Download z-creation-evolution-N

creationism: Scientist and author Muller said that scientific mutations are harmful. Well over 99.9% of all mutations are bad. Good
mutations are so rare we can consider the all bad. Julian Hucksley. * Alex hucksly (scientific naturalist and atheist. I have reason for
the world to not have meaning. It was an instrument of my liberation from morality because it interfered with my sexual freedom.
CREATIONISM: > Richard Wrorting (ROAR-TEE) philosopher” the desire for truth is to be utterly un-Darwinian.” ****
evolution-geographically evolve in the same area. Fossels in same area. Larnex nerve length is tool long for garraffi and people. Poor
design. Irreducible complexity argument.
CREATIONISM: gen 2:4-6 not a young earth prof..no man to till the ground…….
GENESIS 1 apollo 8 moon mission when William anders read genesis 1:1-10 –
Creationist/ID scientist Wayne Demsky / *CREATINIST/EVOLUTIONS: missing link. Show the evolutionary chain as starting
with a white man and ending with a dark skinned aboritiony.
(“Monkey’s Uncle” 1998) (“The Evolution of Man” 1999)(“A Deity for Darwin” 2000)
Evolution "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous." -- Aristotle
Creation – Everything that exists except God himself. This includes material as well as immaterial things and time. God is the creator,
(Heb. 11:3) we are the creatures. The creator/creature distinction must be maintained to properly remain in humble relationship with
God. We are not God, cannot create, nor can we help ourselves do good in order to be saved. Only God is God. Only He can create.
And, only He has the ability to save man.
Framework Model The framework model is the theory that the Genesis one creation account follows a pattern of two triads of dayframes, and that those day-frames are not necessarily 24 hour periods.
Naturalism The belief that all of human experience can be described through natural law. It asserts that biological evolution is true
and that there are no supernatural realities.
Cosmology Cosmology is derived from the two Greek words ko/smoj(cosmos) meaning "universe" or "order" and lo/goj(logos)
meaning "word." Cosmology is the study of the universe, (or cosmos). This study encompasses not only the physical, but the
metaphysical means by which God governs and sustains creation. Cosmology therefore deals with time, and seeks to understand the
Creator's relationship with His creation, from the beginning, to the end of time. The study of the origin and structure of the universe.
Cosmonogy Cosmonogy is derived from the two Greek words ko/smoj(cosmos) meaning "order" or "universe" and go/noj (gonos)
the base of gign=hsqai/(gignesthai) meaning "to produce." Cosmonogy is the origin or generation of the universe; or the account of the
creation of the cosmos.
Darwinian Evolution –
Day-Age Theory Argument from Design-An attempt to prove God's existence by arguing that the universe and things in it exhibit attributes of design.
A design must have a designer. Since the Universe appears designed, it had to have someone who designed it.
Anthropic Principle-The idea that the universe exhibits elements of design specifically for the purpose of containing intelligent
beings; namely, humans. Much debate surrounds this issue. Is the universe necessarily arranged by God so as to make life possible or
is it simply that the universe is godless and that life came into existence due to the chance state that we now find it in?
Evolution-The theory that all living things on earth evolved from a single source and driven by genetic mutation and natural selection
gave rise to all the various life forms on earth. This evolutionary process was without the intervention of a divine being or beings.
The theory has undergone many changes since its inception in the 1800's. The Scriptures do not speak about evolution but instead
negate the theory by stating that God created all things (Gen. 1). Though you might not expect to find the subject of evolution in a
dictionary of theology, it is appropriate since it poses a challenge to Christianity by displacing the Genesis account of special creation.
CS: karl marx dedicated Des Capital to Charles Darwin.
CS: young earth creationist Harvard degree/Dr.Richard Lumstend (microbiologist) worked for institute of creationismt-was a
researcher at san diago.
EVOLUTION-CREATION egg shaped huts with elevators.
God writes the gospel not in the Bible alone, but on trees and flo wers and clouds and stars. ~ Martin Luther ~
In wilderness I sense the miracle of life,
and behind it our scientific accomplishments fade to trivia.
~ Charles A. Lindbergh,
from ' Life', 22 December 1967 ~
1
Nature is the art of God.
