The Anti-Darwinists: Creationism, Intelligent Design and the Attack on Science

by S. R.

A student essay from Dr. Elliot Neaman's History 210 class (historical methods - fall 2002)

A typical biology class today consists of learning about cells and parts of the human body and other terminology from Darwin’s theory of evolution to photosynthesis.  But if one analyzes the aforementioned topics, one of these does not quite fit perfectly.  The typical unsuspecting reader will note that evolution naturally flows with other scientific facts.  The difference is that while cell and human anatomy are unmistakably fact, by reason that one can examine these systems through a microscope, Darwin’s theory of evolution is just that, a theory.  His Origin of the Species, published in 1859, explained that all living things on Earth had evolved from simple species into more complex ones by means of random variation and natural selection.^[1]  While in some aspects his theory holds up, there are areas where his theory holds little water.

One of Darwin’s famous suppositions is the ‘Tree of life’.  He proposes that all living creatures originated from a single or a few original forms.  Over millions of years, the life forms would have diverged into slightly differently life forms until different families, genus, and species evolved.  This, had it been drawn, would look like a large branched tree.  But when fossil remains have been examined from the earliest geological period called the Cambrian, evidence reveals that there were several distinct differences already present.  The phyla, such as octopuses and snails, the arthropods like crabs and insects, the echinoderms represented by the sea urchins and starfish and the chordates which we are classified are all results of the so called ‘Cambrian explosion.’  Even Darwin himself could not explain this occurrence.^[2]

A claim made by Darwin that he believed gave credence to his theory of evolution are the embryos of different animals.  Ernst Haeckel, a supporter of Darwin during his time, drew sketches of vertebrate embryos and came to the conclusion that varying species of animals look similar during the early stages of development then branch out into radically different life forms when they matured.  Haeckel charged that closer related species grew less disparate than others that were distantly related.  But in 1894, British zoologist Adam Sedgewick stated that Haeckel’s claim is invalid and that he was lying.  When comparing the dogfish embryo and chicken embryo, “There is no stage of development in which the unaided eye would fail to distinguish between them with ease.”^[3]  Many embryologists since then and now also share this viewpoint.^[4] 

The list certainly doesn’t end there.  There are several other findings that dislodge Darwin’s theory from the famous four-winged fruit fly topic that claims to support Darwin’s theory of genetic mutations from raw material to the peppered moth scenario that clearly displays natural selection.^[5]  If you were wondering, both of these findings were also put under severe questioning and have since been deemed inconclusive to say the least.  So as anyone can see, Darwin’s theories have certainly seen better days.  The fact that these qualms about Darwinist theory are based on solid evidence and research had paved the path for other conjectures about the origin of life and how things came to be.  “During the past year, more than 150 scientists, including faculty and researchers at such institutions as Yale, Princeton, MIT and the Smithsonian, adopted a statement expressing their skepticism of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”^[6]

A major force that has pounced on the scene are those that favor the theory of “Intelligent Design”.  Educated individuals such as Michael Behe, an Associate Professor of Chemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and William Dembsky, Associate Research Professor in the conceptual foundations of science at Baylor University, believe that they can shed light on some key issues in life form development.^[7]  They claim that Darwin’s theory of evolution does not function at the cellular level.  Darwin was steadfast in his belief of evolution by “numerous, successive, slight modifications” to pre-existing structures.^[8]  What he meant was that species evolve from slight modifications of what they already possess.  During Darwin’s time, in-depth cellular analysis was not possible.  Therefore, he could not analyze crucial functions at that intricate level that would have shook his system of beliefs.  Today, these molecular biologists and other specialists have found examples of cells that contain mechanisms that require that every piece be present for it to function.  Take bacterial flagellum, which is like a motor that transports bacteria from place to place.  This flagellum is comprised of 30 to 40 protein parts, and all of them are required for the flagellum to operate.  If one protein is not present, the mechanism will not function.  How can there be slight modifications on a structure like this when anything less than what is required will cause the apparatus to cease existing?  How can Darwin claim his theories of natural selection and gradual evolution amidst these startling new discoveries?  Professor Behe among many other supporters of Intelligent Design ponder these questions as well in light of this new evidence.  Their findings leave Darwin’s theory with several theoretical holes.  Even with their credited discoveries though, they have tried to manipulate the inaccuracies of Darwin and mold the remaining possible answers to their own liking.

