Key Articles & Position Papers
This page offers you access to a variety of key article resources on Darwin and Design that we believe will prove helpful to anyone wishing to learn more about pros and cons of ID. These articles (many are from law review journals) cover primarily the impact of ID in education and public policy.
A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.
Note: this is the list of Ph.D's who have signed on in agreement with the following statement: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
The list is maintained and updated by the Discovery Institute located in Seattle, WA. [PDF]
== 2009 ==
The Non-epistemology of Intelligent Design: its implications for public policy.
By Barbara Forrest - Synthese (Springer), 15 April 2009 [PDF] - Critical view of ID
Abstract Intelligent design creationism (ID) is a religious belief requiring a supernatural creator’s interventions in the natural order. ID thus brings with it, as does supernatural theism by its nature, intractable epistemological difficulties. Despite these difficulties and despite ID’s defeat in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), ID creationists’ continuing efforts to promote the teaching of ID in public school science classrooms threaten both science education and the separation of church and state guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. I examine the ID movement’s failure to provide either a methodology or a functional epistemology to support their supernaturalism, a deficiency that consequently leaves them without epistemic support for their creationist claims. My examination focuses primarily on ID supporter Francis Beckwith, whose published defenses of teaching ID, as well as his other relevant publications concerning education, law, and public policy, have been largely exempt from critical scrutiny. Beckwith’s work exhibits the epistemological deficiencies of the supernaturally grounded views of his ID associates and of supernaturalists in general. I preface my examination of Beckwith’s arguments with (1) philosopher of science Susan Haack’s clarification of the established naturalistic methodology and epistemology of science and (2) discussions of the views of Beckwith’s ID associates Phillip Johnson and William Dembski. Finally, I critique the religious exclusionism that Beckwith shares with his ID associates and the implications of his exclusionism for public policy.
Response by Beckwith:
Forrest response to Beckwith: in Panda's Thumb
== 2008 ==
Reason and Common Ground: A Response to the Creationists' 'Neutrality' Argument
by Tim Sandefur - Chapman Law Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, Nov. 1, 2008 [PDF]
Response by Francis Beckwith with additional comments here (See Beckwith's vita here)
Response by Tim Sandefur (April 20, 2009) - Critical view of ID
Public Education and Intelligent Design, by Thomas Nagel [PDF]
Note: The audience for this book is Science Educators
[Legal, Education, Philosophy]
This article also appeared in: Philosophy & Public Affairs, Volume 36, Number 2, Spring 2008 , pp. 187-205(19) published by Blackwell.
Excerpt from this article (comment by Nagel):
The political urge to defend science education against the threats of religious orthodoxy, understandable though it is, has resulted in a counterorthodoxy, supported by bad arguments, and a tendency to overstate the legitimate scientific claims of evolutionary theory.... It would be unfortunate if the Establishment Clause made it unconstitutional to allude to these questions [concerning problems with evolution] in a public school biology class, for that would mean that evolutionary theory cannot be taught in an intellectually responsible way.
Reviews and Critiques:
Nagel explains, "ID is very different from creation science. To an outsider, at least, it does not seem to depend on massive distortion of the evidence and hopeless incoherencies in its interpretation. Nor does it depend, like biblical literalism, on the assumption that the truth of ID is immune to empirical evidence to the contrary. What it does depend on is the assumption that the hypothesis of a designer makes sense and cannot be ruled out as impossible or assigned a vanishingly small probability in advance...Critics take issue with the claims made by defenders of ID about what standard evolutionary mechanisms can accomplish, and argue that they depend on faulty assumptions. Whatever the merits, however, that is clearly a scientific disagreement, not a disagreement between science and something else."
This is the point at which I must agree with Nagel. There is a genuine debate over the truth of claims involving whether extranatural, metaphysical things are going on, and there is a place where these debates can be examined in detail.
-- The Constitutionality of Intelligent Design - Favorable review by Kevin Schutte
Prof. Nagel makes clear his right, as an intelligent, educated a "layman" (p. 199), to judge for himself the evidence that random mutation is a sufficient explanation for DNA and the complex chemical systems of life. He rejects any rule that well-educated, intelligent laymen such as himself must simply accept the assertions of the leading evolutionary biologists that the evidence in favor of evolution disproves intelligent design. Using his informed judgment, he rejects the claim that the scientific data "decisively" disproves intelligent design. He, an atheist, says that as a matter of science, intelligent design could possibly be correct. And he says it would be constitutional to say as much in a public school science class.
Perhaps fundamentalism is a stronger force than my experience reveals. But that should be irrelevant to the scientific analysis of data. The emotionalism which scientists have brought to this issue since before the Scopes Trial, even if directed against a real, rather than imaginary target, has introduced a non-scientific motivation into the hearts of evolutionary biologists that has biased and rendered unreliable their evaluation of the data, especially the relatively recent data concerning DNA and molecular biology.
-- Nagel Calls Intelligent Design Scientific and Constitutional - Favorable review
Science, Evolution and Creationism - National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine (no date) [PDF]
National Academies Press (2008) - Read the complete online version here.
Evolution on the Front Line - An Abbreviated Guide for Teaching Evolution,
from Project 2061 at AAAS
National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine (2006) [PDF]
National Academies Press (2008) - Read the complete online version here. Critical of ID.
== 2007 ==
Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover
by David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin, May 2007 [PDF]
[Legal, Education, Public Policy]
This paper is written by pro-ID advocates.
Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Naure and Goals
by Barbara Forrest, May 2007 [PDF]
A position paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy. Dr. Forrest is one of the most outspoken critics of ID. For more by Dr. Forrest, be sure to visit her web site.
[Legal, Education, Public Policy]
This paper was written by an ID critic. Forrest is also the co-author of Creationism's Trojan Horse.
What is Wrong With Intelligent Design? by Elliott Sober [PDF]
This paper was published in the Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol.82, No. 1, March, 2007.
This paper is written by an ID critic.
29 Evidences for Macroevolution - by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D. from the Talk Origins archive.
Updated in 2007
== 2006 ==
Intelligent Design: Science Education, and Public Reason
by Robert A. Crouch, Richard B.Miller, Lisa H. Sideris [PDF]
Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii - Visiting Fellow in Philosophy, University of Colorado
A White Paper Produced by The Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and American Institutions, Indiana University (September, 2006)
This paper is critical of ID.
== 2005 ==
The Constitutional Debate Over Teaching Intelligent Design as Science in Public Schools
by Anne Marie Lofaso, December 2005 [PDF]
A white paper published by the American Constitution Society (ACS) for law and policy
[Legal, Education, Public Policy]
Is it Science Yet? by Barbara Forrest and Steven G. Gey
Washington University Law Quarterly, Vol. 83, No.1, 2005 [PDF]
Critical view of ID
Darwinism, Design, and Purpose: A European Perspective, by Jeane Staune
Institutional Affiliation: General Secretary, Université Interdiciplinare de Paris
This paper was prepared for “Science and Religion: Global Perspectives” June 4-8, 2005, in Philedelphia, PA, USA
(www.metanexus.net). [PDF]
Summary: In the USA 'Issues in Biology and Religion' usually implies a debate between neo-Darwinians and Creationists or, more recently, the Intelligent Design movement. In Europe, however, the situation is somewhat different since no one really believes in creationism anymore and Intelligent Design is unheard of. Consequently the debate is completely different. It is a debate between evolutionists.
Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism
by Marcus R. Ross, Department of Geosciences, 330 Woodward Hall, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, 02881 [PDF]
This paper was published in the Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 319-323
Evolution and Creationism: A Guide for Museum Docents
by Warren D. Allman (August 18, 2005, version 2.0) [PDF]
Museum of the Earth, Ithaca NY
== 2004 ==
Dealing With the Backlash Against Intelligent Design, by William Dembksi (version 1.1, 2004) [html]
The Crusade Against Evolution by Evan Ratliff - WIRED Magazine, (October 2004) [html]
Read a critical review of this article here from Capitalist Roader Quarterly.
Read a critical review of this article here from Discovery Institute.
== 2003 ==
Public Education, Religious Establishment, and the Challenge of Intelligent Design
by Francis Beckwith - Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy, Vol. 17, 2003 [PDF]
This article is adapted from Francis J. Beckwith, LAW, DARWINISM, AND PUBLIC EDUCATION: THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AND THE CHIALLENGE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (2003).
by Francis Beckwith - Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Vol. 26, No. 2 Spring, 2003 [PDF]
Intelligent Design in the Schools: Is it Constitutional?
by Francis Beckwith - Christian Research Journal, Vol. 25, No. 4 (2003) [PDF] [HTML]
Intelligent Design, the Scientific Alternative to Evolution
by William S. Harris and John Calvert [PDF]
This paper was published in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Autumn, 2003, pp. 531-561.
This paper is written by pro-ID advocates.
== 2002 ==
by Jeffrey F. Addicott [PDF]
This paper was published in the Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 63, No. 6, 2002.
[Legal, Education, Public Policy]
This paper takes an ID friendly position.
== 2001 ==
== 2000 ==
Intelligent Design: The New Stealth Creationism
by Victor J. Stenger [PDF]
Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii - Visiting Fellow in Philosophy, University of Colorado
Paper based on talks given in Lawrence, Topeka, and Wichita, Kansas, September 22, 25, 26, 2000 at the invitation of the Kansas Citizens For Science. Revised May 5, 2001
This paper is written by an ID critic.
== No Dates ==
Darwin's Greatest Discovery: Design without Designer - by Francisco J. Ayala. Ayala underscores his view of Darwin's greatest achievement: "Darwin’s greatest contribution to science is that he completed the Copernican Revolution by drawing out for biology the notion of nature as a system of matter in motion governed by natural laws...The adaptive features of organisms could now be explained, like the phenomena of the inanimate world, as the result of natural processes, without recourse to an Intelligent Designer." [emphasis added] It's comments like these that betray any claim about the compatibility of science and religion. On page 8572 of this article, Ayala launches into his explanation of how to "distinguish the kind of ‘‘design’’ achieved by natural selection, namely the adaptations of organisms, from the kind of design produced by an intelligent designer, an engineer."
by Stephen C. Meyer and Newton Keas (no date) [PDF]
Whether Intelligent Design is Science - A Response to the Opinion of the Court in Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District
by Michael Behe [PDF] - where he responds to critics of his views.
Position paper by Behe, Senior Fellow, Center for Science & Culture, Discovery Institute (Seattle, WA)
This paper is written by a pro-ID advocate.
In Defense of Intelligent Design
by William Dembski [PDF]
Position paper by Dembski, Center for Science and Theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Louisville, Kentucky 40280 - no date given (but written after 2004).
This paper is written by a pro-ID advocate.
Darwinism and the Law : Can Non-Naturalistic Scientific Theories Survive Constitutional Challenge?
by H. Wayne House
As published in the Regent University Law Review, Vol.12:1 [PDF]