Reading Evolution: Are there Alternative Theories?

 

The idea that living things change has been around since the 18th century (1), but it wasn’t until 1859, when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, that the scientific community began to accept the theory of change. Today, the modern theory of evolution, which is largely based on Darwin's ideas, forms the framework for all of biology, and is accepted by the majority of scientists. (2) The mainstream science community and all major scientific institutions, like the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences, accept evolution as the only explanation for biological diversity, and refute any alternative theories. (3)(4) Within this community, no serious debate exists between evolution and alternative theories. (5) Yet outside of the mainstream scientific establishment, alternative ideas to evolution, such as Scientific Creationism, still persist. (6)

Scientific Creationism is a field of study, which attempts to provide scientific evidence for the Biblical account of the creation of Earth’s geology and biodiversity. (7) The consensus among today’s scientists is that the Earth was created approximately 4.5 billion years ago, and that life began shortly thereafter. Scientists believe that the same biological processes that shape life today, like heredity and genetic mutation, have also worked in the past to create the diversity of life on Earth. Creationists however oppose this view in favor of a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, in which the God of Christianity, rather than natural processes, is the driving force behind the Earth’s geology and biodiversity. (8)

Among Creationists there is no consensus, and their beliefs vary greatly. For example, Ken Ham of the Creation Museum in Cincinnati believes that God created the Earth and all life on it around 6,000 years ago, during the time of Ancient Egypt. Consequently, Ham rejects the accepted scientific consensus that humans and dinosaurs are separated by 65 million years, and instead believes that the two coexisted. (9) Ham’s Creation Museum has on display a fiberglass replica of a domesticated triceratops, dressed with a riding saddle. (10)

Other Creationists accept the fact that the Earth is older than 6,000 years, and even accept to a degree that living things evolve. The Creationist author Chris Ashcraft, for example, believes that God created certain “kinds” of organisms, which later diversified through evolution into modern species. Ashcraft also believes that the fossil record can be explained by the Biblical Flood, and that the fossilized remains of extinct species were deposited by flood water in a pattern which resembles an evolutionary record. (11) Although Ashcraft's, and many other Creationists' claims have been disproved (12), Scientific Creationism still persists, and has even gained increasing attention with the recent emergence of the Intelligent Design Movement.

Intelligent Design was first introduced in the United States in the late 1980’s as means to circumvent court rulings that banned the teaching of Creationism in public schools. (13) Rulings in cases like Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) recognized that Scientific Creationism was rooted in specific religious beliefs and violated the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits Congress from making laws that respect an establishment of religion. (14) These rulings prevented the teaching of Scientific Creationism as an alternative to mainstream science in public schools. Political Christian organizations, like the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), sought to circumvent these rulings by changing the language of Scientific Creationism.

In 1989, just two years after the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, the FTE promoted the newly published Of Pandas and People, an alternative school textbook that introduced the concept of Intelligent Design. (15) Of Pandas and People promoted the same ideas as Scientific Creationism, but used different language. For example, where Creationists argued for a Creator as the mechanism for the origin of life, Pandas now referred to an “Intelligent Designer” as the cause. (16)

By 1991, Phillip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California in Berkeley, had devised a set of goals for the newly established Intelligent Design movement. Johnson believed that the movement should seek, “to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies” and, “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” (17) Through the movement, Johnson had hoped, “to see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.” (18) In its effort to make ID the “dominant perspective,” Johnson believed that the ID movement should, “pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula.” (19)

Johnson's hopes for a legal confrontation were realized in 2005, when Intelligent Design was challenged in federal court in Dover, PA. The trial was sparked by the Dover school board’s attempt to introduce Intelligent Design into the science classroom as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Despite protest from Dover science teachers, members of the school board entered science classrooms and read a 1-minute statement to students, which promoted Intelligent Design along with the alternative textbook Of Pandas and People. Dover Parents challenged the school board’s actions in federal court on the grounds that Intelligent Design is inherently religious in nature and, like Scientific Creationism, it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. (20)

