Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Intelligent Design PDF
Intelligent Design PDF
A POSITION PAPER
FROM
THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY
OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY
Reviewing Committee: Paul Kurtz, Ph.D.; Austin Dacey, Ph.D.; Stuart D. Jordan, Ph.D.;
Ronald A. Lindsay, J. D., Ph.D.; John Shook, Ph.D.; Toni Van Pelt
Section III. The historical and legal background of intelligent design creationism ................ 6
Section V. Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005)and its aftermath ........ 17
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 29
Endnotes ............................................................................................................................... 29
Appendix .............................................................................................................................. 31
References ............................................................................................................................ 34
[Intelligent Design] One misconception concerns the status of evolution as a fact. . . . [I]t is
common to hear . . . that evolution is not merely a theory but an indisputable fact. . . . [O]nly
in the most trivial sensechange over timecan evolution be considered a fact. . . . If
students are to achieve true scientific literacy, they must learn to distinguish fact from
supposition. (Mark D. Hartwig and Stephen C. Meyer, 1993, Of Pandas and People, 154,
157)
Assertion of gaps in the fossil record (implying sudden appearance, thus divine creation, of
life forms):
[Creation Science] There is . . . a tremendous gap between one-celled microorganisms and
the . . . many invertebrate phyla of the Cambrian [period]. If the former evolved into the
latter, it seems impossible that no transitional forms between any of them would . . . be
preserved or found. . . . [S]pecies appear suddenly in the fossil record, with no incipient
forms leading up to them. . . . [H]ow does the evolutionary model account for these . . . gaps
in the fossil record? . . . In view of the wealth of fossils now available, it is impossible to say
. . . that the gaps will be filled in by further fossil collecting. (Henry Morris, 1974, Scientific
Creationism, 81, 87, 89)
[Intelligent Design] To say that the fauna of the Cambrian period appeared in a
geologically sudden manner also implies the absence of clear transitional intermediate forms
connecting Cambrian animals with simpler pre-Cambrian forms. . . . [I]n almost all cases, the
Cambrian animals have no clear . . . antecedents. . . . Further, several recent discoveries . . .
suggest that these . . . gaps may not be merely an artifact of incomplete sampling of the fossil
record. (Stephen C. Meyer, 2004, Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information
and the Higher Taxonomic Categories, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
117 (2), 215)
The conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to
distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims
that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate
controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to
understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate
controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society (Forrest and
Gross, 2004a, 2007a, 243).
Even as a Senate resolution in the bill itself, the language would not have had the force of
law (Branch and Scott, 2003), but it has been invaluable to ID proponents for promotional
purposes. Johnson has acknowledged his role in these political maneuvers, clearly hoping that
the Santorum amendment would assist ID supporters in getting ID into their public schools:
Whether school districts are required to comply with the Santorum amendment will be
uncertain until a court decides the point. . . . [T]he amendment states an excellent educational
policy that school authorities and teachers ought to support whether or not it is a legal
requirement. . . . The Santorum amendment gives advocates for truth all we really need to get
started. . . . If the Santorum amendment is the guiding policy, . . . teachers can hardly explain
why the theory of evolution continues to be controversial without mentioning . . . problems with
the evidence. Once that subject is mentioned, a door has been opened, and it will be hard to shut
it again (Johnson, 2003). Indeed, the Santorum amendment has subsequently been used by
creationists in numerous proposals to school boards and in proposed state legislation
Behes testimony during cross-examination was not helped by his admission that, under his
definition of scientific theory, which must be somewhat flexible in order to accommodate ID,
astrology also qualifies as science (Kitzmiller, 2005a, 38-39).
