranian government." <ref>[http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/why-does-islam-dislike-dogs-1474897 Why does Islam dislike dogs?], International Business Times</ref> Obama's family owns a dog.
===Other point-by-point rebuttals===
====Oval Office Address following San Bernadino attack====
The first section of this article states, "from the Oval Office, on Dec. 6, 2015 Obama devoted much of his 14-minute presentation to promoting Islam to the American people." The purpose of the Oval Office address was to discuss an attack in San Bernadino that killed 14 Americans. Obama condemned the attack and explained what the government was doing to prevent future attacks. He called for preventing terrorists on the no-fly list from buying guns and for an assault weapons ban. He asked for legislation for "stronger screening for those who come to America without a visa so that we can take a hard look at whether they’ve traveled to warzones." He did have a paragraph (which was very similar to President Trump's speech in May 2017) that said:
<blockquote>Here’s what else we cannot do. We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world -- including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology. Moreover, the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim. If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.<ref>https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/06/address-nation-president</ref></blockquote>
So, the claim is false and does not show President Obama to be a Muslim.
====Sec. of Defense Chuck Hagel and invading Syria====
The first section of this article argues that because President Obama appointed [[Chuck Hagel]] as Secretary of Defense, Obama must be a Muslim. Hagel was confirmed by a 58–41 Senate vote. Two possible reasons why Hagel was nominated are that as a Republican, he would be easier to be confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate and that he was a veteran who later was active in Congress on defense issues.

The first section of this article argues that Obama must be a Muslim because "Obama supports a military invasion of Syria." In fact, the Obama administration negotiated a deal where Syria put their chemical weapons under Russian control, avoiding any need for an invasion.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-i-understand-american-people-arent-with-me-on-syria-strike/|title=Obama: "I understand" American people aren't with me on Syria strike|date=Sept. 11, 2103|work=CBS News|accessdate=May 30, 2017}}</ref> Obama did not want to invade Syria and worked to avoid it.

If Obama were a Muslim pushing a pro-Muslim agenda in the mid-east, there should be clear differences with the policies of his Christian successor, Donald Trump. However, it appears that their approach to the mid-east is similar. Both want to work with mid-east countries to eliminate the terrorist movements there and to bring stability to the region.

==== Liberal Christianity and liberalism ====
The first section of this article states without support, "Obama's background and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity." In fact, during Obama's formative years, he was raised by his maternal grandparents, who were Methodist. He was never a Muslim, the percentage of Muslims who convert to Christianity is not relevant. Obama was raised with a liberal and Christian outlook, not a Muslim one.

For 20 years, Obama attended the United Church of Christ which taught [[liberation theology]]. His daughter was baptized in this church. [[Barack Obama]] left the congregation in Chicago and rarely attended any church while in [[D.C.]], out of concerns that security precautions would inconvenience the other worshipers. When the Obama family spent their weekends at [[Camp David]] in Maryland, they worshiped at the Evergreen Chapel.

==== Obama took the backup oath of office without a Bible ====
For the planned 2009 public ceremonial swearing-in Obama used a Bible. However, the Chief Justice misstated the oath and dropped by the White House to administer it a second time just to remove any questions. In 2013, "President Obama is putting a symbolic twist on a time-honored tradition, taking the oath of office for his second term with his hand placed not on a single Bible, but two -- one owned by Martin Luther King Jr. and one by Abraham Lincoln. "<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/10/obama-to-use-2-bibles-when-takes-oath-office.html Obama to use 2 Bibles when he takes the oath of office]</ref> Contrary to fake news rumors, he did not use a Koran.