During the six-week long trial, Plaintiffs revealed that not only is Intelligent Design rooted in religious dogma, but that it is not supported by any scientific evidence. In fact, Judge J. Jones declared that the ID movement is nothing but a new form of Creationism. In his ruling, he explained that during the Creationist movement of the 1980’s, “religious opponents of evolution began cloaking religious beliefs in scientific sounding language and then mandating that schools teach the resulting ‘creation science’ or ‘scientific creationism’ as an alternative to evolution.” (21) Jones found that the ID Movement employed the same, deceitful tactic. (22)

The evidence at trial revealed that Pandas was initially written as a Creationist textbook. However, the 1989 edition was hastily revised to reflect the new language of Intelligent Design in order to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling, which banned the teaching of Creationism in public schools two years earlier. (23)

At trial, Intelligent Design proponents denied that Pandas had anything to do with Creationism. However it became clear that Pandas was originally authored as a Creationist textbook when the phrase “CDESIGN PROPONENTSISTS” appeared in one of the early drafts. Before the book went into publication, it seems that the publisher tried to delete all references to Creationism and replace them with the new language of Intelligent Design. But in this particular case, while editing the draft on a computer word processor, instead of highlighting the entire word “CREATIONISTS,” the editor mistakenly highlighted only the letters “REATION.” He then pasted in the word “DESIGN PROPONENTS.” This resulted in the nonsensical: “CDESIGN PROPONENTSISTS” (24) and clearly demonstrated that Intelligent Design was, as Jones deemed, “nothing less than the progeny of creationism.” (25)

Jones also criticized ID for providing no scientific evidence to support its claims, and for arguing solely through negative attacks against evolution. (26) He explained that, “the concept of irreducible complexity is ID's alleged scientific centerpiece.” (27) The “irreducible complexity” argument states that some biological systems are so complex that no evolutionary processes could have produced them. In fact, ID proponents claim that irreducibly complex systems can only arise by purposeful, directed design, and can only be explained by the actions of an Intelligent Designer. (28)

In his 1996 Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe identifies the bacterial flagellum as such a system. He believes the flagellum displays evidence of a “purposeful arrangement of parts” (29) and contends that this arrangement is so complex that it cannot be reduced to simpler components. Behe believes that if any one part of this complex system were removed, the whole system would lose its function. This insight led Behe to conclude that the flagellum could not have evolved by evolutionary processes from simpler components. In Darwin’s Black Box, Behe proposes that only an Intelligent Designer could have designed this complex system in its entirety. (30)

However, Darwin’s Black Box never explains how the Intelligent Designer actually produced these complex systems in nature. Behe's argument for Intelligent Design is solely derived from his incredulity that evolutionary mechanisms, like natural selection, could have produced a system as complex as the bacterial flagellum. Behe inferes all of his evidence for an Intelligent Designer from the notion that these complex systems appear designed. (31) His entire argument is solely based on this flawed form of inductive reasoning, illustrated below:

 

Figure 1. The circular argument, also known as a tautology, used as evidence for Intelligent Design.

 

Figure 2. The same, circular argument is used by Creationists to justify the existence of God.


In his ruling, Judge Jones pointed out Behe’s illogical arguments for Design, including his dependence on inductive and negative reasoning. Jones explained that, “Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich. (Irreducible complexity is not a test of intelligent design; it's a test of evolution). (32) According to Jones, “...arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." (33)

According to Judge Jones, the negative argument for “irreducible complexity” ultimately falls short because it, “fails to make a positive scientific case for ID.” (34). Intelligent Design theory fails to explain how the Intelligent Designer actually produced complex features of living things, like the bacterial flagellum. Therefore, the theory can never be tested. Scientists cannot either verify or disprove that an Intelligent Designer, rather than some other, natural mechanism produced the complex features of living things.

The fact that the theory cannot be falsified automatically disqualifies it from all fields of science. (35) Judge Jones ruled that, “It is therefore readily apparent to the Court that ID fails to meet the essential ground rules that limit science to testable, natural explanations. ID's failure to meet the ground rules of science is sufficient for the Court to conclude that it is not science…” (36)

In Darwin’s Black Box, Behe also never identifies the Intelligent Designer who allegedly produced the bacterial flagellum. However, all ID proponents who testified on behalf of the defense stated that they personally believe that the Intelligent Designer is actually the God of Christianity. (37) In fact, Behe, “remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.” (38)