Michael Behe, as mentioned earlier is one of the proponents of Intelligent Design.  He recalls in a speech he gave at Discovery Institute’s “God and Culture Conference” that Darwin once said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.  But what type of biological system could not be formed by numerous successive slight modifications?”  Well, Behe claims that a system that is irreducibly complex defies Darwin’s testament.  By definition irreducible complexity means a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to stop functioning.  He uses the example of a simple mousetrap.  It is comprised of: “a flat wooden platform to act as a base, a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse, a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged, a sensitive catch which releases when slight pressure is applied, and a metal bar which connects to the catch and holds the hammer back when the trap is charged.”^[9]  All of these pieces have to be present and placed in their respective positions for the entire apparatus to operate.  The removal of one piece renders the contraption useless. 

That was just a simple example.  Behe uses this example on a molecular biological level, and this is where he rocks Darwin’s beliefs.  Let’s use Behe example of vision.  In Darwin’s time, the anatomy of the eye was understood very well.  There was a complex system of parts including the iris, lens, and ocular muscles among several other parts that if any one of these features were to be removed, there would be near or complete blindness.  Darwin knew about the human eye.  In his Origin of the Species, he entitled his section on the eye “Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication.”  To get evolution to be credible, he had to convince the public that these complex organs like the eye could be formed from a gradual, bit by bit processes.  He succeeded by carving a pathway around it.  He pointed out that animals have different kinds of vision; some are more complex than others.  He suggested that that “the evolution of the human eye might have involved similar organs as intermediates”^[10] Basically, he stated that humans, for example, had simpler devices for vision but gradually evolved over millions of years to more complex mechanics.  Many of Darwin’s peers were convinced by his argument.  But there is one thing that Darwin never hypothesized.  He never conjectured as to how vision first appeared.  He said it was beyond 19^th century science.  No work on a molecular level was possible.^[11] 

Today, it is possible to comprehend the inner mechanics of the most complicated mechanisms.  Behe explains the operation of human vision:

When light first strikes the retina, a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal.  The change in the shape of retinal forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound.  The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior, making it stick to another protein called transducin.  Before bumping into activated rhodopsin, the GDP falls off and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. 

GTP-transducin-activated rhodopsin now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell.  When attached to activated rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cut a molecul called cGMP.  Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, like a pulled plug lowers the water level in the bathtub.

Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel.  It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell.  Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein activity pumps them out again.  The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range.  When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced.  This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain.  The result, when, interpreted by the brain, is vision.^[12]  

This “sketchy overview of the biochemistry of vision” exemplifies how far science has come in 140 years.  Vision is not the process that requires these complex, molecular processes.  Digestion, hearing, and touch all contain these molecular operations and protein combinations.  Throughout his explanation of vision, Behe notes that if just one of these proteins were missing, the entire process would be fruitless.  How can Darwin argue that vision, a substance of such complexity, gradually have evolved?

 Darwin’s natural selection theory exerts that only systems that are already functioning can be used to advance a species.  Behe states that a “biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on.”^[13] 

 He doesn’t stop with the process of vision.  The cilia are hair-like structures on the exteriors of many animal and plant cells that allow for fluids to pass smoothly by.  In humans, cells that line the respiratory tract each have approximately 200 cilia that help to glide the mucus towards the throat for expulsion.  A single cilium is made up of several stacks of fibers called axoneme.  Each axoneme contains a ring of 9 double microtubules surrounding two inner  single microtubules.  Every outer doublet comprises of a ring of 13 filaments tied to a row of 10 filaments and beta tubulin.  11 microtubules that form an axoneme are held together by three types of connector: subfibers A are connected to the central microtubules by radial spokes; adjoining outer doublets are joined by connectors of a highly elastic protein called nexin, and the central microtubules are joined by a connecting bridge.  Finally, every subfiber A has two arms, an inner arm and an outer arm, and they both enclose a protein named dynein.^[14]

 That sounds very complicated, and it is.  It takes great thought just to paraphrase the operation of the cilia.  But the point he is trying to make is that the complexity of science has increased since Darwin’s time.  There is a lot of information to which Darwin never had access.  Today, there are biochemistry textbooks that consistently mention irreducibly complex systems.  Prominent scientists that support Darwin’s theory never touch upon the subject.  The journal of Molecular Evolution shows an example of this avoidance.  In a recent issue of JME there were eleven articles pertaining to the comparison of protein or DNA sequences.  “A sequence comparison is an amino acid-by-amino acid comparison of two different proteins, or a nucleotide-by-nucleotide comparison of two different pieces of DNA, no the positions at which they are identical or similar, and the places where they are not...comparing sequences cannot show how a complex biochemical system achieved its function, the question that most concerns us here.”  For us science-deficient people, the Journal of Molecular Evolution fails to raise the issue of how these protein and DNA sequences were first formed.  As a matter of fact, throughout its history, the Journal of Molecular Evolution fails to explain the detailed models for the simplest protein and DNA sequences.^[15]  Thus, Behe believes that the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has no grounds for belief.