==== Absence at Scalia's and Nancy Reagan's funerals ====
The first section of this article claims that Obama did not attend the funeral services for Scalia and Nancy Reagan because as a Muslim, he does not like to enter churches. The first section did not say that President Obama ''was invited'' to attend the Scalia or Nancy Reagan funerals. President Obama did pay tribute to the legacy of Nancy Reagan in his weekly television address of March 12, 2016.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/12/weekly-address-legacy-nancy-reagan|title=WEEKLY ADDRESS: The Legacy of Nancy Reagan|date=March 12, 2016|accessdate=May 28, 2017}}</ref> Barack and Michelle Obama also issued an official statement of condolences.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/06/statement-president-and-first-lady|title=Statement by the President and the First Lady|date=March 6, 2016|accessdate=May 28, 2017}}</ref> Mrs. Obama attended the funeral which was held under a tent at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California and not in a church.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/12/us/politics/nancy-reagan-funeral.html|title=At Nancy Reagan’s Funeral, Honoring the Queen of a Republican Camelot|work=NY Times|date=March 11, 2016|accessdate=June 1, 2017}}</ref> Regarding Scalia, President Obama issued a proclamation that flags should be flown at half-staff.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/13/presidential-proclamation-death-antonin-scalia|title=Presidential Proclamation: Death of Antonin Scalia|date=February 13, 2016|accessdate=May 28, 2017}}</ref> President Obama also issued a statement<ref>{{cite news|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/13/remarks-president-passing-us-supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia|title=Remarks by the President on the Passing of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia|date=February 13, 2016|accessdate=May 28, 2017}}</ref> and attended a memorial service held at the Supreme Court, with Vice President Biden attending the official funeral the next day.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/17/us/politics/antonin-scalia-funeral-supreme-court.html?_r=0|title=Funeral for Scalia Will Be Held Saturday|date=Feb. 16, 2016|accessdate=May 28, 2017|work=New York Times}}</ref>

Obama's absence at the funerals of [[Antonin Scalia]] and Nancy Reagan might be explained by his busy schedule or by his desire not to disrupt the funerals with the added security that the Secret Service brings to any Presidential event. Also, to preserve the continuity of government, the President, Vice President, and the cabinet avoids attending the same public events to reduce creating terrorism targets. In any case, the kind words he said upon their passing is not evidence of President Obama being a Muslim.

To the extent that the first section of this article claims that President Obama was reluctant to enter churches, there are numerous counter-examples. While in Chicago, he was a member of Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years. As a community organizer, many of his meetings were held in churches. While President, he attended services at Shiloh Baptist Church and St. John's Episcopal Church.

====== Attended other funerals======
On August 28, 2009, Obama gave a eulogy at the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help in Boston for Senator Edward Kennedy who was Catholic.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/aug/29/edward-kennedy-funeral-president-obama|title=
President Obama leads US political elite at Senator Ted Kennedy's funeral|date=Aug. 29, 2009|accessdate=May 30, 2017|work=The Guardian}}</ref>

On September 30, 2016, Obama traveled to Israel and attended the funeral of former Israeli President and Prime Minister Shimon Peres who was Jewish.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Jaffe|first1=Greg|title=Obama will travel to Israel for Shimon Peres's funeral|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/28/obama-will-travel-to-israel-for-shimon-peres-funeral/|accessdate=September 29, 2016|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=September 28, 2016}}</ref>

On December 10, 2013, President Obama traveled to Johannesburg, South Africa to speak at the memorial service for Nelson Mandela.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/12/10/remarks-president-obama-memorial-service-former-south-african-president-|title=Remarks by President Obama at Memorial Service for Former South African President Nelson Mandela|date=December 10, 2013|accessdate=May 30, 2017|quote=Mandela led ...so men and women could stand up for their God-given dignity.}}</ref>

On June 6, 2015, President Obama delivered the eulogy at the pulpit of the St. Anthony of Padua Church in Wilmington, Delaware for Beau Biden.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/06/politics/beau-biden-funeral/|title='A man of character': Obama delivers emotional eulogy for Beau Biden|date=June 6, 2015|accessdate=June 1, 2017}}</ref>

Obama attended the funeral of Senator Daniel Inouye who was a United Methodist (Some United Methodists practice theological liberalism while others are religious conservatives).<ref>[http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Daniel_Inouye_Principles_+_Values.htm Daniel Inouye on Principles & Values]</ref> While the Scalia and Reagan funerals may not be a counter-example to the Muslim rumor, the Peres, Biden and Inouye funeral are.