~ Thomas Bro wne, Religio Medici, 1635 ~
 The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole
judge of scientific "truth." -- Richard Feynman (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. 1)
Creationism-The position that God created the universe. Young earth creationists generally believe that God created the universe, the
earth, and living things on the earth and that the Old Testament literally describes six, 24 hour periods. Therefore, they maintain that
the universe is, more or less, anywhere from 6,000 to 10,000 years old. They further maintain that speciation occurred during this
time as a result of the extant genetic information and environmental pressures. Old earth creationists still maintain that the universe,
the earth, and all living things were created by God, but that the Universe is very old. Compare with Natural Evolution and Evolution.
EVOLUTION - http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/events/defending-the-faith-2010
[Evolution] Once the academic world arrives at the point that micro evolution is too much order to happen from ramdom chance and
chaois society will no longer be interested in such a truth…Maybe by then God will allow Satan to exercise even more supernatural
activity via demonic activity.
Script2 - evolution ... of applied mathematics and astronomy at University College, Cardiff, Wales. .... "an outrageously small
probability that could not be faced even if the ...buddhist, Dr Cromasinger? deluxdata.com/creation/h_w.html - 19k
Natural Selection –
Naturalistic evolution
Chapter 15: The Darwin Miracle
(Evolution & Intelligent Design)
 Eklezs version of evolutionary progression from white monkey to black woman (artwork)
 “…And fear Him Who created you and (who created) the generations before-Quran
 Hugh Ross (Creationist)
 Fragile earth (fine tuned) said Davies (NASSA). Any change to a small degree would prohibit live. Gravity constances.
 Odds of chance
 99% of all known mutations are harmful
 Unbiased science?
 "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."-Professor Louis
Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of
Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research. (Quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.)
 " lack of evolutionary transitions, fossil or living, an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, license, ...Yet Gould
and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils... You say I should at least
'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for
which one could make a watertight argument." "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to
find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of
putting them to the test." -Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in letter to Luther
Sunderland, April 10, 1979. Cited in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master
Books, 1988), p. 89.
 "We do not actually know the phylogenetic history of any group of plants and animals."-E. L. Core General Biology (N.Y.: John
Wiley, 1961), p. 299.
 transitional types . theistic evolution . natural selection . random mutation . micro/macro evolution . 24 hour day theory. “Old
earth” theory. Preservation. Pictorial-day theory. Progressive creationism. Immenent. Ideal time theory. Literary framework theory.
Intelligent design . gap theory. Ex nihilo (out of nothing). Concorist theory. Cosmological argument. Darwinain evolution. Day-age
theory . creation. Creationism. Cro-Magnon man. Young earth” theory . dichotomy. trichotomy
 Naturalism: You evolved through random chance
 Gen 1:25,27;2:19,20; Rev. 4:11; Romans 11:34, Rev 4:11, Romans 9:20, Isaiah 45:18; Col. 1:16; 1:117
 Heb 4:3. Ex 20:11. Decay Romans 8:21, Gen 3:17. Adam’s age 930. Methuselah 969
 Cosmologist, Donald Page said that the odds of the universe existing is 1/10 billion to the 124 th power. Robert Gastro (N.A.S.A)
proves there is a god.
 1st law of thermodynamics <->Uniformitarianism…
 Darwin thought I was the missing link: Bearded lady
2
▲ Eklez sees sign for Pedimento’s Mutated Science Museum. There is no building, just displays. A monkey sits on the sign. It says,
“The board was so against intelligent design they wanted the museum building to evolve.” “Impossible”, Eklez says. Monkey
says, “Well, it’s not probable. But given enough time anything is possible. Right?”
▲ She sadly looks at Darwin’s illustrated Great Chain of Being display. (BG) Darwin bust.▲ (full spread) (FG) A fossil dig is in the
middle of the floor. Eklez enters a large room of artists, filmmakers, scientist, and researchers diligently toiling. (BG) Textbooks,
microscopes & research equipment. ▲ Paleo finds a human skull from the gibbon (lesser apes.) ▲ He screams, “20 million years
olds!” thinking, “Tenure, Grants, Book deal!” ▲ Eklez sees Graph and Itor in the back office arguing. Sign says “Employees
Only.” ▲ Itor says, “Your Physical Anthropology text needs images showing transition.” ▲Graph says, “Sure. Give me a
macro-evolution fossil and I’ll put it in.” - “I have a full theory description of what would be favored by natural selection.” ▲
Itor angrily walks to the door and says, “This text will not sell without images. ▲ The door “slams”. Itor yells from other side, “My
paleoartist will simulate speciation.”