This courtroom scene epitomizes the manner in which Behe, the defenses most
important scientific witness, has defended ID during his decade-long role as the ID movements
chief scientist: every one of his claims has been debunked by scientific experts who actually
Additional ID projects
The Wedge Document calls for the establishment of an ID following in Israel, the UK,
and other influential countries outside the US, and internationalization has taken on new
urgency for ID proponents in the wake of Kitzmiller. An increasing volume of press coverage
is emanating from the UK regarding the emergence there of an unsuspected level of popular
support for creationism. The Royal Society has found the problem sufficiently troubling to
issue a formal statement about it (Royal Society, 2006). Reports of growing support for
creationism emerge almost weekly from eastern and western European countries that
previously considered themselves immune to this problem (Graebsch and Schiermeier, 2006;
Forrest and Gross, 2007b, 337).
More ID books are being aimed at a scientifically uninformed American public. Michael
Behes The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, promises to [fit] design
theory together with the findings of cosmology, chemistry, and physics into an overarching
theory of the universe; and [lay] out a research program, with predictions, to counter the failed
predictions of Darwins enthusiasts (Behe, 2007). William Dembski and Jonathan Wellss The
Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems will replace Of Pandas
and People for the high school audience (Dembski and Wells, 2007). (Despite being exposed as
a creationist textbook at the Kitzmiller trial (Forrest, 2005b), Pandas is still being sold by the
Foundation for Thought and Ethics as the book that has improved the way origins is taught in
thousands of public school classrooms. [Foundation for Thought and Ethics, n.d.])
VI. Conclusion.
As this paper demonstrates, the ID movement is nothing more than barely camouflaged
creationism. Seeking to convince the public that ID is something different, ID proponents avoid
open debate on the least defensible elements of earlier creationism such as the young age of the
earth and flood geology based on the biblical story of Noahs flood. Their attempt to
manufacture a scientific controversy and their sanitizing of ID terminology reflect their effort
to tailor their strategy to the current legal landscape and to the current attitudes of the American
public. Hoping to appeal to Americans instinctive notions of fairness, which would allow
both sides to be heard, ID creationists have tried to exploit this alleged scientific controversy
by pushing public schools to teach the controversy or teach the full range of scientific
views.
However, the only real controversy is the one that the ID creationists have fabricated for
the precise purpose of advancing their agenda. There is no legitimate scientific debate between
ID and evolution, and there is no controversy within the scientific community concerning the
status of evolutionary theory. Accordingly, we recommend that educators, local and state
boards of education, and all responsible government officials at every level reject any attempt
to insert ID into the classroom, whether by expressly teaching ID or by more subtle means,
such as disclaimers read in biology classes, stickers placed in biology textbooks, or
euphemistic proposals to teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolution, etc. Because ID is
a religious belief, allowing it to be inserted into the public school science classroom violates the
constitutionally protected separation of church and state. Just as significantly, introducing ID
into the classroom is detrimental to the teaching of real science. The methodology of modern
science has consistently produced notable scientific achievements for more than three centuries.
To ensure that American scientific progress continuesespecially if American students are to
contribute to it as scientistswe must ensure that our children have a proper understanding of
science.
We should not exaggerate the threat posed by the ID creationist movement. As the
Kitzmiller case and IDs defeats in Kansas and Ohio have demonstrated, concerned scientists and
The . . . Enlightenment embodied the hope of establishing governments that freed people
from superstition and tradition, so that people could use reason and science to generate
knowledge useful in improving society. . . .
. . . [S]ince the Enlightenment, our modern world has been characterized by a public
culture, which holds as primary beliefs the . . . views that rational intelligence must be
used both to make it possible for science to produce knowledge and to ensure that this
knowledge serves only humane purposes. Moreover, it is understood that society can
achieve these goals, and attain the flourishing that results, only when it allows intellectual
autonomy to manifest itself fully across the social and the public realms. Thus, attaining
the degree of civic friendship needed to maintain the stability of a liberal democracy . . .
depends on the extent to which science is understood as necessary for progress in all
dimensions of life. When this understanding is strong, then there would be an
overwhelming respect for the public culture of civic friendship that sustains autonomy
and its associated virtuesfreedom, critical thinking, intellectual pluralism, and the civic
virtue of toleration.
