Since the Middle Ages, religion has seen what many believe to be a formidable foe: science. Prompted by a cascade of breakthroughs from the likes of brilliant minds such as Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein, science has become a dominant dogma in the minds of billions around the globe, particularly in the Western world. But such a rise in popularity of the scientific movement, particularly with regards to the origins of the universe- and mankind- has broadly come at the expense of creationism and those who support it. As more and more evidence points towards a cataclysmic start to our universe and a snaillike transformation of life into what it is today, institutional and individual believers of divine creation grapple with how to reconcile their beliefs with the rising tide of science. One such doctrine is the theory of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design, purposefully classified as a scientific theory by its creators and proponents (or pseudoscientific by many critics), is a late-20th-century doctrine that describes the universe’s mechanisms as too perfect and complex to be explained by natural processes, and thus intelligently designed by a divine being. However, the debate over Intelligent Design doesn’t just stop at its definition. Much of the controversy surrounding it has to do with its history, its relationship with advancements of science, and how it contrasts with traditional scientific dogma (in particular the scientific method). These controversies are crucial to Intelligent Design’s viability as a true scientific theory, as its survival and relevance is predicated on its legitimacy. Thus, to determine if Intelligent Design has a place in science, the aforementioned controversies must be reconciled with the limitations of defining something as scientific theory, which in itself requires a thorough review of both Intelligent Design and modern scientific dogma and an analysis of what parts of each are compatible- and what parts are not.
To understand how the Intelligent Design movement arose, we must first examine the events that precipitated its formation: The advent and rise of science. To understand how science transformed into what it is today, it is essential to know that there are two crucial parts to its development: internal and external. Now, what does that mean? The internal development of science refers to the evolution of the scientific method and how science defines itself and grows, whereas the external development has to do with how science [as a doctrine] has become widely accepted and prominent in society. Breaking down the history of science into these subdevelopments is therefore crucial for understanding the Intelligent Design movement.
Science wasn’t always what it is perceived as today. Today, science is taught in schools and applied in the world both practically and esoterically, without much debate over the existence of the laws and theories governing it (some exceptions exist, but they are just that- exceptions). However, that was not always the case: For much of history, what today we consider to be science- that is, the collective study and knowledge of natural phenomena governed by a system of observed and empirically determined rules and hypotheses- was once considered philosophy. To the ancient Greeks, science and philosophy were one, as science was developed in a conjectural manner like philosophy, with different hypotheses as to the nature of nature being introduced similarly to investigations of being and morality (Andersen and Hepburn 2015). After a lull for over a millennium, in the middle ages, a proto-science developed in the form of natural philosophy. As opposed to moral philosophy and metaphysical philosophy, which pertain to the ethical and epistemological concerns of mankind [respectively], natural philosophy was the “central discipline dedicated to laying out the principles and causes of [all] natural phenomena,” not just what concerned humans (Blair 2006). Before the 12th century, much of natural philosophy was developed in conjunction with a resurgence of support for Platonic and Aristotelian thought, with the balance of support shifting from the former to the latter over a few hundred years. The era of high scholasticism of the middle ages beckoned the study of Aristotelianism in universities under the category of natural philosophy, and great thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas pondered questions of the laws of nature under the influence of Aristotle, both in support of and against the ancient Greek philosopher’s views (Lindberg and Sloan 2020). During these periods, science was mostly supported by religious institutions, as most natural philosophers- and practically every important philosopher overall- used their suppositions to justify and prove the existence, machinations, and influences of a divine being (i.e., the Judeo-Christian god). However, the predominantly symbiotic relationship between religion and science wasn’t long-lived.