▲▲▲▲ Eklez, wearing museum anthropology headphones, continues looks at busts of scientists offering differing opinions.
 statistical probabilities
 Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it can’t be created or destroyed?
 Fosil record should show lots of transition. We should see planet of the ape type, mutated species.
 Fine tune…gravity…nuclear energy… atheist –Anthony Flew (conviction about intelligent design.
▲ Eklez sees Trawl examining the exhibits.
She queries, “Trawl, Thanks for your help at the pool. What do you think of this theory?”
▲ Trawl says, “Random chaos to such complex microscopic functionality. ▲ There are countless distinct improbabilities that
rely on billions of additional insurmountable odds. ▲ Could these random chances fight for domination over billions of years
and evolve into something as complicated as life. ▲ And, if all those billions of Russian roulette wheels payout unanimously
with a functional food chain, planetary rotation would fry, freeze or crush those miraculous odds countless more billions of
years. ▲ Trawl says, “How do you determine how much complexity requires a designer? With enough time…”
▲ Trawl says, “Eklez, Throwing billions of years at a theory doesn’t exempt it from the laws of probability. If the board
doesn’t hire an architect to build something over this exhibit, if there is anything here in a few years it will be covered by
debris. The evolution of a single living cell out of nothing is more problematic then dust and stone blowing around until it
magically evolved into a Greco-roman museum structure.
▲ (Close-up on Trawl’s wrinkled face) He says, Look at me Eklez. ▲ (Body shot) Trawl pulls his shirt open and says, 2nd law of
thermodynamics. He has a surgery scar and a pacemaker. He says, “Look what only 60 years of damn entropy does to biology.”
▲ As meticulously crafted as macroevolution is, someday it will be move from science to history, joining the flat earth unit.
Eklez says, “So do you think they should be religion in the science books.” Trawl yells, “No, just keep the soft science out of the
textbooks. Show the evidence for microevolution with fossils and photographs. They see two Galapagos Islands giant tortoises.
The saddlebacked tortoise is eating from trees and bushes. The domed tortoise eats off the ground. Scientists love to challenge the
theological community by way of the philosophy department.
▲ Eklez stands in front of a large row of empty fossil displays. Sign reads “Links & Fossils.” (BG) Graph walk up.
▲ Eklez asks him, “If anthropologist find a transitional fossils that’s not a “sickly orangutan”, would it disprove the existence
of a god?” ▲Graph says, Nature’s sublime beauty has witnessed a creator since the beginning of time in every culture. Many of
the world’s greatest scientific researchers are deists. Theologians themselves often argue between a metaphoric creation and
intelligent design.”
▲ Eklez enters an awesome Mr. Bones Hall of Mirrors bamboo museum.
▲ A Big bang painting on the domed ceiling puts her in a state of awe.
▲ Eklez laughs while walking into the Hall of Mirrors. Her face stays normal but she can see her interior. (1) Skeletal Mirror – crack
at finger area. (2) Organs Mirror (3) Muscular Mirror. (4) Circulatory Mirror. ▲ Eklez examines an old painted mural. ( *Adam =
white-blond-blue eyes-Asian, Neanderthal * Eve = Black, curly hair, black eyes.) No belly buttons, animals. (BG) Old-earth trees,
snake. ▲ She enters the corridor titled “Planetarium”. ▲ The Swām is sitting on the floor meditating. ▲ Puzzled Eklez says, Does
my origin even matter?” ▲ Swām leans over and says, “Scientism attempts to exclude a metaphysical answer.”
▲ Eklez says, “Well, intelligent design isn’t empirically verifiable. ▲ Swām says, “True, Were all looking for a logical
credence. Did God create seed and fetus, or did he make plants and animals? ▲ As they look up at the big dipper Swām says,
“Could not the Creator build the entire cosmos with vast age, mature trees with rings, even starlight.”
analogy of being (analogia entis) The theory, especially associated with Thomas Aquinas, that there exists a correspondence or
analogy between the created order and God, as a result of the divine creatorship. The idea gives theoretical justification to the practice
of drawing conclusions concerning God from the known objects and relationships of the natural order. See pp. 135-6.
3
Science and creation:from enternal cycles to an oscillating universe by jaki Stanley
The triumph of evolution and the failure of crationism by niles eldredge
Rock of ages: science and the fullness of life by Stephen jay gould.
Evolution
Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms
through successive generations.[1] This change results from interactions between processes that introduce variation into a population,
and other processes that remove it. As a result, variants with particular traits become more, or less, common. A trait is a particular
characteristic—anatomical, biochemical or behavioural—that is the result of gene–environment interaction.