Acknowledgements
Comments and suggestions from the following people are gratefully acknowledged: Dr. Marshall
Berman, New Mexicans for Science and Reason; Dr. Andrew J. Petto, National Center for
Science Education; and Glenn Branch, National Center for Science Education.
Endnotes
1. Apologetics is the branch of theology that is concerned with the defense of Christian
doctrines (Websters Online Dictionary at http://www.websters-online-
dictionary.org/definition/apologetics. Accessed 4 February 2007.)
2. In addition to numerous books about ID, readers may consult a number of Internet sites for
critical reviews of ID books and original articles dealing with all aspects of ID. The most well-
known are Talkorigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org/), Talkdesign.org
(http://www.talkdesign.org/), Talkreason.org (http://www.talkreason.org/), and the Pandas
Thumb weblog (http://www.pandasthumb.org/). The National Center for Science Education is
also a repository of ID news and related literature (http://www.ncseweb.org/).
4. The word renewal has obvious religious associations, as stated in the Wedge Document:
Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to
repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in
God (Discovery Institute, 1998)
5. See the Appendix, added in July 2007. I have also amended my text to include the additional
sentence in Dr. Beckwiths endorsement, thus reproducing the complete endorsement, which
can be found at http://web.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/FromDarwintoHitler.htm.
In a July 5, 2007, e-mail, Dr. Beckwith disputes the accuracy of my understanding his
endorsement of Weikarts book to be effectively a restatement of Kennedys charge, no Darwin,
no Hitler, albeit in different language. (I did not attribute Kennedys wording to Beckwith.) His
objection to my reading of his endorsement has two parts: (1) that he did not assert that Hitler as
a historical figure was entailed by Darwin, which, he says, is what no Darwin, no Hitler
means, and (2) that his reference to the eugenics movement was not a reference to Hitler, but to
the movement that produced the 1927 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Buck v. Bell. However, my
reading of Dr. Beckwiths endorsement of Weikarts book is reasonable given the case Weikart
actually makes. I respond to each of Dr. Beckwiths objections in turn.
The first part of Dr. Beckwiths objection to my reading of his endorsement concerns
what Kennedy meant. He says that Kennedys no Darwin, no Hitler assertion means that Hitler
was entailed by Darwin the historical person, and Dr. Beckwith disavows this meaning. There
are two ways to understand entail in this context: (1) Of premises: To involve logically,
necessitate (a particular conclusion), or (2) To bring on by way of necessary consequence
(Oxford English Dictionary). If Dr. Beckwith, in his objection, intends the first sense of
entailment, this is not a sound objection as this reading of Kennedy makes no logical sense.
Entailment is a logical relationship between propositions and concepts, not people. If Dr.
Beckwith is using entail in the second sense, one can understand Kennedy as meaning that if
Darwin had not existed, Hitler would not have committed his atrocities because there would have
been no theory of evolution by natural selection to influence Hitler. Yet even if this is Kennedys
meaning, it is obviously Darwins theory that allegedly had the causal connection with Nazi
ideology and Nazi atrocities, not Darwin the man. Kennedys antipathy to evolution is well
known; it is Darwins scientific theory, not his historical existence, to which he objects, as
Darwins Deadly Legacy made very clear. At any rate, it makes sense to understand Kennedy as
meaning at least that if Darwin had not developed his theory of evolution by natural selection,
Hitler, guided by this theory, would not have committed his atrocities. To determine whether it is
accurate to understand Dr. Beckwiths endorsement of Weikarts book as reiterating the causal
connection that Kennedy made, i.e., that without Darwins theory, there would have been no
Nazi ideology and no Nazi atrocities, one must examine the content of Weikarts book, a subject
to which I will now turn.