When a racist shot up the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, and killed eight people, President Obama traveled to Charleston to deliver the eulogy for Rev. Clementa Pinckney who was among those killed.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/06/26/remarks-president-eulogy-honorable-reverend-clementa-pinckney|title=Remarks by the President in Eulogy for the Honorable Reverend Clementa Pinckney|date=June 26, 2015|accessdate=May 28, 2017}}</ref>

President Obama traveled to Joplin, Missouri, to speak at a memorial service for those who died in a storm.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/29/remarks-president-memorial-service-joplin-missouri|title=Remarks by the President at a Memorial Service in Joplin, Missouri|date=May 29, 2011|accessdate=May 28, 2017}}</ref>

==== Views on Israel ====
The first section of this article makes the vague subjective claim that "Obama seems to emotionally hold a Muslim view about Israel." All of President Obama's public foreign policy statements were carefully vetted and delivered without emotion. President Obama visited Israel on March 20, 2013 and September 30, 2016.
==== Obama's ring ====
The first section of this article claims Obama's "ring has Islamic inscriptions." The statement is sourced to World Net Daily, which did not actually examine the ring, but rather blurry enlargements of photos of the ring. It suggests that the pattern on the outside of the ring is in the form of Arabic symbols, rather than claiming there is an engraved message on the inside of the band. Snopes featured a clear, closeup of the ring and showed that the design is a series of loops and not Arabic symbols.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/weddingring.asp|title=Obama’s Wedding Ring|date=October 8, 2014|accessdate=May 30, 2017}}</ref>
==== Muslim call to prayer ====
The first section of this article claims, "Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset,' and recited 'with a first-class Arabic accent' the opening lines: Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ...." citing a WND web posting that in turn referenced an Obama interview with ''New York Times'' reporter Nicholas Kristof in 2007.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/opinion/06kristof.html|title=Obama: Man of the World|work=New York Times|date=March 6, 2007|accessdate=May 30, 2017}}</ref> Kristof wrote a column in 2008 making reference to it in terms of "Mr. Obama has spoken respectfully of Islam" but denied being a Muslim himself.<ref name=kristof>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/opinion/09kristof.html|title=Obama and the Bigots|work=New York Times|date=March 9, 2008|accessdate=May 30, 2017}}</ref> Just because a person praises the sound of a religious practice does not mean that the person has accepted the content as his own personal religious belief. By analogy, a person can also recite a television advertising jingle from memory without wanting to ever buy the product.
==== Protecting freedom of religion ====
At times, the first section of this article had taken a quotation out of context from President Obama's September 25, 2012 address to the United Nations General Assembly. In the weeks prior to that speech, ISIL propagandists had released a video to create the impression that the United States was anti-Muslim. The video that was falsely attributed to the US government, drew widespread protests in the Arab world. Obama's address drew upon that tension to discuss the importance of the right of free exercise of religion worldwide. The end of the speech turned to the future with a series of statements each with "The future must not belong to..." which advocated religious tolerance.<ref name="obamawhitehouse.archives.gov"/>
==== Accepting Islams' role in the modern world ====
The first section of this article argues that Obama must be a Muslim because he once wrote, "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." There are pluralistic modern societies where Muslims live side-by-side with Christians. Indeed, given America's founding values have included religious freedom, modern American society is a successful example. Obama did not write Islam ''is always'' compatible with the modern world. Only radical Islamic terrorists believe that Islam cannot be compatible with the modern world because that world embodies Western Judeo-Christian values.
==== Did not attend church as a President-elect ====
The first section of this article quotes Politico as saying Obama did not attend church since the 2008 election. That article was correct, but it was published on November 23, 2008, just three weeks after the election. A second article is footnoted that states the Obamas did not attend church on Christmas 2008. Both articles explain that the Obamas did not want to disrupt local services with a large security detail and procedures. Because the Obamas later began to attend services at the Evergreen Chapel of Camp David, this does not prove that Obama is a Muslim.
====Female genital mutilation====
Some Muslims practice [[female genital mutilation]], and the practice was widespread in Indonesia when Obama lived there. However, the Obama Administration took many actions against the practice, signing a 2013 law tightening the prohibition against FGM, and supported the [[United Nations]]' efforts against FGM. There is nothing to suggest that the Obama family practiced FGM.