Not only is Behe’s argument for an Intelligent Designer illogical, but his claim of “irreducible complexity” has also been discredited. We know that in the case of the bacterial flagellum, variations exist in bacteria that are less complex, such as Type-III secretion systems. At trial, expert witnesses showed that the bacterial flagellum could have evolved from these less complex secretory systems through known evolutionary processes, like natural selection. These less complex variations falsify the notion that the flagellum is “irreducibly” complex. (39)

Judge Jones explained that, “…with regard to the bacterial flagellum, Dr. Miller pointed to peer-reviewed studies that identified a possible precursor to the bacterial flagellum, a subsystem that was fully functional, namely the Type-III Secretory System. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich admitted that there is serious scientific research on the question of whether the bacterial flagellum evolved into the Type-III Secretary System, the Type-III Secretory System into the bacterial flagellum, or whether they both evolved from a common ancestor. None of this research or thinking involves ID. In fact, Professor Minnich testified about his research as follows: "we're looking at the function of these systems and how they could have been derived one from the other.” (40) In other words, ID proponents like Minnich are studying how the bacterial flagellum evolved - not how an Intelligent Designer created it.

In science, when claims made by a theory have been discredited, the theory is discarded and replaced by a better theory. Intelligent Design’s claim regarding the "irreducible complexity" of the bacterial flagellum has been falsified, and the theory should, by scientific standards, be discarded. However, as Judge Jones explained, Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific theory. Although ID’s claims have been discredited, and the theory has been proven wrong, it nonetheless persists among its proponents. In this respect, Intelligent Design does not follow the basic rules of science.

Judge Jones also found that ID does not adhere to the same, strict standards of scientific research and testing as other scientific theories. He stated that, “ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community.” (41) Scientific literature on Intelligent Design is virtually non-existent, and ID limits itself to general interest publications. Books like those authored by Michael Behe are not considered legitimate modes for scientific publication because they escape the critical review of the scientific community. In these general interest books aimed for a non-scientific audience, Behe is not held accountable for what he writes.

To answer this criticism, The Discovery Institute, a conservative political advocate for Intelligent Design, posted a list on its website of about 10 peer-reviewed articles, which it claims deal with topics related to Intelligent Design. However, the scientific community has discredited all of these. While most of the articles actually do not address Intelligent Design theory, absolutely no article presents positive evidence for Intelligent Design. (42) This lack of legitimate publication is rather dismal compared to the hundreds of thousands of scientific papers and peer-reviewed articles that appear in legitimate science journals, like Nature, and deal with direct and clear evidence for evolution.

Because Intelligent Design advocates have produced no legitimate scientific work, Pandas relies on faulty science to support its claims. Judge Jones pointed out that, “the one textbook to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case.” (43) Pandas argues that certain species were purposefully designed in their present form, “…already intact fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." (44)

The textbook states that these anatomical features show signs of intelligent design because they are perfectly designed for particular functions. Wings, for example, are perfectly designed for flight. Therefore, they must have been designed as “fully-formed” wings in their present form. The evolutionary intermediates, or “partially-formed” wings needed by evolution to end up with a functional wing, Pandas argues, would be useless to birds, and would not help them survive. (45)

But even in this basic principle, Pandas is wrong. Not all anatomical features show purposeful design for specific function, as some features of living things were adapted by evolution to serve other purposes. For example, not all wings are used for flight, as in the case of flightless birds, like penguins, whose wings were adapted by evolution for swimming. Therefore, primitive wings on their way to evolving into “fully-formed” wings were not necessarily used for flight. Both adaptation and the evolution of flight are well-documented phenomena and contradict the flawed “purposeful design” argument presented in Pandas. (46)

The fossil record also contradicts the claims made in Pandas. In the case of birds, the fossil record preserved the remains of transitional bird-like reptiles from the late Jurassic, such as Archaeopteryx - a reptile with primitive wings and feathers. In the case of Tetrapods (four legged land vertebrates), the fossil record preserved the recently discovered Tiktaalik - a fish with primitive amphibian traits. (47) And in 1979, the fossil record revealed the remains of an Australopithecine, who possessed traits common to both chimpanzees and modern humans. (48) These transitional species possessed primitive characteristics that evolved into modern features. They are evidence that organisms were not designed in their present form, but descended from ancestral organisms, and changed through the course of their descent into their present forms.