As indicated, Dr. Beckwiths second objection concerns what he says that he meant in his
endorsement of Weikarts book. He says that he was referring to the eugenics movement that
produced the 1927 Buck v. Bell Supreme Court opinion, which influenced public policy in the
United States and Europe. By cultural elite, he says that he meant figures such as George
Bernard Shaw and Alexander Graham Bell, and institutions such as the Carnegie Institute and
the Rockefeller Foundation, all of which supported eugenics. However, one typically, and quite
reasonably, understands an endorsement as reflecting the content of the book that is endorsed;
therefore, the reasonable way to understand what Beckwith meant is to examine the case that
Weikart actually makes, since it is Weikarts case that Dr. Beckwith calls masterful and
compelling.
Under Dr. Beckwiths clarification of his endorsement, one would understand him to
mean that Weikart offers a compelling case that if organizations such as the Carnegie Institute
and the Rockefeller Institute, along with literary and scientific figures such as Shaw and Bell,
had not endorsed the Darwinian account of life, morality, and social institutions, then the
[M]any recent studies about Nazi science, especially those relating to biology, medical
science, and eugenics, demonstrate that many mainstream scientists, professors, and
He is very clear in the concluding chapter that his concern is with why the German elite class
cooperated with Hitler and with what led Hitler to undertake the atrocities he carried out, and
Weikarts final comments point squarely to Darwinism:
Another reason this study is so important is because it gives further insight into the
roots of Hitlers worldview and his genocidal mentality. It also helps explain why so
many educated Germans would cooperate with the Nazis and participate in the
Holocaust, including many medical personnel. When he embraced eugenics, involuntary
euthanasia for the handicapped, and racial extermination, Hitler was drawing on ideas
that were circulating widely among the educated elites. Klaus Fischer has rightly stated,
Adolf Hitlers racial image of the world was not simply the product of his own delusion
but the result of the finds of respectable science in Germany and in other parts of the
world, including the United States. These ideas were not dominant in German society,
but they were reputable and mainstream in scholarly circles, especially among the
medical and scientific elites. (232)
Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism, especially in
its social Darwinist and eugenics permutations, neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers
would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their
collaborators that one of the worlds greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy.
Darwinismor at least some naturalistic interpretations of Darwinismsucceeded in
turning morality on its head. (233) (emphasis added)
This is a plain statement that without Darwinism, i.e., Darwins theory of evolution by
natural selection, an essential part of Hitlers rationale for his atrocities would have been
missing. It is not a strained reading of this book to see that Weikart conveys much the same
message that Kennedy made more simplistically in his documentary. Since this is the case that
Weikart makes in From Darwin to Hitler, it is consequently the case that Dr. Beckwith has
endorsed as compelling. Since this is the book Weikart wrote, and the book Dr. Beckwith
endorsed, my reading of his endorsement is therefore a reasonable one.
Allen, Ann Taylor. 2006. Review of From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and
Racism in Germany. By Richard Weikart. 78 (1): 255-57. Available at
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?JMH78010743. (Accessed 8 February 2007.)
Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Doc. 601. Science, Religion and Public
Education: An Evolving Controversy. Faith & Freedom Series. Available at
http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/creationism_brochure.pdf?docID=601. (Accessed 3 February
2007.)
Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Doc. 623. Prayer and the Public Schools:
Religion, Education and Your Rights. Faith & Freedom Series. Available at
http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/public_schools_brochure.pdf?docID=623. (Accessed 3
February 2007.)
Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 2006. Governors Advocate Teaching
Intelligent Design in Public School Science Classes. Church & State. 59 (2): 18-19.
Anti-Defamation League. 2006. ADL Blasts Christian Supremacist TV Special & Book
Blaming Darwin for Hitler. Press release. 22 August. Available at
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/4877_52.html. (Accessed 7 February 2007.)
Apologetics.org. 2006. Evidence of Design Conference, November 3-4, 2006 Clearwater and
Tampa, Florida. Available at http://www.apologetics.org/recent-events.html. (Accessed 8
February 2007.)
