«Statement on the Teaching of Evolution»(PDF). Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. 16 de febrero de 2006. Archivado desde el original el 21 de febrero de 2006. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. «Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called 'flaws' in the theory of evolution or 'disagreements' within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific 'alternatives' to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to 'critically analyze' evolution or to understand 'the controversy.' But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one.»
«The Wedge»(PDF). Seattle, WA: Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. 1999. Consultado el 31 de mayo de 2014. «The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a 'wedge' that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the 'thin edge of the wedge,' was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.»
Pennock 2001, "Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski," pp. 645–667, "Dembski chides me for never using the term 'intelligent design' without conjoining it to 'creationism'. He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to 'rally the troops'. (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski's movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability..." Robert T Pennock, ed. (2001). Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN0-262-66124-1. LCCN2001031276. OCLC46729201.
Dembski, William A. (2001). «Another Way to Detect Design?». Metanexus. New York: Metanexus Institute. Consultado el 16 de junio de 2012. This is a "three part lecture series entitled 'Another Way to Detect Design' which contains William Dembski's response to Fitelson, Stephens, and Sober whose article 'How Not to Detect Design' ran on Metanexus:Views (2001.09.14, 2001.09.21, and 2001.09.28). These lectures were first made available online at Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science http://www.metanexus.net. This is from three keynote lectures delivered October 5–6, 2001 at the Society of Christian Philosopher's meeting at the University of Colorado, Boulder."
Johnson, Phillip E. (15 de abril de 1999). «Keeping the Darwinists Honest». Citizen (Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family). ISSN1084-6832. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. «ID is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. [...] The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed.»
Meyer, Stephen C. (15 de marzo de 1986). «We Are Not Alone». Eternity (Philadelphia, PA: Evangelical Foundation Inc.). ISSN0014-1682. Consultado el 10 de octubre de 2007.
Frame 2009, p. 291, "In contrast to the other would-be pioneers of Intelligent Design, Denton describes himself as an agnostic, and his book was released by a secular publishing house." Frame, Tom (2009). Evolution in the Antipodes: Charles Darwin and Australia. Sydney: UNSW Press. ISBN978-1-921410-76-5. LCCN2009286878. OCLC271821761.
Shanks 2004, p. 11: "Muzaffar Iqbal, president of the Center for Islam and Science, has recently endorsed work by intelligent design theorist William Dembski." Shanks, Niall (2004). God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory. Foreword by Richard Dawkins. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN0-19-516199-8. LCCN2003042916. OCLC51769083.
«The dangers of creationism in education». Committee on Culture, Science and Education (Report). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. 17 de septiembre de 2007. Doc. 11375. Archivado desde el original el 7 de marzo de 2013. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014.
Stenger, Victor J. «The Anthropic Principle»(PDF). Victor J. Stenger. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado. Archivado desde el original el 17 de junio de 2012. Consultado el 16 de junio de 2012.
Johnson, Phillip E. «How The Evolution Debate Can Be Won». Coral Ridge Ministries. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge Ministries. Archivado desde el original el 7 de noviembre de 2007. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. «I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science. [...] Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? [...] I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves.» — Johnson, "Reclaiming America for Christ Conference" (1999)
cornell.edu
digital.library.cornell.edu
Matzke gives as examples the August 21, 1847, issue of Scientific American, and an 1861 letter in which Charles Darwin uses "intelligent Design" to denote John Herschel's view that the overlapping changes of species found in geology had needed "intelligent direction":
Murphy, George L. (2002). «Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem». Covalence: The Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science and Technology (Chicago, IL: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Division for Ministry) IV (2). OCLC52753579. Archivado desde el original el 11 de abril de 2016. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. Reprinted with permission.
Mooney, Chris (11 de septiembre de 2003). «Polling for ID». Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (Blog). Amherst, NY: Center for Inquiry. Archivado desde el original el 27 de marzo de 2008. Consultado el 16 de febrero de 2007.
ctlibrary.com
Johnson 1996b, "My colleagues and I speak of 'theistic realism'—or sometimes, 'mere creation'—as the defining concept of our [the ID] movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology." Johnson, Phillip E. (May–June 1996). «Third-Party Science». Books & Culture (Book review) 2 (3). Archivado desde el original el 19 de febrero de 2014. Consultado el 16 de junio de 2012. The review is reprinted in full by Access Research Network [archived 10 February 1999].
«Does intelligent design postulate a "supernatural creator?». Discovery Institute. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Truth Sheet # 09-05. Consultado el 19 de julio de 2007. «...intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer. [...] '...the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy.'».