== Possible closet atheist/agnostic ==

There are several reasons to doubt that Obama is an atheist. Very few Africans or African Americans are atheists, for example, and even fewer still who were raised in multi-cultural Hawaii and Indonesia as was Obama. He has displayed none of the common characteristics of atheists, such as [[evolution syndrome]], a "wannabe" desire to be accepted intellectually, belief in an [[Old Earth]], obesity, or a lack of ambition. His favorite science fiction movies show no propensity towards atheism.<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/oct/14/obama-favorite-sci-fi-tv-shows-movies</ref>

[[File:arrogant_obama.jpg|right|200px|thumbnail|Charles Krauthammer said [[Barack Obama]] is arrogant narcissist who essentially worships himself.<ref name="Krauthammer: Obama 'narcissist'">[https://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/charles-krauthammer-barack-obama-narcissist-110975 Krauthammer: Obama 'narcissist'], Politico</ref> ]]
=== Liberal Christianity and religious syncretism and universalism ===
[[File:Obama Wright.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|For 20 years, Obama attended a church which practiced [[liberal Christianity]]. The Reverend [[Jeremiah Wright]] was pastor of that church.]]
Obama is a [[liberal]]. Liberals often practice religious [[syncretism]] and are often [[Universalism|universalists]] (or near universalists) who believe that there are many religious roads to heaven and few if any people go to [[Hell]].

=== Obama isn't especially religious ===

Barack Obama isn't particularly religious. As noted above, he was the first president to host an [[Atheist organizations|atheist organization]] at the White House.

Obama is a [[narcissism|narcissist]] who essentially often worships himself.<ref name="Krauthammer: Obama 'narcissist'"/> His first campaign was rightly criticized for making Obama into some messiah-like figure.{{fact}} Atheists are known for being very arrogant (see: [[Atheism and arrogance]]). Obama is known for being arrogant (see: [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism]]). On the other hand, the traits of arrogance and narcissism are not exclusive to atheists.

Furthermore, Obama's lack of religiosity/devoutness is not surprising as this is frequently a characteristic of people who attend [[liberal Christianity]] type churches like Obama has done. Liberal churches are bleeding members profusely due to people's lack of commitment to the Christian faith.{{fact}}

To compound matters, Obama's mother, Ann Durham, was a [[secular humanism|secular humanist]] which is a type of [[Atheism|atheist]].

=== Purported worldviews of parents and grandparents ===

Obama's birth father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr, was an ex-Muslim who became an [[Anglican]] at the young age of six years old.<ref>Jacobs (2011), [https://books.google.com/books?id=EHw1Jy4ZvcYC&pg=PA26#v=onepage&q&f=false p. 26]: Her brother Baraka, as she [Hawa Auma] recalls, converted to Christianity when he was about six years old and changed his name to the more Christian-sounding Barack because the Christian missionaries at the early schools that he attended insisted that he do so.</ref> He later became an atheist. Barack Obama declared in a ''Time'' magazine article entitled "[http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1546579,00.html My spiritual journey]": "My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition."

Kenya is the home country of Barack Hussein Obama Sr., but Obama Sr. had virtually no influence on the raising of his son. Obama's mother remarried, and ultimately, Obama was raised by his maternal grandparents. In Barack Obama's memoir, ''Dreams From My Father'', he describes his great-grandparents as "stern [[Methodism|Methodist]] parents who did not believe in drinking, playing cards, or dancing.". Obama's stepfather was an atheist.