 Some Darwinists have tried to find a way around irreducible complexity.  They claim that if some structures in the cell had prior functions before it fused to create another functioning structure.  But Behe says that this argument is flawed to say the least.  In order for this to happen, the “parts of the system would have to automatically find each other in the cell.”^[16]  They could not have been arranged by “an intelligent agent” since that is trying to be disproven.^[17]  In order for this fusion to have occurred, the conjoining parts would have had to have their surfaces shaped in order to meld with the other parts.  But in order for that to happen, something would have had to occur that allowed them to combine.  So thus the idea of Intelligent Design can still be applied.^[18]

 Now to the crux of Behe’s argument.  He believes that “Design appears to point strongly beyond nature.  It has philosophical and theological implications, and that makes many people uncomfortable.”^[19]  He says that “suppose that the designer is God, as most people would suspect.  Well, then, as Ken Miller points out in his book, Finding Darwin’s God, a subtle God could cause mutations by influencing quantum events such as radioactive decay, something that I would call unguided evolution.  That seems perfectly possible to me.  I would only ad, however, that that process would amount to intelligent design, not Darwinian evolution.”^[20]  Throughout his argument, Behe denies that he is preaching creationism or saying there is a God, rather that he is using scientific methods  He’d like us to remember the following:

1) the question is open: no other scientific theory has yet explained the data; 2) that intelligent design is an empirical hypothesis that flows easily from the data, as you can tell by looking at the processes (aforementioned); 3) that there is no “principle” that forbids our considering design; and best of all, 4) that there are exciting research questions that can be asked within a design framework.

Michael Behe has certainly made a valid case for his discovery of irreducibly complex systems.  Like many of us, I am not a trained molecular biologist, so I am cannot wholly debate the scientific aspects of his discoveries.  But historical skills can be used to test his credibility and his denial tactics. According to Sherman and Grobman’s Denying History, Behe has made some crucial mistakes in his logic.  He has “provided a different explanation for the observed phenomena rather than just denying the existing explanation.”^[21]  Many of his arguments are true; Darwin cannot explain these irreducibly complex systems and that this discovery sheds new light on the subject of evolution.  But Behe quickly finds the answer to this problem to be Intelligent Design.  His argument is basically a gigantic argument from ignorance: because we don't understand now how these systems might have evolved, we never will.  Just because science cannot explain how these irreducibly complex structures came to be, it doesn’t mean that in the future there wouldn’t be a sound scientific explanation that can be proven.  Behe automatically jumps the gun and says that it must be Intelligent Design.  That sounds like an awfully quick and automatic assumption for a man of science and reasoning.  Instead of leaving his research to the hands of logic to discern, he has created a theory to replace many important findings made previously in the field that do support Darwinian theory.

Also, a denier often “has proffered a new explanation, (but doesn’t) account for as many phenomena as the old explanation does.”^[22]  He can mention this one scientific discovery and unravel very credible facets of Darwinist teachings.  Over the years, people have studied evolution using insect and rat reproduction and conclusive evidence supports the notion that evolution by means of natural selection does exist.  So now that Behe has found these irreducibly complex systems, he can derail all of Darwin’s theory.  Can Behe explain everything pertaining to the development of species with as much credibility as Darwin has.  Though Behe says that Darwinist theories are flawed, he claims that some of Darwin’ teachings are correct.  How can one completely unravel someone’s work and yet use some of his or her finding to build his own.  For example, when Behe argues that Darwinists cannot explain the original structuring of DNA and protein molecules, he still supports their research that claims how they intermingle and create new DNA and proteins.  If he is going to criticize someone’s work and shatter the entire theory, he should not use research that originates from his own combatants work to build upon his own argument.  He is being selective about what he uses to support his claim and ignores other findings that will hinder his argument. 