In response to evolution’s transitional species, Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates point to “pronounced gaps” in the fossil record, and stress the relative lack of these transitional species. (49) In fact, Creationists like Alan Haywood argue that such gaps exist in the fossil record of whales. Haywood believes that, “Darwinists rarely mention the whale because it presents them with one of their most insoluble problems. They believe that somehow a whale must have evolved from an ordinary land-dwelling animal, which took to the sea and lost its legs… A land mammal that was in the process of becoming a whale would fall between two stools – it would not be fitted for life on land or at sea, and would have no hope for survival.” (50) For Haywood, the lack of these transitional creatures that were adapted to both life on land and sea is conclusive evidence that whales were specially designed for life in the water and did not evolve from land-dwelling mammals, as the theory of evolution suggests. To Haywood, whales present clear evidence of design.

However, as Sylvan Barnet explains in Current Issues, “The power of science is that, faced with such a challenge, one can test the relevant theory. The theory of evolution predicts that whales with atrophied hind legs must have once swum in the seas. If Darwin is correct, then those whales’ fossils must lie buried somewhere. Further, those strange creatures must have risen during a relatively narrow interval of geological time, after the evolution of the earliest known marine mammals (about 60 million years ago) and before the appearance of the streamlined whales of the present era (which show up in the fossil record during the past 30 million years). Armed with those conclusions, paleontologists searched shallow marine formations from 35 million to 55 million years in age. Sure enough, in the past decade scientists have excavated dozens of those “missing links” in the development of the whale – curious creatures that sport combinations of anatomical features of land and sea mammals.” (51)

In the case of whale evolution, paleontologists have unearthed evidence that clearly contradicts the claims made by Scientific Creationism. Within just the past 20 years, they have learned that whales are descended from even-toed ungulates - the group of mammals that includes hippos, pigs, giraffes, deer, and cattle. This insight comes from the discovery of half a dozen new transitional species that display characteristics of both even-toed ungulates and modern whales. These transitional species include the Pakicetus, Ichthyolestes, Ambulocetus, Protocetus, Rodhocetus, and Maiacetus.

Paleontologists are certain that these extinct species are the ancestors of modern whales because they share physical traits with whales that no other animals posses. These traits include the whale-like inner ear structure, and specialized teeth. The fossil evidence was further confirmed by independent molecular analyses. (52)

Other examples of transitional species come from well-preserved evolutionary lineages, such as the Ursus line. In this lineage, which includes modern bears and their extinct ancestors, the fossil record has very clearly preserved a gradual progression of transitional species with no gaps. As Dr. Bjorn Kurten of the University of Helsinki noted, when it comes to Ursine evolution - particularly in the case of the extinct Cave Bears, “there is a perfectly complete evolutionary sequence without any real gaps. The transition is slow and gradual throughout, and it is quite difficult to say where one species ends and the next begins.” (53)

Kurten and his colleagues can follow the evolution of these extinct bears by tracing fossilized remains of their anatomical features through the geological record. For example, they can track the remains of the bears’ specialized teeth, chronologically through different layers of rock. By studying the features of these teeth which changed through time, and comparing them with features which remained unchanged, paleontologists can describe exactly how these ancestral bears evolved into modern bears. (54)

 

Figure 3. Fossilized teeth from extinct species of bears, showing the specialized “triangular” upper premolars that are unique to the extinct species in the Ursine lineage, and to modern bears, including Grizzly, Brown, and Polar bears.

 

Paleontologists can use this evidence to build an evolutionary "family tree" for all bears that inherited these anatomical features.

 

Figure 4. Evolutionary tree for bears, tracing the inheritance of specialized teeth from Ursavus (20 million years ago), to modern polar bears of today.

 

Pandas claims that modern species were designed by an Intelligent Designer and did not descend from extinct species. However, this claim fails to take into account the evidence from the fossil record. In the case of the Ursus lineage, different bear species did not just appear fully developed in their present form, as argued by ID. The fossil record demonstrates that these bear species are actually different forms of the same line of descent. They appear as different species because they physically changed over many generations, and their remains were deposited chronologically – with the more primitive forms appearing before the modern, or derived forms.