According to both Obama's father's sister and Obama, Obama's father became a Christian when he was six years old. Obama's father attended an Anglican missionary school according to Obama's father's sister, when he became a Christian.<ref>Jacobs (2011), [https://books.google.com/books?id=EHw1Jy4ZvcYC&pg=PA26#v=onepage&q&f=false p. 26]: Her brother Baraka [Obama Sr.], as she [Hawa Auma] recalls, converted to Christianity when he was about six years old and changed his name to the more Christian-sounding Barack because the Christian missionaries at the early schools that he attended insisted that he do so.</ref>

Since colonial times and to this day, schools run by Christian missionaries in Africa have had a reputation of having the best schools in various areas of Africa and some Muslim parents send their children to these school in order to receive a better education.<ref name="Muslim World League website article">[http://themwl.org/global/content/universities-and-islamic-institutions-east-africa Muslim World League website article]</ref><ref>[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37321355 Kenyan Muslims can wear hijab at Christian schools - court], BBC</ref> There have been Muslim children who attend these schools who have become Christians.<ref name="Muslim World League website article">Kenyan Muslims can wear hijab at Christian schools - court, BBC</ref> As far as evidence that Obama Sr. received a strong education as a youth, Obama Sr. is a Harvard University graduate, and Harvard had a highly competitive admissions process.

As far as Kenya, a 2015 study estimates some 70,000 Christian believers from a Muslim background in the country, most of them belonging to some form of Protestantism.<ref>[https://www.academia.edu/16338087/Believers_in_Christ_from_a_Muslim_Background_A_Global_Census Johnstone, Patrick; Miller, Duane (2015). "Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census". IJRR. 11: 14]</ref>

In a ''Al Jazeera'' interview the prominent Muslim cleric Ahmad Al Qataani indicated the number of Muslims in Africa diminished greatly in the last century and that 6 million African Muslims were converting to Christianity every year.<ref name="americanthinker.com">[https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/05/six_million_african_muslims_le.html In Africa Alone Everyday, 16,000 Muslims Leave Islam]</ref>

The Muslim cleric Ahmad Al Qataani specifically declared:
{{Cquote|Islam used to represent, as you previously mentioned, Africa's main religion and there were 30 African languages that used to be written in Arabic script. The number of Muslims in Africa has diminished to 316 million, half of whom are Arabs in North Africa. So in the section of Africa that we are talking about, the non-Arab section, the number of Muslims does not exceed 150 million people. When we realize that the entire population of Africa is one billion people, we see that the number of Muslims has diminished greatly from what it was at the beginning of the last century. On the other hand, the number of Catholics has increased from one million in 1902 to 329 million 882 thousand (329,882,000). Let us round off that number to 330 million in the year 2000.

As to how that happened, well there are now 1.5 million churches whose congregations account for 46 million people. In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Every day, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Every year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity. These numbers are very large indeed <ref name="americanthinker.com">[https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/05/six_million_african_muslims_le.html In Africa Alone Everyday, 16,000 Muslims Leave Islam]</ref>}}

John L. Allen, Jr., editor of the Catholic news website Crux, wrote:
{{Cquote|Africa is the zone of Christianity’s greatest growth. It is already the world’s most populous Christian continent, with slightly more Christians today than there are in North America, and the numbers are burgeoning. The Pew Forum projects that by 2050, sub-Saharan Africa will have 1.1 billion Christians, almost twice as much as its nearest rival for adherents, Islam.<ref>[https://cruxnow.com/faith/2015/12/30/africa-christianitys-greatest-growth-and-greatest-threat/ Africa: Christianity's greatest growth, and greatest threat] by John L. Allen, Jr., Crux</ref>}}

Many people, but certainly not all, follow the steps of their parents when it comes to their religious faith or their lack thereof. Admittedly though the retention rate for people raised on the atheist household is low in the United States (around 30%) so Obama's parents' atheism is not as big of a factor as many people might suppose (see: [[Atheism and its retention rate in individuals]]).

=== Atheist organizations ===

Liberal Christians and atheists sometimes work together on various public policy issues (see: [[Atheism and liberal Christianity alliances]]).