While I cannot battle with him on a scientific level, I can bring other qualified individuals into the argument that doubt even his most simple conjectures.  Jeffrey McKee received his doctorate in anthropology from Washington University.  His specialization includes evolutionary theory, paleo-anthropology, and population genetics among many others and has written for reputable magazines and has lectured the world over on several topics.  Professor McKee pokes several holes in Behe’s argument on some of his most basic assumptions.  He notes that Behe uses the simple mousetrap to illustrate an irreducibly complex system.  He then uses that as an analogy to describe molecular process such as the cilium and proteins involved in vision among others.  McKee focuses on Behe’s argument of blood clotting in the human body and how irreducibly complex protein structures are used to clot blood, and without any one of the fragments present blood clotting would not be possible.  There is no way that evolution could have produced something so necessary for humans without there being a designed arrangement of these proteins.  McKee argues:

1) Behe focuses on the complexity of the human blood clotting cascade and its complexity without any comparative work. He starts with an end-product of evolution with out any attempt to trace its origins. How do biological scientists test evolutionary hypotheses about systems for which there is no fossil record? By comparing our systems to those of other animals. What does the blood clotting system look like in a chimp, a mouse, a gecko, or a frog? Do all of them have the same component parts? Behe makes no attempt to answer such basic scientific questions.^[23]

2) Why focus on such overtly complex systems when we can test his basic assertions on simpler systems without getting snowed by complexity. It turns out that many simpler machines are "irreducibly complex," by the above definition. Moreover, unlike biochemists contemplating biochemical pathways and their evolution, paleontologists have a fossil record to help flesh out the evolutionary details.^[24]

McKee accuses Behe of what was stated earlier; he ignores questions he cannot answer and focuses on what he thinks he can.  It is quite comical that McKee says that “he starts with an end-product of evolution without any attempt to trace its origins.”  Behe consistently accuses Darwinists of doing the same thing.  As stated earlier, he accuses journals of omitting the answer to the origin of proteins and complex systems.  They simply do not know the answer yet.  But, where as they cannot answer that question because they haven’t reached logical scientific conclusions, his answer is quickly Intelligent Design but reason of his warped deduction.  Just because Behe cannot think of another way these systems came into being, he assumed it’s Intelligent Design.  He has left logic test-proven science for mere speculation without any scientific backing.              

Even on his simple mousetrap analogy, McKee finds errors in reasoning.  He quotes Behe as stating that “an irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly...by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part by definition is nonfunctional.”  Yet McKee comes back with this rebuttal saying:

Not if the precursor system had a different function. The levers in our arms can be traced back to the fins of fishes. But we need not go that far. Take a look at the human hand, a magnificent machine capable of fine movements. The dexterity of your hand depends on the coordination of parts of your brain & nervous system with the musculo-skeletal system of the upper limb. The soft pads of the finger tips backed up by flattened nails allow refined sensitivity for touch, and the opposable thumb allows us to hold our pens or manipulate objects. The hand is an irreducibly complex machine made up of component machines that are also irreducibly complex, including simple levers.

With efficiency, McKee flips the ever-crucial mousetrap analogy on its back.  He allows the possibility of another explanation of how irreducibly complex systems came into being.  Instead of looking at these parts as specifically for that purpose, he suggests that these parts had other functions before hand:

All primate hands have opposable thumbs and nails (rather than claws), but not the fine manipulative ability we have. Were the hands of non-human primates non-functional? No, they had selective advantages for hanging on to branches of the trees in which they lived. Were the predecessors of primates, lacking opposable thumbs and flattened nails, burdened by "nonfunctional" hands? Obviously not. They just used their hands differently (think squirrel).^[25]

So, with logic, McKee explains how it is possible for irreducibly complex systems to have had other uses before the adaptation occurred.  Behe simply thinks that if an irreducibly complex machine were deprived of one part, the entire contraption would be useless.  McKee argues that maybe that function wouldn’t be possible but another different function is completely plausible.

Robert Dorit, a professor of biology at Yale University, also has his qualms in his article reviewing Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box.  He points to some of Behe’s arguments and questions his honesty as a scientist: 

The rigorous testing of evolutionary hypotheses depends on the use of comparative data, on an understanding of mechanism and, increasingly, on the experimental manipulation of components of the system. It does not (see fallacy two) depend on inventing an "advantage" for a partially evolved flagellar motor. In a narrow sense, Behe is correct when he argues that we do not yet fully understand the evolution of the flagellar motor or of the clotting cascade. Unsolved questions, however, are the hallmark of an exciting science.