Dembski, William A. (10 de agosto de 1998). «The Act of Creation: Bridging Transcendence and Immanence». Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. "Presented at Millstatt Forum, Strasbourg, France, 10 August 1998."
«Discovery Institute - Fellows». Discovery Institute. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Archivado desde el original el 14 de julio de 2004. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. Discovery Institute fellows and staff.
«CSC - Top Questions: General Questions: Is Discovery Institute a religious organization?». Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Consultado el 13 de noviembre de 2010. «Discovery Institute is a secular think tank, and its Board members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, including mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic. Until recently the Chairman of Discovery's Board of Directors was former Congressman John Miller, who is Jewish. Although it is not a religious organization, the Institute has a long record of supporting religious liberty and the legitimate role of faith-based institutions in a pluralistic society. In fact, it sponsored a program for several years for college students to teach them the importance of religious liberty and the separation of church and state.»
Meyer, Stephen C.; Allen, W. Peter (15 de julio de 2004). «Unlocking the Mystery of Life». Center for Science and Culture (Preview). Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Consultado el 13 de julio de 2007.
dissentfromdarwin.org
«Sign - Dissent from Darwin». dissentfromdarwin.org. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Archivado desde el original el 11 de abril de 2011. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014.
Enserink, Martin (3 de junio de 2005). «Evolution Politics: Is Holland Becoming the Kansas of Europe?». Science (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science) 308 (5727): 1394. PMID15933170. doi:10.1126/science.308.5727.1394b.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, pages 26-27, "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Examples include:
Nickson, Elizabeth (6 de febrero de 2004). «Let's Be Intelligent about Darwin». National Post (Reprint) (Toronto, Ontario: Postmedia Network). ISSN1486-8008. Archivado desde el original el 28 de diciembre de 2013. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. «Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.»
«FAQ: Who designed the designer?». Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (Short answer). Seattle, WA: Casey Luskin; IDEA Center. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. «One need not fully understand the origin or identity of the designer to determine that an object was designed. Thus, this question is essentially irrelevant to intelligent design theory, which merely seeks to detect if an object was designed. ...Intelligent design theory cannot address the identity or origin of the designer—it is a philosophical / religious question that lies outside the domain of scientific inquiry. Christianity postulates the religious answer to this question that the designer is God who by definition is eternally existent and has no origin. There is no logical philosophical impossibility with this being the case (akin to Aristotle's 'unmoved mover') as a religious answer to the origin of the designer.»
«WIRED Magazine response». Illustra Media. La Habra, CA: Illustra Media. Archivado desde el original el 20 de diciembre de 2008. Consultado el 13 de julio de 2007. «It's also important that you read a well developed rebuttal to Wired's misleading accusations. Links to both the article and a response by the Discovery Institute (our partners in the production of Unlocking the Mystery of Life and The Privileged Planet) are available below.»
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, pages 26-27, "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Examples include:
Nickson, Elizabeth (6 de febrero de 2004). «Let's Be Intelligent about Darwin». National Post (Reprint) (Toronto, Ontario: Postmedia Network). ISSN1486-8008. Archivado desde el original el 28 de diciembre de 2013. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. «Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.»
Johnson, Phillip E. (15 de abril de 1999). «Keeping the Darwinists Honest». Citizen (Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family). ISSN1084-6832. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. «ID is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. [...] The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed.»
Brauer, Matthew J.; Forrest, Barbara; Gey, Steven G. (2005). «Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution»(PDF). Washington University Law Review (St. Louis, MO: Washington University School of Law) 83 (1): 79-80. ISSN2166-7993. Archivado desde el original el 20 de diciembre de 2013. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. «ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly 'peer-reviewed' journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of 'peer review' that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows.»
Matzke, Nick (7 de noviembre de 2005). «Missing Link discovered!». Evolution Education and the Law (Blog). Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. Archivado desde el original el 14 de enero de 2007. Consultado el 18 de noviembre de 2009.
Meyer, Stephen C. (15 de marzo de 1986). «We Are Not Alone». Eternity (Philadelphia, PA: Evangelical Foundation Inc.). ISSN0014-1682. Consultado el 10 de octubre de 2007.
Matzke gives as examples the August 21, 1847, issue of Scientific American, and an 1861 letter in which Charles Darwin uses "intelligent Design" to denote John Herschel's view that the overlapping changes of species found in geology had needed "intelligent direction":
DeWolf, David K.; West, John G.; Luskin, Casey (Winter 2007). «Rebuttal to Irons»(PDF). Montana Law Review (Missoula, MT: University of Montana School of Law) 68 (1): 89-94. ISSN0026-9972. Archivado desde el original el 9 de marzo de 2014. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014.