Recent genetic evidence also contradicts Pandas’ claims. When it comes to the human family tree, for example, DNA sequencing has revealed that humans and chimpanzees are very closely related, and that we share about 98% of our DNA. (55) In fact, chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to all other apes. By comparing differences in the two species’ genes, and analyzing the number of mutations that had built up on these genes since we split from the chimpanzee line, geneticists are able to calculate that we last shared a common ancestor between 4.6 to 6.2 million years ago. (56) Geneticists are even able to identify the exact points along the genome where the genetic split occurred, as Prof. Kenneth Miller demonstrates in this video, from his lecture titled, "The Collapse of Intelligent Design," given in January 2006 at Case Western University.

Intelligent Design proponents have no answer for this evidence, and instead argue that our shared genetic similarities with our evolutionary cousins is purely coincidental. The similarities among individual species, they argue, reflect simply the whim of the Designer, rather than common descent. (57)

When Judge Jones criticized the school board for being ignorant of the flawed science behind Intelligent Design, the board members testified that, “the reading of the statement is not ‘teaching’ ID but instead is merely ‘making students aware of it.” Therefore, “they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students.” (58) In fact, “ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny, which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class.” (59)

However, within the scientific community, no controversy exists. As we noted earlier, Intelligent Design it is not accepted as a valid scientific theory among any known mainstream scientific institutions. Support for the theory seems to be limited to religious organizations, Internet blogs and discussion forums, conservative political movements, special interest groups, and public policy organizations, such as the FTE and the Discovery Institute. In this sense, Intelligent Design appears to be a purely political device. Within the mainstream scientific community, there is no serious scientific research or debate about Intelligent Design. (60)

In fact, the mainstream science community is openly critical of Intelligent Design and its backers. The controversy in Dover arose from a 1-minute statement that introduced Intelligent Design to high school students as an alternative theory to evolution. In his cross-examination of Dr. Kevin Padian, a well-known paleontologist at the University of California at Berkeley, the counselor asked, “And from your perspective as a scientist, what's the problem with this one-minute statement?” Padian then replied, “I think it makes people stupid. I think essentially it makes them ignorant. It confuses them unnecessarily about things that are well understood in science, about which there is no controversy, about ideas that have existed since the 1700's, about a broad body of scientific knowledge that's been developed over centuries by people with religious backgrounds and all walks of life, from all countries and faiths...” (61)

Other scientists express their opinions in this video produced by the National Center for Science Education.

The evidence presented at the trial in Dover showed that Intelligent Design is based on religious ideology rather than science. It led Judge Jones to conclude that, “this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy.” (62) He therefore ruled that, “it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.” (63)


 

<<-- 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

 

References:

 

1. Corsi, Pietro. “Before Darwin: Transformist Concepts in European Natural History." Journal of the History of Biology, vol. 38. 2005, pp. 67–83.

Larson, Edward J. "Evolution: the Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory." Random House, 2004. Pages 6-11.

2. Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688; July 14, 2008 (http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District&oldid=639475) (http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf) Page 83.

3. In 1987, at the height of the Scientific Creationism debate in public schools, Newsweek Magazine conducted a survey in which the magazine asked roughly 480,000 US accredited scientists from areas of Earth and Life Sciences, whether they subscribe to alternative theories to evolution, particularly to the ideas of Scientific Creationism. A little over 0.1% responded ‘yes.’ The remaining 99.9% of scientists responded that they do not agree with the concepts of Scientific Creationism. Source: Newsweek Magazine, 1987-JUN-29, Page 23. Gould, Stephen J. " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981 http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

4. National Academy of Sciences, and Institute Of Medicine. "Science, Evolution, and Creationism," National Academies Press, 2008. Preface, p. xii; and Kitzmiller p. 83-84.

5. NAS; and National Center for Science Education, "Intelligent Design Not Accepted by Most Scientists.” August 12th, 2002. http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/intelligent-design-not-accepted-by-most-scientists

6. The National Science Foundation, “Belief in Pseudoscience: More Than a Century After Darwin, Evolution Still Under Attack in Science Classrooms.” http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s2.htm

7. Numbers, Ronald. "The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design." Harvard University Press, 2006.

8. Numbers, Pages 271-274.

9. "Museum Claims Earth is 6,000 Years Old." AP Press release, May 23, 2005. http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ap_050523_creation_museum.html

10. Gitlin, Jonathan M.Ars takes a field trip: the Creation Museum." ARS Technica, 2007. http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/06/ars-takes-a-field-trip-the-creation-museum.ars

11. Ashcraft, Chris. "Evolution: God's Greatest Creation." Northwest Creation Network. http://www.nwcreation.net/evolution_creation.html

12. In God Doesn't Believe in Atheists (Bridge-Logos, 1993), author Ray Comfort claimed that God designed the banana specifically for human use because its shape displayed elements of design. Comfort claimed the evidence of God’s design in the banana was “the atheist’s nightmare.” Yet it is common knowledge that domesticated bananas are products of modern farming practices and were hybridized from wild bananas. Comfort later conceded his argument.