The condemnation of 1277 proved to be a turning point in the relationship between religion (Christianity) and natural philosophy: At the behest of the Vatican, the bishop of Paris (the most powerful religious figure at the center of the academic world) Etienne Tempier released a series of condemnations of certain Aristotelian philosophical derivatives (Thijssen 2018). Suddenly, the church was no longer a near-uniform supporter of natural philosophy, ushering in a period where it became heavily critical of many scientific-like natural discoveries and theories. This period, when natural philosophers mostly focused on figuring out simple mathematic and scientific principles (rather than anything particularly earth-shattering or church-provoking) lasted a few centuries, until a trio of astronomers shook the world. Successive discoveries by Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo Galilei brought many church-sanctioned, longstanding beliefs about the universe down to earth. First, Copernicus developed the heliocentric model of planetary motion, a huge kick in the teeth to the church, as its assumption that the Earth was the center of the universe heavily correlated with the concept that the planet-and therefore humanity- is special in the eye of God. Kepler’s case was slightly different- previously, the Christian world was slightly skeptical of Copernicus’ orbital model, as it contained numerous mathematic inconsistencies. But then Kepler, who was a supporter of Copernicus’ heliocentric theory, discovered a set of scientific laws that accurately and systematically described the elliptical motion of the planets (Gould 2016). While Kepler believed his discoveries of nature’s awesome order were proof of God’s existence and beauty, the discoveries further entrenched science as a potential fundamental truth that stood in contrast to centuries of Christian doctrine. However, in 1616, the Counter-Reformation of the Vatican led to Copernican heliocentricity to be declared heresy- and in conjunction with the declaration, Cardinal Bellarmine instructed Galileo Galilei, who had in the decade before the 1616 affair published a series of books depicting never-before-seen observations of heavenly bodies, including lunar craters, moons of Jupiter, and phases of Venus, to cease teaching and subscribing to Copernicus’ theory. However, nearly 2 decades later, Galilei found himself at the center of a grand inquisition, of which he stood accused, and was then convicted of, disseminating scientific proof of the validity of the heliocentric model. After being humiliated, forced to recant his position, and sentenced to a life of home confinement, Galileo defiantly stated, “Eppur si muove” (and so it moves)- protesting that it was the earth, not the sun, that is in orbit (Boltz 1983). The Galileo affair, as it came to be known, set the tone for the church’s response to the avalanche of scientific breakthroughs that followed the Italian pioneer’s discoveries.
Born the year after Galileo’s death, Isaac Newton came to be known as the “Father of Modern Science,” as his inventions, theories, and laws on gravitational motion, classical mechanics, optics, and calculus spurred the development of modern science (post-scientific revolution). Newton, although labeled a heretic by many, theologically belonged to a private school of thought where science was proof of God’s grandeur and glory, and thus avoided the inquisition Galileo faced- although being in England certainly helped, as the Church of England wasn’t as prosecutorial as the Vatican (Snobelen 1999). Following two and a half centuries of further scientific discoveries, Christendom slowly recognized scientific discoveries as consistent with the bible, shifting their focus to the divine creation and the original sin. That, however, came crumbling down with Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, which proposed that humans- and every other species on earth- evolved from primordial species through the process of natural selection. This new theory of course proved to be a cataclysmic problem for the religious world: First, Darwin’s evolutionary theory directly undermined the creation of man (and therefore the original sin, which was a direct result of the creation of Adam and Eve). The original sin is a central tenet of Christianity, as it precedes all the sins with which humans are born and for which Jesus died. However, since Darwin knew this to be a contentious issue, he did his best to avoid it. However, he could not avoid the other conclusion drawn from his work: Humans are the results of evolution in the same way as other animals and thus are not particularly unique. This proved to be a huge problem to traditionalists, who viewed mankind’s uniqueness to be a fundamental part of their beliefs and were deeply insulted by the idea that man was merely an advanced primate (Bowler 2009). Directly following Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species, the debate over altruism and morality as proof of God’s intervention with mankind took root, but was promptly addressed by Darwin’s Descent of Man, which directly sought to defend his theory as applied to humanity, which was the central target of conservative critics. This debate has raged on ever since, with evolution being a constant battleground of Theology vs. Science: Even after Darwin’s death [and even today], evolution continues to be a point of contention where religion has dug in. It seems that the theory of evolution was the straw that broke the camel’s back, as it seemed as though it was religion’s last stand against science. Modern battles have been pitched against evolution, such as the Scopes Trial, but those have been primarily political in nature, and not aimed at the heart of the science.