Edis, Taner (November–December 1999). «Cloning Creationism in Turkey». Reports of the National Center for Science Education (Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education) 19 (6): 30-35. ISSN2158-818X. Consultado el 18 de noviembre de 2009.
Watanabe, Teresa (25 de marzo de 2001). «Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator». Los Angeles Times. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. «'We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. ...'We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.'». — Phillip E. Johnson
See, e.g., Schneider, Jill E. «Professor Schneider's thoughts on Evolution and Intelligent Design». Department of Biological Sciences. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University. Archivado desde el original el 2 de septiembre de 2006. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. «Q: Why couldn't intelligent design also be a scientific theory? A: The idea of intelligent design might or might not be true, but when presented as a scientific hypothesis, it is not useful because it is based on weak assumptions, lacks supporting data and terminates further thought.»
«Nobel Laureates Initiative»(PDF) (Letter). The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity. 9 de septiembre de 2005. Archivado desde el original el 7 de octubre de 2005. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. The September 2005 statement by 38 Nobel laureates stated that: "...intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."
loc.gov
lccn.loc.gov
Pennock 2001, "Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski," pp. 645–667, "Dembski chides me for never using the term 'intelligent design' without conjoining it to 'creationism'. He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to 'rally the troops'. (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski's movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability..." Robert T Pennock, ed. (2001). Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN0-262-66124-1. LCCN2001031276. OCLC46729201.
Gauch 2003, Chapters 5–8. Discusses principles of induction, deduction and probability related to the expectation of consistency, testability, and multiple observations. Chapter 8 discusses parsimony (Occam's razor). Gauch, Jr., Hugh G. (2003). Scientific Method in Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN0-521-01708-4. LCCN2002022271. OCLC49225684.
Numbers 2006, p. 373; "[ID] captured headlines for its bold attempt to rewrite the basic rules of science and its claim to have found indisputable evidence of a God-like being. Proponents, however, insisted it was 'not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins – one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution.' Although the intellectual roots of the design argument go back centuries, its contemporary incarnation dates from the 1980s" Numbers, Ronald L. (2006) [Originally published 1992 as The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism; New York: Alfred A. Knopf]. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (Ampliado ed., 1 de Harvard University Press pbk. edición). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN0-674-02339-0. LCCN2006043675. OCLC69734583.
Numbers 2006, p. 373; "[ID] captured headlines for its bold attempt to rewrite the basic rules of science and its claim to have found indisputable evidence of a God-like being. Proponents, however, insisted it was 'not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins – one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution.' Although the intellectual roots of the design argument go back centuries, its contemporary incarnation dates from the 1980s" Numbers, Ronald L. (2006) [Originally published 1992 as The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism; New York: Alfred A. Knopf]. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (Ampliado ed., 1 de Harvard University Press pbk. edición). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN0-674-02339-0. LCCN2006043675. OCLC69734583.
Frame 2009, p. 291, "In contrast to the other would-be pioneers of Intelligent Design, Denton describes himself as an agnostic, and his book was released by a secular publishing house." Frame, Tom (2009). Evolution in the Antipodes: Charles Darwin and Australia. Sydney: UNSW Press. ISBN978-1-921410-76-5. LCCN2009286878. OCLC271821761.
Shanks 2004, p. 11: "Muzaffar Iqbal, president of the Center for Islam and Science, has recently endorsed work by intelligent design theorist William Dembski." Shanks, Niall (2004). God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory. Foreword by Richard Dawkins. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN0-19-516199-8. LCCN2003042916. OCLC51769083.
Dembski, William A. (2001). «Another Way to Detect Design?». Metanexus. New York: Metanexus Institute. Consultado el 16 de junio de 2012. This is a "three part lecture series entitled 'Another Way to Detect Design' which contains William Dembski's response to Fitelson, Stephens, and Sober whose article 'How Not to Detect Design' ran on Metanexus:Views (2001.09.14, 2001.09.21, and 2001.09.28). These lectures were first made available online at Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science http://www.metanexus.net. This is from three keynote lectures delivered October 5–6, 2001 at the Society of Christian Philosopher's meeting at the University of Colorado, Boulder."
Dembski, William A. (27 de febrero de 2001). «Teaching Intelligent Design -- What Happened When? A Response to Eugenie Scott». Metanexus. New York: Metanexus Institute. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. «The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to 'teach the controversy.' There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity (cf. the ongoing events in Kansas), and it is a scientific controversy.» Dembski's response to Eugenie Scott's February 12, 2001, essay published by Metanexus, "The Big Tent and the Camel's Nose."
millerandlevine.com
Miller, Kenneth R. «The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of 'Irreducible Complexity'». Biology by Miller & Levine. Rehoboth, MA: Miller and Levine Biology. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. "This is a pre-publication copy of an article that appeared in 'Debating Design from Darwin to DNA,' edited by Michael Ruse and William Dembski."
