Are there Alternative Theories?

The idea that living things change over time has been around since the 18th century[1], but the scientific community did not accept evolution until 1859, with the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species.[2] Today, the modern theory of evolution, which is largely based on Darwin's ideas, forms the framework for all of biology,[3] and is accepted by the majority of scientists.[4] 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.[5] Within the scientific community, no serious debate exists between evolution and alternative theories.[6] Yet, outside of the mainstream scientific establishment, alternative ideas to evolution, such as scientific creationism, still persist.[7]

 

Scientific creationism is a school of thought, which attempts to provide scientific evidence for the Biblical account of the creation of Earth’s geology and biodiversity.[8] 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, was the driving force behind the Earth’s biodiversity.[8]

Among Creationists there is no consensus, and their individual beliefs vary wildly. For example, Ken Ham of the Creation Museum in Kentucky believes that a Biblical God created the universe, along with the Earth and all life on it about 6,000 years ago. [It is generally accepted that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, making Ham's estimate incorrect by a factor of 2.3x106] Ham also 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 carnivorous velociraptor who lives harmoniously with humans, and a fiberglass replica of a domesticated triceratops, dressed with a riding saddle.[10]

Photos courtesy of arstechnica.com

Other Creationists accept the fact that the universe is older than 6,000 years, and even accept to a degree that living things evolve. 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]

Other creationists, like author Ray Comfort, have made similar claims, and even pointed to evidence of God's design in nature. In this video, with television actor Kirk Cameron, Comfort presents evidence for God's design of the banana.

If you can not view this video in your web browser, you may download it here.

However, Comfort's claims have been debunked. Modern bananas, like most supermarket produce, are the result of modern agricultural practices. The Cavendish banana that Comfort is seen holding in the video, and which he claims to have been designed by "Almighty God" was in fact hybridized from wild species by William Cavendish in 1836. The many features of design that Comfort points out, such as the soda-can-like tab at the top of the banana, are in fact mere coincidences, as soda cans with tabs did not exist in Cavendish's time, nor had Cavendish developed the techniques to genetically modify the structure of the banana with such precision.

Although Ashcraft's, and many other Creationists' claims have been disproved, 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 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 insisted on 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.” Through the movement, Johnson had hoped, “to see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.” In its effort to make ID the “dominant perspective,” Johnson believed that the new movement should, “pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula.”[17]

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 modern biology, and specifically 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 biology 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] Judge Jones found that the ID Movement employed the same, deceitful tactic.

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 book's editor 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 phrase “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 instead relying solely on flawed logic, such as inductive reasoning and negative arguments against evolution.[26] One such argument is known as "irreducible complexity." According to Judge Jones, “the concept of irreducible complexity is ID's alleged scientific centerpiece.”[27] The 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 intelligent agency.[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 over time. 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 offers a positive argument for design. It never identifies a scientifically testable design mechanism, and never explains how the Intelligent Designer produced these complex systems. Behe's argument is instead solely derived from his incredulity that evolutionary mechanisms, like natural selection, could have produced a system as complex as the bacterial flagellum. Behe infers all of his evidence from the notion that these complex systems appear designed, and therefore must have been designed by some form of intelligent agency.[31] His entire argument for Intelligent Design is solely based on this flawed form of inductive and circular reasoning, illustrated below:

Figure 2. The circular argument, also known as a tautology, used by Behe as evidence for Intelligent Design.

Michael Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity" is derived from a much older, teleological argument called the Watchmaker Argument. The argument, which states that the existence of God can be inferred from apparent design in nature, had been used throughout history by Christian theologians to try to prove the existence of God.

In 1802, William Paley famously used the watchmaker argument in his Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature (1802). Paley wrote that if a pocket watch is found on the ground, because of the watch's complex design, it is reasonable to assume that it was made by an intelligent watchmaker, and not by natural forces. The same holds true, Paley argued, for complexity found in nature. Paley wrote:

"...suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use...

Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.

— William Paley, Natural Theology (1802)

 

Figure 3. The watchmaker argument, used by William Paley in 1802 to infer the existence of God from apparent design in nature.

 

However, Paley's watchmaker argument was later disproved by Charles Darwin. With the publication of On the Origins of Species in 1859, Darwin introduced natural selection - a purely natural process that created the appearance of purposeful design in nature. It disproved Paley's inductive argument that the appearance of design can only come from intelligent agency. Nonetheless, Intelligent Design proponents continue to rely on the faulty design argument, as well as attacks against natural selection, to advance their cause.