Arnhart, Larry. 2006. A Review of Richard Weikarts From Darwin to Hitler. Darwinian
Conservatism by Larry Arnhart, weblog. 25 February. Available at
http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2006/02/review-of-richard-weikarts-from-
darwin.html. (Accessed 7 February 2007.)
Associated Press. 2005a. Frist Voices Support for Intelligent Design. MSNBC. 19 August.
Available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9008040/. (Accessed 6 February 2007.)
Associated Press. 2005b. Dover Voters Oust Intelligent Design Supporters. 9 November.
Available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9973228. (Accessed 10 February 2007.)
Axe, Douglas; Dixon, Brendan; and Gauger, Ann. 2007. Good Science Will Come. New
Scientist. 13 January. 2586: 18. Available at
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325860.100-good-science-will-come.html.
(Accessed 10 February 2007.)
Behe, Michael J. 1998. Tulips and Dandelions. Books and Culture. September-October.
Available at
http://web.archive.org/web/20001208124700/http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/8b5/8b5034.h
tml. (Accessed 4 February 2007.)
Benen, Steve. 2000. Science Test. Church & State. 53 (7): 8-14. Available at
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_200007/ai_n8913453. (Accessed 5 May 2007.)
Biever, Celeste. 2006. Intelligent Design: The God Lab. New Scientist. 15 December. 2582: 8-
11. Available at http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19225824.000-
intelligentdesign-the-god-lab.html. (Accessed 8 February 2007.)
Biola University. 2007. Science Teacher Symposium: Teaching Biological Origins. Available
at http://www.biola.edu/academics/scs/scienceandreligion/symposium/. (Accessed 26 July 2007.)
Boehlert, Eric. 2004. Swift Boat Flacks Attack CBS. Salon. 10 September. Available at
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/09/10/forgery/index_np.html. (Accessed 10
February 2007.)
Bottaro, Andrea; Inlay, Matt A.; and Matzke, Nicholas J. 2006. Immunology in the Spotlight at
the Dover Intelligent Design Trial. Nature Immunology. 7 (5): 433-35. Available at
http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v7/n5/full/ni0506-433.html. (Accessed 8 February 2007.)
Branch, Glenn, and Scott, Eugenie C. 2003. The Antievolution Law that Wasnt. American
Biology Teacher. 65 (3): 165-66. Available at http://www2.ncseweb.org/pdfs/03-Scott-Branch-
ABT-santorum.pdf. (Accessed 5 May 2007.)
Brauer, Matthew J.; Forrest, Barbara; and Gey, Steven G. 2005. Is It Science Yet? Intelligent
Design Creationism and the Constitution. Washington University Law Quarterly. 83 (1): 1-149.
Available at http://law.wustl.edu/WULR/83-1/p 1 Brauer Forrest Gey book pages.pdf. (Accessed
4 February 2007.)
Brenner, Lenni. 2004. Jefferson & Madison on Separation of Church and State: Writings on
Religion and Secularism. Fort Lee, NJ: Barricade Books, Inc.
Center for Science and Culture. 2007. Information About Center Fellows and the Research
Fellowship Program. Discovery Institute. Available at
http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellowshipInfo.php. (Accessed 5 February 2007.)
Clark Victoria. 2004. Shall We Let Our Children Think? Reports of the National Center for
Science Education. 24 (2). Available at
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol24/5568_shall_we_let_our_children_thin_1
2_30_1899.asp. (Accessed 4 February 2007.)
Coral Ridge Ministries. 2006a. Darwins Deadly Legacy: The Chilling Impact of Darwins
Theory of Evolution. List of experts available at
http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/experts.asp?ID=crm&ec=I1301. (Accessed 6 February 2007.)
Creation Research Society. 2007. CRS Van Andel Creation Research Center. Available at
http://creationresearch.org/vacrc.html. (Accessed 9 February 2007.)