13. Kitzmiller, 33.

14. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987). caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=482&page=578

15. Kitzmiller, 27, 31-35.

16. Davis, William; Kenyon, Dean. “Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins.” Haughton Pub. Co., 1989. Page 152.

17. Johnson, Phillip E. “The Wedge Strategy: Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.” www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

Note: Although the “Wedge Document” does not specifically identify Phillip Johnson as the author, in interview conducted on April 6, 2007 by Joe McMaster, producer of "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial," Johnson identified himself as the author of the article. www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-id.html

18. Johnson.

19. Johnson.

20. Kitzmiller, 1.

21. Kitzmiller, 21.

22. Kitzmiller, 21.

23. Kitzmiller, 32.

24. National Center for Science Education. "CDesign Proponentsists" http://ncseweb.org/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists

25. Kitzmiller, 31.

26. Kitzmiller, 71.

27. Kitzmiller, 72.

28. Young, M; Edis, Taner. “Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism.” Rutgers University Press, 2004. Page 96.

29. Behe, Michael J. “Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.” Free Press, 2006. Page 193.

30. Behe.

31. Young, 194.

32. Kitzmiller, 71.

33. Kitzmiller, 72.

34 Kitzmiller, 71.

35. Young, 186; Roach, John .“Does Intelligent Design Threaten the Definition of Science?” National Geographic News. April 27, 2005

36. Kitzmiller, 71.

37. Kitzmiller, 26.

38. Kitzmiller, 28.

39. Young, 73-84.

40. Kitzmiller, 77.

41. Kitzmiller, 89.

42. Isaak, Mark. “The Talk Origins Archive: Index to Creationist Claims.” 2006 http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html

43. Kitzmiller, 86-87.

44. Davis, 100.

45. Davis, 23-29.

46. Padian, Kevin. “The Origin of Birds and the Evolution of Flight.” California Academy of Sciences, 1986.

47. Hunt, K. "Transitional Vertebrate Fossils" The Talk Origins Archive. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

48. Johanson, D. C. and Taieb, M. “Plio-Pleistocene Hominid Discoveries in Hadar, Ethiopia.” Nature 260, 293–297 (1976) http://www.nature.com/nature/ancestor/pdf/260293.pdf

49. Davis, 96-98.

50. Gould, Stephen J. "Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History." Three Rivers Press, 1995. Page 361.

51. Barnet, Sylvan; Bedau, Hugo. “Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with Readings.” Macmillan. 2007.

52. J. G. M. Thewissen, E. M. Williams, L. J. Roe and S. T. Hussain (2001). "Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls". Nature 413: 277–281.

53. Kurten, Bjorn. “The Cave Bear Story” Columbia University Press, 1995. Page 41.

54. Kurten, 17-18.

55. The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. "Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome."Nature 437, 69-87 (1 September 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04072; Received 21 March 2005; Accepted 20 July 2005. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

56. Chen, Feng-Chi; Li, Wen-Hsiung. "Genomic Divergences between Humans and Other Hominoids and the Effective Population Size of the Common Ancestor of Humans and Chimpanzees." American Journal of Human Genetics. 2001 February; 68(2): 444–456. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1235277/

57. Miller, K. “The Collapse of Intelligent Design.” Lecture January 6, 2006. Case Western University. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

58. Kitzmiller, 46.

59. Kitzmiller, 89.

60. National Center for Science Education, "Intelligent Design Not Accepted by Most Scientists.” August 12th, 2002

61. Kitzmiller. www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_transcript.html#day9pm175

62. Kitzmiller, 137-138.

63. Kitzmiller, 137.

 

Images:

Figures 3 and 4. Kurten, Bjorn. “The Cave Bear Story” Columbia University Press, 1995.