Thus, believers of the divine had to come up with a new strategy for defending their beliefs- in particular, creationism. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Judeo-Christian congregations began actively supporting and endorsing scientific theories and the scientific ecosystem as a whole, indicating a changing reality where the religious must coexist with scientific dogma to endure, particularly in response to growing Humean sentiment that belief in religious institutions was indicative of intellectual primitiveness, which was deeply illegitimizing to religious institutions and individuals (Stark et al. 1996). Even on the topic of climate change, routinely denied existence by a consortium of religious skeptics and the fossil fuel industry, Pope Francis I has publicly endorsed secular development and action based on scientific phenomena and facts multiple times, most recently at the 75th Meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations. As alluded to earlier, such religious conformation to science becoming a dominant doctrine in the [western] world created significant backlash, somewhat akin to the Counter-Reformation centuries prior; however, this time it manifested in the form of the creationism movement. However, the movement suffered several blows in the mid-20th century as a result of several U.S. court cases, notably Epperson v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard, which banned states from outlawing the teaching of evolution and creationism is religious and therefore ineligible to be taught in public schools, respectively (Pennock 2001). As a result, the creationist movement (which, although technically applicable to many non-Judeo-Christian religions, including various Hindu, Native American, and Pagan sects, is predominantly championed by Christian fundamentalists) was forced to think creatively and evolve: In the late 1980s, Phillip Johnson, a law professor at UC Berkeley, created what is now called ‘Intelligent Design’ to skirt the Edwards judgment by substituting the banned ‘Creation Science’ term (NCSE). For all intents and purposes, Intelligent Design is a form of creationism, but its primary purpose, as defined by Johnson, is to initiate the repudiation of evolution and reconstruct science in conditions congruent with creationist/traditionalist Christianity. In 1996, following a decade of popularization of Johnson’s Intelligent Design, the Center for Science and Culture (formerly the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture), a religious organization now part of the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank, was formed. The CSC’s mission had one specific tactic (which some would consider a manifesto of sorts): The ‘Wedge Strategy.’ Formulated by professors William Dembski and Michael Behe, the Wedge was an advanced multi-faceted assault on evolution and modern science (Peterson 2002). It consisted of a multi-year strategic plan with several phases: Phase I consisted of formal scientific research, particularly paleontological and biological research at credible universities; Phase II consisted of a media and publicity blitz where supporters and researchers would publish books, co-produce PBS shows, attend conferences, create fellowships, and disseminate opinions that all support intelligent design theory (IDT), while using the research from Phase I as proof; Phase III consisted of training and preparing educators and fellows on the upcoming legal battles that would work in conjunction with increased public sentiment for IDT (as a result of Phase II) to overturn previous anti-creationist court cases and allow students to be taught IDT in public schools. Unfortunately for the proponents of Intelligent Design, the Wedge backfired, as it was used in justification for banning Intelligent Design, like Creation Science before it, from being taught in public schools in the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (Katskee 2006). To examine exactly why Kitzmiller was such a crushing defeat for the IDT movement, it is important to first go back and examine the other half of the development of science: How it grew internally.
While the external development of science pertained to what aspects were and how broadly it was accepted in society [at large], the internal development of science primarily involved the evolution of the structure with which science is performed and exists in; that is, the scientific ecosystem. The physical setting in which science has been done, from logical reasoning to experimentation, has stayed constant for thousands of years: Science nearly always occurs or branches out from dedicated centers of knowledge and learning- primarily universities. However, the methods by which people have created bodies of scientific knowledge, theory, and understanding have significantly evolved over time. The early ancestors of scientific inquiry can be traced back to the ancient Greeks, as their innovations of empirical observation and logical reasoning set the foundation for future methodology. Until the 16th-18th centuries CE, the development of natural philosophy consisted of observing a natural phenomenon and then finding “rules or principles which explain or predict its operation” through reason and logic (Andersen and Hepburn 2015). This simple formula (known as the Aristotelian method), when exposed to the intense scrutiny of religious [and other public] sentiment during the scientific revolution, was flawed; however, the scientists of the era recognized it as so and sought to strengthen the rigor of their methodology. Efforts