Kippley-Ogman, Emma. «Judaism & Intelligent Design». MyJewishLearning.com. New York: MyJewishLearning, Inc. Archivado desde el original el 6 de marzo de 2014. Consultado el 13 de noviembre de 2010. «But there are also Jewish voices in the intelligent design camp. David Klinghoffer, a Discovery Institute fellow, is an ardent advocate of intelligent design. In an article in The Forward (August 12, 2005), he claimed that Jewish thinkers have largely ignored intelligent design and contended that Jews, along with Christians, should adopt the theory because beliefs in God and in natural selection are fundamentally opposed.»
«Guidance on the place of creationism and intelligent design in science lessons»(DOC). Teachernet. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families. Archivado desde el original el 8 de enero de 2008. Consultado el 1 de octubre de 2007. «The intelligent design movement claims there are aspects of the natural world that are so intricate and fit for purpose that they cannot have evolved but must have been created by an 'intelligent designer'. Furthermore they assert that this claim is scientifically testable and should therefore be taught in science lessons. Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science. Sometimes examples are quoted that are said to require an 'intelligent designer'. However, many of these have subsequently been shown to have a scientific explanation, for example, the immune system and blood clotting mechanisms.
Attempts to establish an idea of the 'specified complexity' needed for intelligent design are surrounded by complex mathematics. Despite this, the idea seems to be essentially a modern version of the old idea of the 'God-of-the-gaps'. Lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation of some phenomena (a 'gap' in scientific knowledge) is claimed to be evidence of an intelligent designer.»
nationalgeographic.com
«Dover: ID is out!». Science(en inglés). 20 de diciembre de 2005. Consultado el 29 de marzo de 2021.
Matzke, Nick (7 de noviembre de 2005). «Missing Link discovered!». Evolution Education and the Law (Blog). Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. Archivado desde el original el 14 de enero de 2007. Consultado el 18 de noviembre de 2009.
Forrest, Barbara (1 de abril de 2005). «Expert Witness Report»(PDF). Consultado el 30 de mayo de 2013. Forrest's expert report in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
Matzke, Nick (23 de noviembre de 2004). «Critique: 'Of Pandas and People'». National Center for Science Education (Blog). Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. Consultado el 24 de septiembre de 2007.
«Evolving Banners at the Discovery Institute». National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. 28 de agosto de 2002. Consultado el 7 de octubre de 2007.
Scott, Eugenie C. (July–August 1999). «The Creation/Evolution Continuum». Reports of the National Center for Science Education (Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education) 19 (4): 16-17, 23-25. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014.
Evans, Skip (8 de abril de 2002). «Doubting Darwinism Through Creative License». National Center for Science Education (Blog). Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. Consultado el 25 de abril de 2011.
«Guidance on creationism for British teachers». National Center for Science Education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. 2 de febrero de 2007. Consultado el 18 de noviembre de 2009.
Edis, Taner (November–December 1999). «Cloning Creationism in Turkey». Reports of the National Center for Science Education (Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education) 19 (6): 30-35. ISSN2158-818X. Consultado el 18 de noviembre de 2009.
Matzke, Nick (7 de noviembre de 2005). «Missing Link discovered!». Evolution Education and the Law (Blog). Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. Archivado desde el original el 14 de enero de 2007. Consultado el 18 de noviembre de 2009.
See for example Manson, Joseph (27 de septiembre de 2005). «Intelligent design is pseudoscience». UCLA Today. Archivado desde el original el 15 de mayo de 2014. Consultado el 14 de mayo de 2014.
Enserink, Martin (3 de junio de 2005). «Evolution Politics: Is Holland Becoming the Kansas of Europe?». Science (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science) 308 (5727): 1394. PMID15933170. doi:10.1126/science.308.5727.1394b.
Workosky, Cindy (3 de agosto de 2005). «National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush». Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association. Archivado desde el original el 19 de septiembre de 2017. Consultado el 14 de enero de 2014. «'We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists [...] in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom,' said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director. [...] 'It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom,' said NSTA President Mike Padilla. 'Nonscientific viewpoints have little value in increasing students' knowledge of the natural world.'».
ntskeptics.org
Padian, K.; Matzke, N. (2009). «Darwin, Dover, ‘Intelligent Design’ and textbooks». Biochemical Journal (London) 417 (1): 29-42. PMID19061485. doi:10.1042/bj20081534.(PDF).