There is significant conflict between [[atheism]] and [[Islam]] and Islamic governments imprison/censure atheists and Islamic zealots kill atheists (see: [[Atheism vs. Islam]]). Muslims generally have a very low opinion of atheism. The Obama administration is the first administration to meet with an atheist group. It met with the Secular Coalition for America which is a coalition which represents the [[American Atheists]], the American [[Secular Humanism|Humanist]] Association, and the Military Association of Atheists and [[Freethought|Freethinkers]].<ref>[http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/02/atheists-meet-with-white-house-officials/1#.VypYTzEn_7Y Atheists meet with White House officials], USA Today</ref>

=== Summary of argument that Obama is a closet atheist/agnostic ===

Given that Obama isn't particularly religious, his parents' irreligion and the toxicity of being an atheist in terms of electability to a political office in the United States (see: [[Views on atheists]]), there have been accusations that Obama is a [[closet atheist]]/closet [[agnosticism|agnostic]].<ref>[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/barack-obama-closeted-non_b_692751.html Barack Obama: Closeted Non-Believer?], Huffington Post</ref><ref>[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/24/bill-maher-obama-hes-drop-dead-atheist/ Bill Maher on Obama: ‘He’s a drop-dead atheist’], Washington Times</ref>

==Reaction of others==
:''See also: [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]''
Many people believe that politics is the motive behind the attacks on President Obama's religious beliefs. By questioning Obama's stated Christian beliefs, a political opponent can call him an untrustworthy liar without being direct. Polling data suggests that if Obama's primary opponents could convince the public that he was a Muslim, it would hurt his electability. In a 2007 Gallup poll, 94 percent of Americans said they would vote for a black candidate for president and 88 percent for a woman. However, only 34 percent of respondents in a 2006 ''Los Angeles Times'' poll said they could vote for a Muslim for president.<ref name=kristof/>

A survey in March 2008 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that ten percent of American voters believed that then-Senator Barack Obama was Muslim. 16% of conservative Republicans, 16% of white evangelical Protestants and 19% of rural Americans believed Obama, who at the time was a Presidential candidate, was Muslim.<ref>USA Today, ''Poll: 1 in 10 think Obama is Muslim'', Posted 4/1/2008, by Daniel Burke, Religion News Service, retrieved 10/16/2008.[https://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-04-01-obama-muslim_N.htm]</ref> In a later survey, in July 2008, the number had risen to 12% of American voters who thought Obama was a Muslim. Interestingly, 37% of those who thought he was Muslim intended to vote for him.<ref>Pew Research Center, ''12% - Still Think Obama is Muslim'', retrieved 10/16/08 [http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=509]</ref>

According to September 2015 survey data, 39% say he is Protestant, 29% say he is Muslim, 11% of people say Obama's not religious, 4% say he is Catholic, and 14% that they just don't know. Among college-educated people, 63% say he is Protestant.<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/13/politics/barack-obama-religion-christian-misperceptions/ Misperceptions persist about Obama's faith, but aren't so widespread], CNN</ref> And of course, in the United States, where many people are religious (especially African Americans who are very commonly Obama supporters), Obama supporters are more likely to say he is religious.

So, it is not surprising that investigators hired by Donald Trump found that the rumors originated with President Obama's primary opponents.<ref name=trump/>

==See also==
* [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]
* [[Muslim agenda of the Obama administration]]
* [[Mystery:Why Do Some Oppose the Likelihood that Obama Is Muslim?]]
* [[Islam and tolerance|Islam and Tolerance]]

==External links==
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsUJ2wu0iX4 Montage: Obama Praises Islam]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Islam]]

==External links==
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsUJ2wu0iX4 Montage: Obama Praises Islam]

[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Islam]]

Intelligent design

2020-09-15T01:02:43Z

McCoy: Clarification

:''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 false.<ref>"Dembski and Wells argue the non facts y that intelligent design theory is empirically testable , when it isn't. They falselt claim that 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 not 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, falsely, only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes." This is not true.<ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/wired_science_one_long_bluff028441.html</ref> Wells, among others, tries to use 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.He fails.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/9151</ref>

The false 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 falselyholds 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 ridiculous attempt at ascientific 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]]