from great thinkers such as Kepler, Galileo, and Francis Bacon culminated with the method laid out in Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica [Book III], in which Newton laid out his Regulae, or rules, of methodology about natural philosophy. The rules were as follows: Principles governing nature are limited to those that are both true and can explain the corresponding phenomena; The causes of the same phenomena must be the same; If the qualities of empirically observed objects are constant, then they are that way for all objects of that type in the universe; Inferred rules governing one phenomena based on that of another phenomena can stand as true until proven false via differentiating evidence (Newton 1726). These four rules combined to form a concrete system for methodology that is the backbone of the scientific method: Scientists (natural philosophers) are to infer explanations of natural phenomena through empirical observations, not made-up or guessed schemes. Later debates in the 19th century occurred between induction and hypothetic-deduction, with the former following the Newtonian tradition of inference and inductive reasoning and the latter emphasizing finding a plausible hypothesis through deductive reasoning of observations (Andersen and Hepburn 2015). These two ideas both ultimately looked similar in terms of process, and only fundamentally differed in the relative amounts of objective and subjective input in the methodology that produced scientific knowledge. The push and pull of inductive and deductive hypothesis creation then led to further methodological developments and the filling of procedural holes in the 20th century; such developments include the hypothetico-deductive method, falsification, statistical methodology, and computer/simulation testing, among others. The result of these developments is a now fairly rigid methodology for determining hypotheses, conducting experiments to test them, and determining conclusions from observations of the experiments. Importantly to the topic of Intelligent Design, these qualifying steps and procedures for scientific inquiry are what allowed it to rise, and then due to Kitzmiller, led to its dramatic decline.
The primary reason why Intelligent Design became as relevant as it did was because in essence it attempted to use science to justify theology. Because religion had declined in authority due to the external development (growth) of science, the supporters and developers of IDT believed the way to push back on the [seeming] zero-sum game was to use the internal development of science to further their doctrine. They started by using the most consistent component of the scientific ecosystem, universities, to legitimize the work they were doing. Next, in those universities, they carried out scientific experiments intended to prove that a divine being rules over aspects of nature that science cannot [currently] explain. This argument is commonly referred to as “God of the Gaps” (Kojonen 2016). In particular, the IDT researchers sought to prove that complex adaptations of organisms were designed by a divine being (i.e., God). However, their research hit a fundamental roadblock: No matter how they conducted their experiments, their results could not be accepted due to the same rules of the scientific method they were attempting to follow. In particular, their hypothesis violated falsifiability criteria and Duhem’s thesis (Sober 2007). First, it is apparent that the hypothesis is non-falsifiable; that is, it needs to be able to be proven false somehow (through a test), but no such test exists, nor is one possible. Second, hypotheses and predictions must have independently testable auxiliary parts that derive from the original hypothesis; a hypothesis must fit in with another hypothesis that can be proven independent of the findings of the ‘mother’ hypothesis (Ariew 1984). Essentially, a hypothesis cannot be experimentally tested in isolation, but that is exactly what the Intelligent Design proponents sought to do: They essentially wanted to say that natural explanations for biological phenomena don’t exist while simultaneously ignoring existing natural explanations for the phenomena altogether (Kojonen 2016). This part in particular drew the ire of the researchers’ peers because it was the scientific equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and loudly shouting “I can’t hear you!” That later bit the IDT proponents in the behind, as these factors were fundamental to the rejection of Intelligent Design theory in the Kitzmiller case.
Now, what exactly happened in Kitzmiller? Like the Edwards judgment before it, the court sought to determine if Intelligent Design was a religious doctrine, and therefore eligible to be taught in public schools. The pro-IDT side argued that it was considered a scientific theory, while the anti-IDT side argued it did not qualify. As history reflects, the latter won, successfully arguing that due to the methodological concerns, it could not be considered legitimate scientific theory, as well as further arguing that due to the Wedge document, IDT should be considered a religious doctrine as a result of its original purpose (of Professor Johnson) to delegitimize science to make room for that specific version of Christianity. In fact, the winning side was so convincing that the Republican-nominated judge John E. Jones’ 6000-word judgment was over 90% similar to an anti-IDT memo made by the American Civil Liberties Union that dismantled the Center for Science and Culture -backed argument (West and DeWolf 2006).