Dao, James (25 de diciembre de 2005). «2005: In a Word; Intelligent Design». The New York Times. Consultado el 23 de agosto de 2013. Dao states that the Discovery Institute said the phrase may have first been used by F. C. S. Schiller: his essay "Darwinism and Design," published in The Contemporary Review for June 1897, evaluated objections to the teleological argument raised by natural selection, and said "...it will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of Evolution may be guided by an intelligent design." pp. 128, 141.
origins.org
Thaxton, Charles B. (November 13–16, 1986). Copia archivada. Jesus Christ: God and Man. Dallas, TX. Archivado desde el original el 27 de septiembre de 2007. Consultado el 16 de junio de 2012.|title= y |título= redundantes (ayuda)
Matzke, Nick (11 de julio de 2006). «No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists…». The Panda's Thumb (Blog). Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Archivado desde el original el 6 de septiembre de 2015. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. Nick Matzke's analysis shows how teaching the controversy using the Critical Analysis of Evolution model lesson plan is a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label.
Burbridge-Bates, Lesley (14 de agosto de 2007). «What Happened to Freedom of Speech?»(PDF). Los Angeles, CA: Motive Entertainment; Premise Media Corporation. Archivado desde el original el 1 de diciembre de 2007. Consultado el 14 de mayo de 2014.
prospect.org
Mooney, Chris (15 de diciembre de 2002). «Survival of the Slickest». The American Prospect (Washington, D.C.) 13 (22). Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. «ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a 'teach the controversy' approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists 'continue to investigate and critically analyze' aspects of Darwin's theory.»
Emerson, Jim (17 de diciembre de 2008). «Ben Stein: No argument allowed». RogerEbert.com (Blog). Chicago, IL: Ebert Digital LLC. Consultado el 14 de mayo de 2014. «One spokesman comes close to articulating a thought about Intelligent Design:
'If you define evolution precisely, though, to mean the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection -- that's a textbook definition of neo-Darwinism -- biologists of the first rank have real questions...
'Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence.'».
DeWolf, David K.; West, John G.; Luskin, Casey (Winter 2007). «Rebuttal to Irons»(PDF). Montana Law Review (Missoula, MT: University of Montana School of Law) 68 (1): 89-94. ISSN0026-9972. Archivado desde el original el 9 de marzo de 2014. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014.
«Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 1». TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Consultado el 16 de junio de 2012. «Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes.»
«Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 2». TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. «What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own. [...] Intelligent design, as it is understood by the proponents that we are discussing today, does involve a supernatural creator, and that is my objection. And I am objecting to it as they have defined it, as Professor Johnson has defined intelligent design, and as Dr. Dembski has defined intelligent design. And both of those are basically religious. They involve the supernatural.» — Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.
Mark Isaak (ed.). «CI001.4: Intelligent Design and peer review». TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. «With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical.»
«Guidance on the place of creationism and intelligent design in science lessons»(DOC). Teachernet. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families. Archivado desde el original el 8 de enero de 2008. Consultado el 1 de octubre de 2007. «The intelligent design movement claims there are aspects of the natural world that are so intricate and fit for purpose that they cannot have evolved but must have been created by an 'intelligent designer'. Furthermore they assert that this claim is scientifically testable and should therefore be taught in science lessons. Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science. Sometimes examples are quoted that are said to require an 'intelligent designer'. However, many of these have subsequently been shown to have a scientific explanation, for example, the immune system and blood clotting mechanisms.
Attempts to establish an idea of the 'specified complexity' needed for intelligent design are surrounded by complex mathematics. Despite this, the idea seems to be essentially a modern version of the old idea of the 'God-of-the-gaps'. Lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation of some phenomena (a 'gap' in scientific knowledge) is claimed to be evidence of an intelligent designer.»
Wallis, Claudia (7 de agosto de 2005). «The Evolution Wars». Time (New York: Time Inc.). Archivado desde el original el 14 de enero de 2007. Consultado el 22 de octubre de 2011.
See for example Manson, Joseph (27 de septiembre de 2005). «Intelligent design is pseudoscience». UCLA Today. Archivado desde el original el 15 de mayo de 2014. Consultado el 14 de mayo de 2014.
DeWolf, David K.; West, John G.; Luskin, Casey (Winter 2007). «Rebuttal to Irons»(PDF). Montana Law Review (Missoula, MT: University of Montana School of Law) 68 (1): 89-94. ISSN0026-9972. Archivado desde el original el 9 de marzo de 2014. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014.