DeLue, Steven M. 2005. Public Reason and Democracy: The Place of Science in Maintaining
Civic Friendship. In Noretta Koertge, ed., Scientific Values and Civic Virtues, pp. 25-39. New
York: Oxford University Press. (Available through Ingentaconnect.)
Dembski, William A. 1999. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Dembski, William A. 2005. Why President Bush Got It Right About Intelligent Design. 4 August.
Available at
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.08.Commending_President_Bush.pdf.
(Accessed 4 February 2007.)
Dembski, William A., and Wells, Jonathan. 2007 (forthcoming). The Design of Life. See
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/id/design-of-life. (Chapter 1 available at
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/id/design-of-life/ChapterOne.pdf.) (Accessed 14 May
2007.)
DeWolf, David K.; Meyer, Stephen C.; and DeForrest, Mark E. 1999. Intelligent Design in
Public School Curricula: A Legal Guidebook. Foundation for Thought and Ethics. Available at
http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm. (Accessed 4 February 2007.)
Discovery Institute. 1998. The Wedge. Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.
Available at http://www.seattleweekly.com/2006-02-01/news/the-wedge.php#intro. (Accessed
3 February 2007.)
Discovery Institute. 2006a. Background Information on Cobb County School District v. Selman.
Available at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2290.
(Accessed 8 February 2007.)
Discovery Institute. 2006c. Intelligent Design Research Lab Highlighted in New Scientist.
Evolution News & Views. 19 December. Available at
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/intelligent_design_research_la.html. (Accessed 8
February 2007.)
Edwards v. Aguillard 482 U.S. 578. 1987. U.S. Supreme Court. Available at
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZO.html. (Accessed 5
May 2007.)
Forrest, Barbara. 2005a. Expert Witness Report. Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District.
Available at http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/FORREST_EXPERT_REPORT.pdf.
(Accessed 4 February 2007.)
Forrest, Barbara. 2005b. Supplement to Expert Witness Report. Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area
School District. Available at
http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/Forrest_supplemental_report.pdf. (Accessed 4 February
2007.)
Center for Inquiry, May 2007 37
(Amended July 2007)
Forrest, Barbara. 2005c. From Creation Science to Intelligent Design: Tracing IDs
Creationist Ancestry. Available at
http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/Tracing_ID_Ancestry.pdf. (Accessed 10 February
2007.)
Forrest, Barbara. 2007a. The Vise Strategy Undone: Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School
District. Skeptical Inquirer. 31 (1): 40-46. Available at
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/kitzmiller.html. (Accessed 6 February 2007.)
Forrest, Barbara, and Gross, Paul R. 2004a. Creationisms Trojan Horse: The Wedge of
Intelligent Design. New York: Oxford University Press. (See
http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/.)
Forrest, Barbara, and Gross, Paul R. 2004b. The Evolution of Intelligent Design. Available at
http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/ST_News_Online.pdf. (Accessed 4 February 2007.)
Forrest, Barbara, and Gross, Paul R. 2005. The Wedge of Intelligent Design: Retrograde
Science, Schooling, and Society. In Noretta Koertge, ed. Scientific Values and Civic Virtues, pp.
191-214. New York: Oxford University Press. (Available through Ingentaconnect.)
Forrest, Barbara, and Gross, Paul R. 2007a. Creationisms Trojan Horse: The Wedge of
Intelligent Design. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Forrest, Barbara, and Gross, Paul R. 2007b. Biochemistry by Design. Trends in Biochemical
Sciences. 32 (7): 301-310.
Foundation for Thought and Ethics. n.d. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of
Biological Origins (website). Available at http://www.fteonline.com/pandas-people.html.
(Accessed 5 May 2007.)
Gauger, Ann; Fehon, Richard G.; and Shubiger, Gerold. 1985. Preferential binding of imaginal
disk cells to embryonic segments of Drosophila. Nature. 313 (31 January): 395-97.