The main source of variation is mutation, which introduces genetic changes. These changes are heritable (can be passed on through
reproduction), and may give rise to alternative traits in organisms. Another source of variation is genetic recombination, which
shuffles the genes into new combinations which can result in organisms exhibiting different traits. Under certain circumstances,
variation can also be increased by the transfer of genes between species,[2][3] and by the extremely rare, but significant, wholesale
incorporation of genomes through endosymbiosis.[4][5]
Two main processes cause variants to become more common or rarer in a population. One is natural selection, through which traits
that aid survival and reproduction become more common, while traits that hinder survival and reproduction become rarer. Natural
selection occurs because only a small proportion of individuals in each generation will survive and reproduce, since resources are
limited and organisms produce many more offspring than their environment can support. Over many generations, heritable variation in
traits is filtered by natural selection and the beneficial changes are successively retained through differential survival and reproduction.
This iterative process adjusts traits so they become better suited to an organism's environment: these adjustments are called
adaptations.[6]
However, not all change is adaptive. Another cause of evolution is genetic drift, which leads to random changes in how common traits
are in a population. Genetic drift is most important when traits do not strongly influence survival—particularly so in small
populations, in which chance plays a disproportionate role in the frequency of traits passed on to the next generation. [7][8] Genetic drift
is important in the neutral theory of molecular evolution, and plays a role in the molecular clocks that are used in phylogenetic studies.
A key process in evolution is speciation, in which a single ancestral species splits and diversifies into multiple new species. There are
several modes through which this occurs. Ultimately, all living (and extinct) species are descended from a common ancestor via a long
series of speciation events. These events stretch back in a diverse "tree of life" which has grown over the 3.5 billion years during
which life has existed on Earth.[9][10][11][12] This is visible in anatomical, genetic and other similarities between groups of organisms,
geographical distribution of related species, the fossil record and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many
generations.
Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories which explain its causes. The study
of evolutionary biology began in the mid-nineteenth century, when research into the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms
convinced most scientists that species changed over time.[13] The mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the theory
of natural selection was independently proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. In 1859, Darwin's seminal work On the
Origin of Species brought the new theory of evolution by natural selection to a wide audience, [14] leading to the overwhelming
acceptance of evolution among scientists.[15][16][17][18]
In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection became understood in combination with Mendelian inheritance, forming the modern
evolutionary synthesis,[19] which connected the substrate of evolution (inherited genetics) and the mechanism of evolution (natural
selection). This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing
research and providing a unifying explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth.[16][17][20] Evolution is applied and studied in
fields as diverse as agriculture, anthropology, conservation biology, ecology, medicine, paleontology, philosophy, and psychology
along with other specific topics in the previous listed fields.

History of evolutionary thought
For more details on this topic, see History of evolutionary thought.
Around 1854 Charles Darwin began writing out what became On the Origin of Species.
The roots of naturalistic thinking on biology can be dated to at least the 6th century BCE, with the Greek philosopher Anaximander.[21]
However, the growth of modern biology out of natural history is fairly recent. The word evolution (from the Latin evolutio, meaning
"to unroll like a scroll") appeared in English in the 17th century. As biological knowledge grew in the 18th century, proto-evolutionary
ideas were set out by a few natural philosophers such as Pierre Maupertuis in 1745 and Erasmus Darwin in 1796.[22]
The ideas of the biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck about transmutation of species influenced radicals, but were rejected by mainstream
scientists. Charles Darwin formulated his idea of natural selection in 1838 and was still developing his theory in 1858 when Alfred
4
Russel Wallace sent him a similar theory, and both were presented to the Linnean Society of London in separate papers.[23] At the end
of 1859, Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species explained natural selection in detail and presented evidence leading to
increasingly wide acceptance of the occurrence of evolution.
Debate about the mechanisms of evolution continued, and Darwin could not explain the source of the heritable variations which would
be acted on by natural selection.[24] Like Lamarck, he still thought that parents passed on adaptations acquired during their lifetimes,[25]
a theory which was subsequently dubbed Lamarckism.[26] In the 1880s, August Weismann's experiments indicated that changes from
use and disuse were not heritable, and Lamarckism gradually fell from favour. [27][28] More significantly, Darwin could not account for
how traits were passed down from generation to generation. In 1865 Gregor Mendel found that traits were inherited in a predictable
manner.[29] When Mendel's work was rediscovered in 1900s, disagreements over the rate of evolution predicted by early geneticists
and biometricians led to a rift between the Mendelian and Darwinian models of evolution.