Sentiment following the Kitzmiller case crushed the Intelligent Design movement, but the discussion remains as to its place outside of legal boundaries; its place inside or outside scientific theory is still debated. This debate needs to be split into two parts: Could Intelligent Design be adopted into the scientific ecosystem as a true scientific theory, and should it be? Intelligent Design has a long way to go before it can be considered a scientific theory: It has to solve its testability concerns somehow. Perhaps it can do that by narrowing the scope of investigation or suggesting concrete means of falsifiability, which could potentially be achieved by both narrowing the criteria of a higher-order being to a being whose existence can be proven and reexamining the conditions in which intelligent design is potentially carried out. However, that approach is extremely unlikely, as figuring out a reproducible method to determine the nature of a higher-order being is practically impossible without observation (which is not possible before determining existence), creating a paradox. Furthermore, it is apparent that Intelligent Design should not be considered a scientific theory, on grounds of its origin. A theory devised to destroy fundamental tenets of modern science in favor of a subjective theology should not in good faith be allowed to infiltrate the narrow and distinct boundaries of science, as allowing it to do so could lead to further exceptions to existing theoretical rules and cracks in the sturdy hull of scientific legitimacy. The “slippery slope” argument is as pertinent to this as any debate, as the slope is akin to a door, and just allowing it to slightly crack open gives room for a Wedge to open the floodgates (the name of the Intelligent Design manifesto in this instance is in no way coincidental, as this is its principal purpose).
So where does the future of Intelligent Design lay? With all due respect to its creators and supporters, hopefully just in history textbooks and academic journals. Intelligent Design is not a legitimate scientific theory, nor a legitimate branch of theology; it is a specific tool invented and used to pry apart the validity of science. As a result of its manipulation of the scientific method, it does a disservice both to good-faith religious individuals and institutions whom they support. If religion as a whole is to endure, it must not attempt to resurge via purposefully undermining scientific dogma. Intelligent Design cannot fit into modern science, nor modern religion; it must be laid to rest in the sands of time.
Works Cited
Andersen, Hanne, and Brian Hepburn. “Scientific Method,” November 13, 2015. https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/sum2019/entries/scientific-method/.
Ariew, Roger. “The Duhem Thesis.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35, no. 4 (1984): 313–25.
Armstrong, Eliana S, and George H Miller. “Combating Evolution with Intelligent Design: The Neoglycoside ACHN-490.” Current Opinion in Microbiology, Antimicrobials/Genomics, 13, no. 5 (October 1, 2010): 565–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2010.09.004.
Blair, Ann M. Natural Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521572446.018.
Boltz, C.L. “Galileo Galilei.” New Scientist. Accessed March 10, 2021. https://www.newscientist.com/people/galileo-galilei/.
Bowler, Peter J. Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons: Evolution and Christianity from Darwin to Intelligent Design. Harvard University Press, 2009.
Brockman, John. Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement. Vintage Books, 2006.
Buratovich, Michael. “Stephen C. Meyer. Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design.” Christian Scholar’s Review 44, no. 3 (March 22, 2015): 314–18.
Carnap, Rudolf. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Courier Corporation, 2012.
Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014.
Darwin, Charles, and Julian Huxley. The Origin of Species: 150th Anniversary Edition. 150th Anniversary ed. edition. Signet, 2003.
Dembski, William A. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science Theology. InterVarsity Press, 2002.
February 21, Paul Sutter and 2017. “Going Bananas: The Real Story of Kepler, Copernicus and the Church.” Space.com. Accessed March 10, 2021. https://www.space.com/35772-copernicus-vs-catholic-church-real-story.html.
Forrest, Barbara, and Paul R. Gross. Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford University Press, 2007.
Center for Science and Culture. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed March 10, 2021. https://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/.
Gould, Alan. “Johannes Kepler: His Life, His Laws and Times.” Text. NASA, September 24, 2016. http://www.nasa.gov/kepler/education/johannes.
“Graham - 2011 - Intelligent Design and Selective History Two Sour.Pdf.” Accessed February 4, 2021. https://philpapers.org/archive/GRAIDA-4.
Graham, Peter J. “Intelligent Design and Selective History: Two Sources of Purpose and Plan.” In Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion Volume 3, edited by Jonathan L. Kvanvig, 67–88. Oxford University Press, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199603213.003.0005.