«Intelligent Design is not Science: Scientists and teachers speak out». Faculty of Science. Sydney: University of New South Wales. 15 de octubre de 2005. Archivado desde el original el 14 de junio de 2006. Consultado el 9 de enero de 2009. The October 2005 statement, by a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers said: "intelligent design is not science" and "urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science."
uscourts.gov
pamd.uscourts.gov
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania 20 de diciembre de 2005). Archivado el 28 de septiembre de 2005 en Wayback Machine. «Copia archivada». Archivado desde el original el 28 de septiembre de 2005. Consultado el 5 de junio de 2015. Memorandum and Order, July 27, 2005.
web.archive.org
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, pages 26-27, "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Examples include:
Nickson, Elizabeth (6 de febrero de 2004). «Let's Be Intelligent about Darwin». National Post (Reprint) (Toronto, Ontario: Postmedia Network). ISSN1486-8008. Archivado desde el original el 28 de diciembre de 2013. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. «Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.»
Johnson, Phillip E. «How The Evolution Debate Can Be Won». Coral Ridge Ministries. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge Ministries. Archivado desde el original el 7 de noviembre de 2007. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. «I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science. [...] Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? [...] I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves.» — Johnson, "Reclaiming America for Christ Conference" (1999)
See, e.g., Schneider, Jill E. «Professor Schneider's thoughts on Evolution and Intelligent Design». Department of Biological Sciences. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University. Archivado desde el original el 2 de septiembre de 2006. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. «Q: Why couldn't intelligent design also be a scientific theory? A: The idea of intelligent design might or might not be true, but when presented as a scientific hypothesis, it is not useful because it is based on weak assumptions, lacks supporting data and terminates further thought.»
«Nobel Laureates Initiative»(PDF) (Letter). The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity. 9 de septiembre de 2005. Archivado desde el original el 7 de octubre de 2005. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. The September 2005 statement by 38 Nobel laureates stated that: "...intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."
«Intelligent Design is not Science: Scientists and teachers speak out». Faculty of Science. Sydney: University of New South Wales. 15 de octubre de 2005. Archivado desde el original el 14 de junio de 2006. Consultado el 9 de enero de 2009. The October 2005 statement, by a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers said: "intelligent design is not science" and "urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science."
Johnson 1996b, "My colleagues and I speak of 'theistic realism'—or sometimes, 'mere creation'—as the defining concept of our [the ID] movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology." Johnson, Phillip E. (May–June 1996). «Third-Party Science». Books & Culture (Book review) 2 (3). Archivado desde el original el 19 de febrero de 2014. Consultado el 16 de junio de 2012. The review is reprinted in full by Access Research Network [archived 10 February 1999].
Brauer, Matthew J.; Forrest, Barbara; Gey, Steven G. (2005). «Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution»(PDF). Washington University Law Review (St. Louis, MO: Washington University School of Law) 83 (1): 79-80. ISSN2166-7993. Archivado desde el original el 20 de diciembre de 2013. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. «ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly 'peer-reviewed' journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of 'peer review' that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows.»
«WIRED Magazine response». Illustra Media. La Habra, CA: Illustra Media. Archivado desde el original el 20 de diciembre de 2008. Consultado el 13 de julio de 2007. «It's also important that you read a well developed rebuttal to Wired's misleading accusations. Links to both the article and a response by the Discovery Institute (our partners in the production of Unlocking the Mystery of Life and The Privileged Planet) are available below.»
Matzke, Nick (7 de noviembre de 2005). «Missing Link discovered!». Evolution Education and the Law (Blog). Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. Archivado desde el original el 14 de enero de 2007. Consultado el 18 de noviembre de 2009.
Thaxton, Charles B. (November 13–16, 1986). Copia archivada. Jesus Christ: God and Man. Dallas, TX. Archivado desde el original el 27 de septiembre de 2007. Consultado el 16 de junio de 2012.|title= y |título= redundantes (ayuda)
Dao, James (25 de diciembre de 2005). «2005: In a Word; Intelligent Design». The New York Times. Consultado el 23 de agosto de 2013. Dao states that the Discovery Institute said the phrase may have first been used by F. C. S. Schiller: his essay "Darwinism and Design," published in The Contemporary Review for June 1897, evaluated objections to the teleological argument raised by natural selection, and said "...it will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of Evolution may be guided by an intelligent design." pp. 128, 141.
Wallis, Claudia (7 de agosto de 2005). «The Evolution Wars». Time (New York: Time Inc.). Archivado desde el original el 14 de enero de 2007. Consultado el 22 de octubre de 2011.