In his ruling, Judge Jones pointed out Behe’s flawed argument 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 can neither verify nor disprove that an Intelligent Designer, rather than some other, natural mechanism produced the complex features of living things.

The fact that Intelligent Design cannot be falsified automatically disqualifies it from science.[35] In his ruling, Judge Jones stated, “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 the Intelligent Designer to be 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, by definition, 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 that 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 central argument is 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, Pandas argues, they must have been designed as “fully-formed” wings in their present form. The evolutionary intermediates, or “partially-formed” wings needed by evolution to culminate in 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 incorrect. 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 that the Intelligent Design textbook tries to advance.[46]

The fossil record also contradicts the claims made in Pandas. In the case of birds, the 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 Tiktaalik - a fish with primitive amphibian traits.[47] And in 1979, the fossil record revealed the remains of an Australopithecine, an early human who possessed traits similar to chimpanzees.[48] These well-known examples of 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 earlier ancestors, and changed through the course of their descent into their present form.

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 [44 different species] 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 dozens of new transitional species (44 in total) that display characteristics of both even-toed ungulates and modern whales. These transitional species include the Pakicetus, Ichthyolestes, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Remingtonocetus, Georgiacetus, Aegyptocetus, Protocetus, Rodhocetus, and Maiacetus.

Figure 4. Pakicetus, a land-dwelling mammal from the Early Eocene (50 million years ago), is thought to be the common ancestor of all whales because its auditory bulla (indentations in the back of the skull) is formed only from the ectotympanic bone. Pakicetus marks the first appearance in the fossil record of this unusual anatomical trait, common to all whales.

 

Figure 5. Some transitional species, or "missing links" of whale evolution.

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 unusual auditory bulla, 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] Bear evolution is explained in further detail here.


Figure 6. Evolutionary tree for bears.


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 share about 98% DNA.[55] In fact, chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to any other ape. 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:



If you can not view this video in your web browser, you may download it here.

Video: Dr. Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, presents conclusive genetic evidence that humans share recent common ancestry with great apes.

 

As Dr. Miller points out, Intelligent Design proponents have no answer for this evidence, and instead argue that our shared genetic similarities with our evolutionary cousins is purely coincidental, and 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?” Dr. Padian answered:

“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, which everyone can understand.”[61]

— Dr. Kevin Padian, testimony, Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005)

 

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

If you can not view this video in your web browser, you may download it here.

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]

 

 

Further Reading on Intelligent Design:

 

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

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

 

Views from the Scientific Community:

Science, Evolution, and Creationism may be downloaded for free in PDF format from the National Academy of Sciences Website here. 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."

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

National Center for Science Education. "Creationism Controversy: Understanding and Responding to Creationism Movements."

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

NOVA. “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

The Talk Origins Archive.

 

References:

 

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

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

3. The National Academy of Sciences. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

4. 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.

5. National Academy of Sciences. Science, Evolution, and Creationism. National Academies Press, 2008. Preface, p. xii; and Kitzmiller p. 83-84.

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

7. The National Science Foundation, Belief in Pseudoscience: More Than a Century After Darwin, Evolution Still Under Attack in Science Classrooms.

8. Numbers, Ronald. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Harvard University Press, 2006. Pages 271-274.

9. "Museum Claims Earth is 6,000 Years Old." AP Press release, May 23, 2005.

10. Gitlin, Jonathan M. "Ars takes a field trip: the Creation Museum." ARS Technica, 2007.

11. Ashcraft, Chris. "Evolution: God's Greatest Creation." Northwest Creation Network.

13. Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover School District, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of PA (2005). pages 24 and 32.

14. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).

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.

Note: Although the Wedge Strategy does not specifically identify Phillip Johnson as the author, in an 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. Source: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-id.html

20. Kitzmiller, 3.

21. Kitzmiller, 21.

23. Kitzmiller, 32.

24. National Center for Science Education. "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 - Claim CI001.4: Intelligent design has been supported by peer-reviewed journals” 2006

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.

49. Johanson, D. C. and Taieb, M. “Plio-Pleistocene Hominid Discoveries in Hadar, Ethiopia.” Nature 260, 293–297 (1976)

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.

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.

57. Miller, K. “The Collapse of Intelligent Design.” Lecture January 6, 2006. Case Western University.

58. Kitzmiller, 46.

59. Kitzmiller, 89.

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

61. Matzke, Nick. "The testimony of Kevin Padian in Kitzmiller v. Dover"

62. Kitzmiller, 137-138.

63. Kitzmiller, 137.