 

 

Further Reading on Intelligent Design:

 

Behe, Michael J. “Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.” Free Press, 2006

Behe, Michael J. “The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism.” 2008

Behe, Michael J; Dembski, William A. Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe.” Ignatius Press, 2000

Dembski, William A. “The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design.” IVP Books, 2004

Dembski, William A. “Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science & Theology.” InterVarsity Press, 2007

Dembski, William A. “Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design.” Brazos Press, 2001

Dembski, William A. “Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language.” Harvest House Publishers, 2008

House, H. Wayne. “Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts Explain the Key Issues.”
Kregel Publications, 2008

Johnson, Phillip E. “Darwin on Trial.” InterVarsity Press, 1993

Stewart, Robert B. “Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue.” Fortress Press, 2007

“IntelligentDesign.org” http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

“Discovery Institute” http://www.discovery.org/

 

Opposing Views from the Scientific Community:

 

Views from recognized scientific institutions:

The National Academy of Sciences. “Science, Evolution, and Creationism” National Academies Press, 2008

The book may be downloaded for free in PDF format from the National Academy of Sciences Website. (to download you free copy, you must first create an account)

The National Science Foundation, “Belief in Pseudoscience: More Than a Century After Darwin, Evolution Still Under Attack in Science Classrooms.” http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s2.htm

National Center for Science Education: http://ncseweb.org/creationism

National Center for Science Education, "Intelligent Design Not Accepted by Most Scientists.” August 12th, 2002 http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/intelligent-design-not-accepted-by-most-scientists


Other publications and resources that present an opposing view:

NOVA has one of the most comprehensive resources on the Intelligent Design debate, including their website and the program “Judgment Day” which is now available on DVD.

“Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial”
www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

PBS Online by WGBH, 1996-2007 WGBH Educational Foundation
“NOVA: Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” (2008) DVD

 

“Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus’ (2006) DVD

 

Books, Articles, and Online Resources:

Brockman, John “Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement” Vintage, 2006

Brown, Barrett “Flock of Dodos: Behind Modern Creationism, Intelligent Design and the Easter Bunny.” Sterling & Ross, Cambridge House Press, 2007

Coyne, Jerry A. “Why Evolution Is True.” Viking Adult, 2009

Forrest, Barbara “Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design.”Oxford University Press, 2007

Giberson, Karl “Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution.” HarperOne, 2008

Godfrey, Laurie “Scientists Confront Creationism: Intelligent Design and Beyond.” W.W. Norton & Co., 2008

Henderson, Bobby “The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.” Villard, 2006

Humes, Edward. “Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul.” Harper Perennial, 2008

Isaak, Mark. “The Counter-Creationism Handbook.” University of California Press, 2007

Lebo, Lauri. “The Devil in Dover: An Insider's Story of Dogma v. Darwin in Small-town America.” New Press, 2008

Miller, Kenneth R. “Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul.” Viking Adult, 2008

National Academy of Sciences, “Science, Evolution, and Creationism.” National Academies Press, 2008

Olson, Richard G. “Science and Religion, 1450-1900: From Copernicus to Darwin.” The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006

Park, Robert L. “Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science” Princeton University Press, 2008

Park, Robert L. “Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud.” Oxford University Press, 2001

Perakh, Mark. “Unintelligent Design.” Prometheus Books, 2003

Petto, Andrew J. (Editor) “Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism.”
W. W. Norton, 2007

Pierce, Charles P. "Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free." Random House, Inc., 2009

Roach, John .“Does Intelligent Design Threaten the Definition of Science?” National Geographic News. April 27, 2005

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0427_050427_intelligent_design.html

Ruchlis, Hyman “How Do You Know It's True? Discovering the Difference Between Science and Superstition” Prometheus Books, 1991

Scott, Eugenie C. “Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction.” University of California Press, 2005

Scott, Eugenie C. “Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools.” Beacon Press, 2006

Shanks, Niall. “God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory.” Oxford University Press, 2007

Shermer, Michael “Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design.” Holt Paperbacks, 2007

Shermer, Michael “Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time.” Holt Paperbacks, 2002

The Talk Origins Archive. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Young, Matt (Editor). “Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism.” Rutgers University Press, 2006.