Stenger, Victor J. «The Anthropic Principle»(PDF). Victor J. Stenger. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado. Archivado desde el original el 17 de junio de 2012. Consultado el 16 de junio de 2012.
See for example Manson, Joseph (27 de septiembre de 2005). «Intelligent design is pseudoscience». UCLA Today. Archivado desde el original el 15 de mayo de 2014. Consultado el 14 de mayo de 2014.
Workosky, Cindy (3 de agosto de 2005). «National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush». Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association. Archivado desde el original el 19 de septiembre de 2017. Consultado el 14 de enero de 2014. «'We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists [...] in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom,' said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director. [...] 'It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom,' said NSTA President Mike Padilla. 'Nonscientific viewpoints have little value in increasing students' knowledge of the natural world.'».
«Discovery Institute - Fellows». Discovery Institute. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Archivado desde el original el 14 de julio de 2004. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. Discovery Institute fellows and staff.
Kippley-Ogman, Emma. «Judaism & Intelligent Design». MyJewishLearning.com. New York: MyJewishLearning, Inc. Archivado desde el original el 6 de marzo de 2014. Consultado el 13 de noviembre de 2010. «But there are also Jewish voices in the intelligent design camp. David Klinghoffer, a Discovery Institute fellow, is an ardent advocate of intelligent design. In an article in The Forward (August 12, 2005), he claimed that Jewish thinkers have largely ignored intelligent design and contended that Jews, along with Christians, should adopt the theory because beliefs in God and in natural selection are fundamentally opposed.»
«Sign - Dissent from Darwin». dissentfromdarwin.org. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. Archivado desde el original el 11 de abril de 2011. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014.
Mooney, Chris (11 de septiembre de 2003). «Polling for ID». Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (Blog). Amherst, NY: Center for Inquiry. Archivado desde el original el 27 de marzo de 2008. Consultado el 16 de febrero de 2007.
Burbridge-Bates, Lesley (14 de agosto de 2007). «What Happened to Freedom of Speech?»(PDF). Los Angeles, CA: Motive Entertainment; Premise Media Corporation. Archivado desde el original el 1 de diciembre de 2007. Consultado el 14 de mayo de 2014.
Matzke, Nick (11 de julio de 2006). «No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists…». The Panda's Thumb (Blog). Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Archivado desde el original el 6 de septiembre de 2015. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. Nick Matzke's analysis shows how teaching the controversy using the Critical Analysis of Evolution model lesson plan is a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label.
«Statement on the Teaching of Evolution»(PDF). Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. 16 de febrero de 2006. Archivado desde el original el 21 de febrero de 2006. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. «Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called 'flaws' in the theory of evolution or 'disagreements' within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific 'alternatives' to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to 'critically analyze' evolution or to understand 'the controversy.' But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one.»
Murphy, George L. (2002). «Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem». Covalence: The Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science and Technology (Chicago, IL: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Division for Ministry) IV (2). OCLC52753579. Archivado desde el original el 11 de abril de 2016. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. Reprinted with permission.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania 20 de diciembre de 2005). Archivado el 28 de septiembre de 2005 en Wayback Machine. «Copia archivada». Archivado desde el original el 28 de septiembre de 2005. Consultado el 5 de junio de 2015. Memorandum and Order, July 27, 2005.
DeWolf, David K.; West, John G.; Luskin, Casey (Winter 2007). «Rebuttal to Irons»(PDF). Montana Law Review (Missoula, MT: University of Montana School of Law) 68 (1): 89-94. ISSN0026-9972. Archivado desde el original el 9 de marzo de 2014. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014.
«The dangers of creationism in education». Committee on Culture, Science and Education (Report). Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. 17 de septiembre de 2007. Doc. 11375. Archivado desde el original el 7 de marzo de 2013. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (20 de diciembre de 2005). Context, pp. 24–25. "the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. ... ...[T]his argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley... [the teleological argument] The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God."
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (20 de diciembre de 2005). Whether ID Is Science, p. 64. The ruling discusses central aspects of expectations in the scientific community that a scientific theory be testable, dynamic, correctible, progressive, based upon multiple observations, and provisional.
See, e.g., Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (20 de diciembre de 2005). Context, p. 22 and Whether ID Is Science, p. 77. The designer is not falsifiable, since its existence is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. The designer being beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can be neither supported nor undermined by observation, making intelligent design and the argument from design analytic a posteriori arguments.
See, e.g., Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (20 de diciembre de 2005). Context, p. 22 and Whether ID Is Science, p. 66. That intelligent design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that it violates a basic premise of science, naturalism.