Gauger, A; Glicksman, MA; Salatino, R; Condie, JM; Shubiger, G; and Brower, DL. 1987.
Segmentally repeated pattern of expression of a cell surface glycoprotein in Drosophila embryos.
Development. 100 (2): 237-44.
Gauger, AK, and Goldstein, LS. 1993. The Drosophila kinesin light chain. Primary structure and
interaction with kinesin heavy chain. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 268 (18): 13657-66.
Graebsch, Almut, and Schiermeier, Quirin. 2006. Anti-evolutionists Raise Their Profile in
Europe. Nature. 444 (23): 406-407. Available at
http://www.vilaweb.cat/media/attach/vwedts/docs/creacionisme.pdf. (Accessed 14 May 2007.)
Hunt, Arthur. 2007. Axe (2004) and the Evolution of Enzyme Function. Pandasthumb.org. 14
January. Available at http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/92_second_st_fa.html.
(Accessed 8 February 2007.)
Inlay, Matt. 2005. Bill Dembski and the Case of the Unsupported Assertion. Pandasthumb.org.
16 February. Available at http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/02/bill_dembski_an.html.
(Accessed 8 February 2007.)
Isaak, Mark. 2005. Claim CA041 [Teach the Controversy]. Talkorigins.org. Available at
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA041.html. (Accessed 8 February 2007.)
Jefferson, Thomas. 1808. Reply to the Virginia Baptists. Thomas Jefferson on Politics &
Government: Quotations from the Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson Digital
Archive. University of Virginia. Available at
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm. (Accessed 5 February 2007.)
Johnson, Phillip E. 2000. The Wedge of Truth. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Johnson, Phillip E. 2003. Intelligent Design, Freedom, and Education. Breakpoint.org. 9 May.
Available at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1484.
(Accessed 4 February 2007.)
Karamargin, C. J. 2005. McCain Sounds Like Presidential Hopeful. Arizona Daily Star. 24
August. Available at http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/politics/90069. (Accessed 6 February 2007.)
Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District. 2005. Memorandum Opinion. Available at
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf. (Accessed 4 February 2007.)
Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District. 2005a. Testimony of Michael Behe. 18 October,
afternoon session. Available at http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/trans/2005_1018_day11_pm.pdf.
(Accessed 9 February 2007.)
Leaming, Jeremy, and Boston, Rob. 2004. Behind Closed Doors. Church & State. October: 8-
12. Available at http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6949&abbr=cs_.
(Accessed 5 February 2007.)
Center for Inquiry, May 2007 39
(Amended July 2007)
Matsumura, Molleen. 2001. Ten Major Court Decisions Against Teaching Creationism as
Science. Updated 22 March 2007. National Center for Science Education. Available at
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1464_10_major_court_decisions_again_2_15_2001.a
sp. (Accessed 6 May 2007.)
Matzke, Nick. 2005. Antievolution Resolution Proposed in the Kansas Legislature. National
Center for Science Education. 15 February. Available at
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/KS/237_antievolution_resolution_propo_2_15_20
05.asp. (Accessed 7 February 2007.)
Matzke, Nicholas J., and Gross, Paul R. 2006. Analyzing Critical Analysis: The Fallback
Antievolutionist Strategy. In Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch, eds., Not in Our Classrooms:
Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools, pp. 28-56. Boston: Beacon Press.
Meyer, Stephen C.; Minnich, Scott; Moneymaker, Jonathan; Nelson, Paul A.; and Seelke, Ralph.
2007. Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism. Melbourne, Australia:
Hill House Publishers.
Miller, Jon D.; Scott, Eugenie C.; and Okamoto, Shinji. 2006. Public Acceptance of Evolution.
Science. 313: 765-766.
Miller, Kenneth R. 1999. Finding Darwins God: A Scientists Search for Common Ground
Between God and Evolution. New York: Cliff Street Books.