The salient idea of Dorit’s argument once again explains that while evolution does nothave all the answers, scientific processes are valid ways of finding information.  “Inventing and advantage” is not scientific at all and not reliable.^[26]

Michael Behe has preached and pushed the idea of Intelligent Design on a massive public scale and it is infiltrating into politics and education as you will see.  But he is pushing people to believe in a view that is not backed by science.  Instead of leaving his research for other scientists to analyze and interpret, he is making his own leaping belief that there is some designer out there making these plans.  While he pretends not to throw his belief into the creationist heap, he continuous uses the bandwagon technique by saying that “suppose the designer is God, as most people would suspect”.^[27]  Also, he states, “So as this talk concludes we are left with what many people feel to be a strange conclusion: that life was designed by an intelligent agent.  In a way though, all of the progress of science over the last several hundred years has been a steady march toward the strange.”^[28]  Well, if that’s not a prop for creationism, I don’t know what is.  He clearly has biases that favor creationism that has molded his beliefs in Intelligent Design.

It is difficult to ascertain what is and what isn’t fact regarding intelligent design.  Many scientists do agree that these irreducibly complex systems do pose problems in Darwinian theory.  But that doesn’t mean that those problems cannot be addressed.  Never the less, These issues are being presented that could affect what’s being taught at America’s schools.  The Cobb County school board in Georgia and the Ohio State Board of Education have both proposed that students be exposed to scientific evidence that criticize Darwin’s theories as well as mention discoveries that support it.  Such critiques are the ones I have mentioned, such as the Cambrian explosion, which doesn’t appear in biology textbooks even though it is a valid claim.^[29]

An even larger scare for many Darwinists especially is that Intelligent Design will seep into the classroom.  According to the 1986 Supreme Court ruling in Edwards vs. Aguillard, state legislatures could require the teaching of “scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories.”^[30]  Last year, the Federal education act, adopted by Congress, “expressed its support for greater openness in science instruction, citing biological evolution as the key example.”^[31]  And the public supports this.  According to a large majority of Ohio voters, they support the critique of Darwin’s theories.^[32]

These are important implications for America right now.  If Intelligent Design wasn’t labeled as so visibly creationist, there would be much less controversy in academic circles.  If Behe and his fellow colleagues presented their findings in a purely scientific, logical manner without any religious undertones, their work would have been accepted by the majority of scientists and academics in the global community.  Instead, they have attached a false appendage to their reasoning by conjuring this master designer idea.  But at the same time, the apparent holes in Darwin’s theory do not have easy answers.  The question that is being so strongly posed by academic, scientific, and even mass circles is how credible is Darwin to be taught in science classrooms as seemingly fact; the bible from which biology classes are based.  From first hand experience, I can garner that over half my high school biology class had Darwin’s theory injected into the readings and lectures.  Shouldn’t biology classes and biochemistry classes be exposed to all credible science even if the implications of other evidence suggest a tug of the foundations of a widely undisputed idea such as Darwin’s?  Would creationism seep into classrooms following Behe, William Dembski, and George Johnson’s incredible leaps of faith, and clearly of logic?  These are questions that need to be addressed.

The amazing and maybe even more appropriately scary thing about this is that this topic punctures every aspect of the world we live.  The Catholic Church, for example, will now have another debacle to tackle as they try to hold on to their increasingly imaginative creationist belief while separating from this biological creationist twist.  A defining moment for some politicians’ campaigns could be their view on whether or not Intelligent Design should be brought into the classroom and whether Darwin’s work should be openly criticized in textbooks.  The trickling effects are endless and only time will tell how greatly our nation and the world will change.

Throughout researching and working on this paper, I’ve realized how naive I can be.  I wouldn’t want to generalize, but I would say that many people are gullible and believe many things that they hear.  The younger generation certainly has a tendency to be a little on the radical side, so they are most susceptible to new ideas.  It is these college professors like Michael Behe who fuel the fire in these impressionable student’s minds.  All of us though, as students constantly learning, must analyze what we read or hear and get the facts straight for the sake of being well-informed, astute citizens of a fanatical world. 

When being convinced of something entirely foreign or new, one must immerse themselves in a few questions.  What are the concrete facts presented?  What kind of reasoning is being used to further this person or group’s argument?  How credible is the source?  Shermer and Grobman, in their book Denying History, do a wonderful job of giving the reader a checklist of things to look for when confronted with any new or foreign material.

If I were to have read the several books that Behe and his associates have written on Intelligent Design and never checked their views and motives as well as their opponents academic refutations, I have been convinced they were correct.  Now, it is obvious to me that they are flying past logic and trying to assert their own views.  They are using their new scientific research, which still has much work to be done, to mask their hidden agenda: a form of creationism.  It was clever of them to attempt to use science to prove a religious point, and many people might have accepted it.  But it doesn’t take long for an educated, suspicious person to dig through the candy coating and find pyrite instead of gold.  Their lack of answers to how these proteins originally formed and how organisms ultimately came to be should have led them to the realization that more work needs to be done in regards to their field of work.  Instead, God is injected to put a cork on other possibilities that could logically solve the question with more time and research. 