See, e.g., the brief explanation in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (20 de diciembre de 2005). Whether ID Is Science, p. 66. Intelligent design professes to offer an answer that does not need to be defined or explained, the intelligent agent, designer. By asserting a conclusion that cannot be accounted for scientifically, the designer, intelligent design cannot be sustained by any further explanation, and objections raised to those who accept intelligent design make little headway. Thus intelligent design is not a provisional assessment of data, which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that a conclusion that need not be accounted for has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (20 de diciembre de 2005). Whether ID Is Science, p. 81. "For human artifacts, we know the designer's identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer's abilities, needs, and desires. With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer's identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (20 de diciembre de 2005). Context, pp. 31–33.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (20 de diciembre de 2005). Context, p. 32 ff, citing Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 .
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, pages 26-27, "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Examples include:
Nickson, Elizabeth (6 de febrero de 2004). «Let's Be Intelligent about Darwin». National Post (Reprint) (Toronto, Ontario: Postmedia Network). ISSN1486-8008. Archivado desde el original el 28 de diciembre de 2013. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. «Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.»
wired.com
archive.wired.com
«WIRED Magazine response». Illustra Media. La Habra, CA: Illustra Media. Archivado desde el original el 20 de diciembre de 2008. Consultado el 13 de julio de 2007. «It's also important that you read a well developed rebuttal to Wired's misleading accusations. Links to both the article and a response by the Discovery Institute (our partners in the production of Unlocking the Mystery of Life and The Privileged Planet) are available below.»
Pennock 2001, "Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski," pp. 645–667, "Dembski chides me for never using the term 'intelligent design' without conjoining it to 'creationism'. He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to 'rally the troops'. (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski's movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability..." Robert T Pennock, ed. (2001). Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN0-262-66124-1. LCCN2001031276. OCLC46729201.
Gauch 2003, Chapters 5–8. Discusses principles of induction, deduction and probability related to the expectation of consistency, testability, and multiple observations. Chapter 8 discusses parsimony (Occam's razor). Gauch, Jr., Hugh G. (2003). Scientific Method in Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN0-521-01708-4. LCCN2002022271. OCLC49225684.
Numbers 2006, p. 373; "[ID] captured headlines for its bold attempt to rewrite the basic rules of science and its claim to have found indisputable evidence of a God-like being. Proponents, however, insisted it was 'not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins – one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution.' Although the intellectual roots of the design argument go back centuries, its contemporary incarnation dates from the 1980s" Numbers, Ronald L. (2006) [Originally published 1992 as The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism; New York: Alfred A. Knopf]. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (Ampliado ed., 1 de Harvard University Press pbk. edición). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN0-674-02339-0. LCCN2006043675. OCLC69734583.
Numbers 2006, p. 373; "[ID] captured headlines for its bold attempt to rewrite the basic rules of science and its claim to have found indisputable evidence of a God-like being. Proponents, however, insisted it was 'not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins – one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution.' Although the intellectual roots of the design argument go back centuries, its contemporary incarnation dates from the 1980s" Numbers, Ronald L. (2006) [Originally published 1992 as The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism; New York: Alfred A. Knopf]. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (Ampliado ed., 1 de Harvard University Press pbk. edición). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN0-674-02339-0. LCCN2006043675. OCLC69734583.
Frame 2009, p. 291, "In contrast to the other would-be pioneers of Intelligent Design, Denton describes himself as an agnostic, and his book was released by a secular publishing house." Frame, Tom (2009). Evolution in the Antipodes: Charles Darwin and Australia. Sydney: UNSW Press. ISBN978-1-921410-76-5. LCCN2009286878. OCLC271821761.
Shanks 2004, p. 11: "Muzaffar Iqbal, president of the Center for Islam and Science, has recently endorsed work by intelligent design theorist William Dembski." Shanks, Niall (2004). God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory. Foreword by Richard Dawkins. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN0-19-516199-8. LCCN2003042916. OCLC51769083.
Murphy, George L. (2002). «Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem». Covalence: The Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science and Technology (Chicago, IL: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Division for Ministry) IV (2). OCLC52753579. Archivado desde el original el 11 de abril de 2016. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. Reprinted with permission.
Brauer, Matthew J.; Forrest, Barbara; Gey, Steven G. (2005). «Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution»(PDF). Washington University Law Review (St. Louis, MO: Washington University School of Law) 83 (1): 79-80. ISSN2166-7993. Archivado desde el original el 20 de diciembre de 2013. Consultado el 28 de febrero de 2014. «ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly 'peer-reviewed' journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of 'peer review' that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows.»