Katskee, Richard B. “Why It Mattered to Dover That Intelligent Design Isn’t Science Symposium: Religion in the Public Schools.” First Amendment Law Review 5, no. 1 (2007 2006): 112–61.
Kelemen, Deborah, and Cara DiYanni. “Intuitions About Origins: Purpose and Intelligent Design in Children’s Reasoning About Nature.” Journal of Cognition and Development 6, no. 1 (February 1, 2005): 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327647jcd0601_2.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (Dist. Court 2005).
Kojonen, Erkki V. R. “The God of the Gaps, Natural Theology, and Intelligent Design.” Journal of Analytic Theology 4 (May 6, 2016): 291–316. https://doi.org/10.12978/jat.2016-4.041708101413a.
Larmer, Robert A. “Intelligent Design as a Theistic Theory of Biological Origins and Development.” Christian Scholar’s Review 36, no. 1 (Fall 2006): 47–61.
Lindberg, David C., and Sam Sloan. Science in the Middle Ages. Edited by Allen G. Debus. Ishi Press, 2020.
Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. Zondervan, 2009.
Newton, Isaac. The Principia : Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Translated by I. Bernard Cohen, Anne Whitman, and Julia Budenz. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.
The BLOG of the cosmos. “Newton’s ‘Four Rules of Reasoning’ in Philosophy,” January 27, 2016. https://blogofthecosmos.com/2016/01/27/mortals-rejoice-at-so-great-an-ornament-of-the-human-race/.
Numbers, Ronald L., and Hilldale Professor Emeritus of the History of Science and Medicine Ronald L. Numbers. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Harvard University Press, 2006.
UN News. “Pandemic Is ‘a Time to Separate What Is Necessary from What Is Not’: Pope Francis,” September 25, 2020. https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/09/1073772.
Pennock, Robert T. “Creationism and Intelligent Design.” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 4, no. 1 (2003): 143–63. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genom.4.070802.110400.
Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives. MIT Press, 2001.
Peterson, Gregory R. “The Intelligent-Design Movement: Science or Ideology?” Zygon® 37, no. 1 (2002): 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9744.00406.
Poincaré, Henri, and Francis Maitland. Science and Method. Courier Corporation, 2003.
POLANYI, MICHAEL, JOHN ZIMAN, and STEVE FULLER. “THE REPUBLIC OF SCIENCE: ITS POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC THEORY Minerva, I(1) (1962), 54-73.” Minerva 38, no. 1 (2000): 1–32.
Pope Francis I. “The Future We Want, the United Nations We Need: Reaffirming Our Joint Commitment through Multilateralism.” Speech, September 25, 2020. https://estatements.unmeetings.org/estatements/10.0010/20200925/3Yf6QppA2NrI/Xfv6l5LuvgHJ_en.pdf.
Sewell, Granville. In the Beginning: And Other Essays on Intelligent Design. Discovery Institute Press, 2010.
Shermer, Michael. Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design. Macmillan, 2007.
Snobelen, Stephen. “Isaac Newton, Heretic: The Strategies of a Nicodemite.” The British Journal for the History of Science 32 (December 1, 1999): 381–419. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087499003751.
Sober, Elliott. “What Is Wrong with Intelligent Design?” The Quarterly Review of Biology 82, no. 1 (March 1, 2007): 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1086/511656.
Stark, Rodney, Laurence R. Iannaccone, and Roger Finke. “Religion, Science, and Rationality.” The American Economic Review 86, no. 2 (1996): 433–37.
Susskind, Leonard. The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design. Little, Brown, 2008.
Taylor, Charles Alan. Defining Science: A Rhetoric of Demarcation. Univ of Wisconsin Press, 1996.
“The Wedge Document | National Center for Science Education.” Accessed March 9, 2021. https://ncse.ngo/wedge-document.
“The Wedge Strategy - Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.” Accessed March 11, 2021. http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html.
Thijssen, Hans. “Condemnation of 1277.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Winter 2018. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/condemnation/.
Wells, Jonathan. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Simon and Schuster, 2006.
West, John G, and David K DeWolf. “A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs’ Proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,’” (2008): 34.
“What Is ‘Intelligent Design’ Creationism? | National Center for Science Education.” Accessed March 9, 2021. https://ncse.ngo/what-intelligent-design-creationism.