Bibliography

Berlinski, David.  “Has Darwin Met His Match?”  Commentary.  New York: December 2002:31-41.

Behe, Michael. “Blind Evolution or Intelligent Design.”  Discovery Institute.  23 April

2002,<http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=1205> (3 Dec 2002).

Behe, Michael.  “Evident for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry.”  Discovery Institute.  10 August 2002,

<http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=51> (19 Nov 2002).

Dembski, “Skepticism’s Prospects for Unseating Intelligent Design.”  Discovery Insitute.  21 June 2002,

<http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=1185> (14 Nov 2002).

Dorit, “Lead Review.”  American Scientist.  September 1997,

<http://www.amsci.org/amsci/bookshelf/Leads97/Darwin97-09.html> (27 Nov 2002).

Meyer, Stephen.  “Intelligent Design vs. Darwinism: Theories in Collision.”  Discovery Institute.  11 Nov 2002,

<http://home.insight.rr.com/jkmckee/IntelligentDesign2.htm> (27 Nov 2002.)

Mckee, Jeffery.  “A Critique of the Intelligent design Proposition.”  Home site.  2002,

<http://home.insight.rr.com/jkmckee/IntelligentDesign2.htm> (6 Dec 2002). 

Wells, Jonathon.  “Critics Rave Over Icons of Evolution.”  Discovery Institute.  12 June 2002,

<http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&id=1180> (20 November 2002).

West, John.  “Intelligent Design Could Offer Fresh Ideas on Evolution.”  Seattle Post Intelligencer.  6 Dec. 2002,

<http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/98810_idrebut06.shtml> (7 Dec 2002). 

^[1] Berlinski, David.  “Has Darwin Met His Match?”  Commentary.  New York: December 2002:31-41.

^[2] Wells, Jonathon.  “Critics Rave Over Icons of Evolution.”  Discovery Institute.  12 June 2002, <http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&id=1180> (20 November 2002).

^[3] Wells, Wells is Ignorant.

^[4] Wells, Wells is Ignorant.

^[5] Wells, Wells is Ignorant.

^[6] West, John.  “Intelligent Design Could Offer Fresh Ideas on Evolution.”  Seattle Post Intelligencer.  6 Dec. 2002, <http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/98810_idrebut06.shtml> (7 Dec 2002). 

^[7] Dembski, “Skepticism’s Prospects for Unseating Intelligent Design.”  Discovery Insitute.  21 June 2002, <http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=1185> (14 Nov 2002).

^[8] Behe, Michael.  “Blind Evolution or Intelligent Design.”  Discovery Institute.  23 April 2002, <http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=1205> (3 Dec 2002).

^[9] Behe, Michael.  “Evident for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry.”  Discovery Institute.  10 August 2002, <http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=51> (19 Nov 2002).

^[10] Behe, A Series of Eyes.

^[11] Behe, A Series of Eyes.

^[12] Behe, A Series of Eyes.

^[13] Behe, Irreducible Complexity.

^[14] Behe, The Professional Literature.

^[15] Behe, The Professional Literature.

^[16] Behe, body

^[17] Behe, body

^[18] Behe, body

^[19] Behe, body

^[20] Behe, body.

^[21] Sherman, Michael and Grobman.  Denying History.  (Berkeley:  University of California Press, 2002), 250.

^[22] Sherman and Grobman, 250.

^[23] Mckee, Jeffery.  “A Critique of the Intelligent design Proposition.”  Home site.  2002, <http://home.insight.rr.com/jkmckee/IntelligentDesign2.htm> (6 Dec 2002). 

^[24] McKee, Part II.

^[25] McKee, Part II.

^[26] Dorit, “Lead Review.”  American Scientist.  September 1997 <http://www.amsci.org/amsci/bookshelf/Leads97/Darwin97-09.html> (27 Nov 2002).

^[27] Behe, body.

^[28] Behe, evidence

^[29] West, body.

^[30] Meyer, Stephen.  “Intelligent Design vs. Darwinism: Theories in Collision.”  Discovery Institute.  11 Nov 2002, <http://home.insight.rr.com/jkmckee/IntelligentDesign2.htm> (27 Nov 2002.)

^[31] Meyer, body.

^[32] Meyer, body.