Miller, Kenneth R. 2001. A Dying Theory Fails Again. 21 September. National Center for
Science Education. Available at http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6945_km-3.pdf.
(Accessed 5 May 2007.)
Morris, Henry. 1975. Resolution for Equitable Treatment of Both Creation and Evolution.
Impact. 1 August. Available at http://www.icr.org/article/72/. (Accessed 8 February 2007.)
Moser, Bob. 2005. Holy War. Intelligence Report. 117 (Spring). Available at
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=522. (Accessed 5 February 2007.)
National Center for Education Statistics. 2005. Digest of Education Statistics. Available at
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_001.asp. (Accessed 3 February 2007.)
National Center for Science Education. 2006a. Praise for the Selman Settlement. 21 December.
Available at
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/GA/659_praise_for_the_emselmanem_12_21_20
06.asp. (Accessed 8 February 2007.)
National Center for Science Education. 2006b. Respite in Oklahoma. 29 June. Available at
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/OK/68_respite_in_oklahoma_6_29_2006.asp.
(Accessed 10 February 2007.)
Center for Inquiry, May 2007 40
(Amended July 2007)
National Center for Science Education. 2007. Evolution Returns to Kansas. 14 February.
Available at
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/KS/286_evolution_returns_to_kansas_2_14_2007
.asp. (Accessed 5 May 2007.)
Nelson, Paul A. 2002. Life in the Big Tent. Christian Research Journal. 24 (2): 1-7. Available
at http://web.archive.org/web/20060413141332/http://www.equip.org/free/DL303.pdf.
(Accessed 5 May 2007.)
Royal Society. 2006. Royal Society Statement on Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent
Design. 11 April. Available at http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4298. (Accessed
9 February 2007.)
Rudoren, Jodi. 2006. Ohio Board Undoes Stand on Evolution. New York Times. 15 February,
A14. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/national/15cnd-
evolution.html?ex=1297659600&en=b4c20e545855c59d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=
rss. (Accessed 5 May 2007.)
Scott, Eugenie C. 2004. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Scott, Eugenie C. 2006. The Once and Future Intelligent Design. In Eugenie C. Scott and
Glenn Branch, eds., Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools,
pp. 1-27. Boston: Beacon Press.
Skeptical Inquirer. 2000. Intelligent Design Goes to Washington: Evolution Opponents Brief
Congress. July. Available at
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_24/ai_63692996. (Accessed 6 February
2007.)
Smith, Peter. 2005. Seminary Site to Explore Cosmic Designer Concept. Louisville (KY)
Courier-Journal. 20 February.
Sugg, John. 2006. Warped Worldview. Church & State. 59 (7): 11-13. Available at
http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=cs_&page=NewsArticle&id=8314. (Accessed 6 February
2007.)
Thaxton, Charles B.; Bradley, Walter L.; and Olsen, Roger L. 1984. The Mystery of Lifes
Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. Dallas, TX: Lewis and Stanley.
Thomas, Dave. 2007. Creationism Measure Tabled in New MexicoOne Down, Three to
Go. Pandasthumb.org. 30 January. Available at
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/creationism_mea.html. (Accessed 10 February
2007.)
Weikart, Richard. 2004. From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in
Germany. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. See Weikarts website at
http://web.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/FromDarwintoHitler.htm. (Accessed 8 February
2007.)
West, John G. 2007. Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular
Biology Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design. Evolution News & Views. 10 January.
Available at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/journal_of_molecular_biology_a.html.
(Accessed 9 February 2007.)
Wiker, Benjamin. 2000. A New Scientific Revolution. Catholic World Report. July. Available
at http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Igpress/2000-07/intrview.html. (Accessed 4 February
2007.)
Witham, Larry A. 2002. Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in
America. New York: Oxford University Press.
Witt, Jonathan. 2005. The Intelligent Approach: Teach the Strengths and Weaknesses of
Evolution. Discovery Institute. 25 July. Available at
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2743. (Accessed 8
February 2007.)