Yet it was the rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's pioneering work on the fundamentals of genetics (of which Darwin and Wallace were
unaware) by Hugo de Vries and others in the early 1900s that provided the impetus for a better understanding of how variation occurs
in plant and animal traits. That variation is the main fuel used by natural selection to shape the wide variety of adaptive traits observed
in organic life. Even though Hugo de Vries and other early geneticists rejected gradual natural selection, their rediscovery of and
subsequent work on genetics eventually provided a solid basis on which the theory of evolution stood even more convincingly than
when it was originally proposed.[30]
The apparent contradiction between Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and Mendel's work was reconciled in the 1920s
and 1930s by evolutionary biologists such as J.B.S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, and particularly Ronald Fisher, who set the foundations
for the establishment of the field of population genetics. The end result was a combination of evolution by natural selection and
Mendelian inheritance, the modern evolutionary synthesis.[31] In the 1940s, the identification of DNA as the genetic material by
Oswald Avery and colleagues and the subsequent publication of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953,
demonstrated the physical basis for inheritance. Since then, genetics and molecular biology have become core parts of evolutionary
biology and have revolutionised the field of phylogenetics.[19]
In its early history, evolutionary biology primarily drew in scientists from traditional taxonomically oriented disciplines, whose
specialist training in particular organisms addressed general questions in evolution. As evolutionary biology expanded as an academic
discipline, particularly after the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis, it began to draw more widely from the biological
sciences.[19] Currently the study of evolutionary biology involves scientists from fields as diverse as biochemistry, ecology, genetics
and physiology, and evolutionary concepts are used in even more distant disciplines such as psychology, medicine, philosophy and
computer science. In the 21st century, current research in evolutionary biology deals with several areas where the modern evolutionary
synthesis may need modification or extension, such as assessing the relative importance of various ideas on the unit of selection and
evolvability and how to fully incorporate the findings of evolutionary developmental biology.[32][33]
Heredity
Further information: Introduction to genetics, Genetics, and Heredity
DNA structure. Bases are in the center, surrounded by phosphate–sugar chains in a double helix.
Evolution in organisms occurs through changes in heritable traits – particular characteristics of an organism. In humans, for example,
eye colour is an inherited characteristic and an individual might inherit the "brown-eye trait" from one of their parents.[34] Inherited
traits are controlled by genes and the complete set of genes within an organism's genome is called its genotype.[35]
The complete set of observable traits that make up the structure and behavior of an organism is called its phenotype. These traits come
from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.[36] As a result, many aspects of an organism's phenotype are not inherited.
For example, suntanned skin comes from the interaction between a person's genotype and sunlight; thus, suntans are not passed on to
people's children. However, some people tan more easily than others, due to differences in their genotype; a striking example are
people with the inherited trait of albinism, who do not tan at all and are very sensitive to sunburn.[37]
Heritable traits are passed from one generation to the next via DNA, a molecule that encodes genetic information.[35] DNA is a long
polymer composed of four types of bases. The sequence of bases along a particular DNA molecule specify the genetic information, in
a manner similar to a sequence of letters spelling out a sentence. Before a cell divides, the DNA is copied, so that each of the resulting
two cells will inherit the DNA sequence.
Portions of a DNA molecule that specify a single functional unit are called genes; different genes have different sequences of bases.
Within cells, the long strands of DNA form condensed structures called chromosomes. The specific location of a DNA sequence
within a chromosome is known as a locus. If the DNA sequence at a locus varies between individuals, the different forms of this
sequence are called alleles. DNA sequences can change through mutations, producing new alleles. If a mutation occurs within a gene,
the new allele may affect the trait that the gene controls, altering the phenotype of the organism.
However, while this simple correspondence between an allele and a trait works in some cases, most traits are more complex and are
controlled by multiple interacting genes.[38][39] The study of such complex traits is a major area of current genetic research. Another
unsolved question in genetics is whether or not epigenetics is important in evolution. Epigenetics is when a trait is inherited without
there being any change in gene sequences.[40]
Variation
Further information: Genetic diversity and Population genetics
An individual organism's phenotype results from both its genotype and the influence from the environment it has lived in. A
substantial part of the variation in phenotypes in a population is caused by the differences between their genotypes. [39] The modern
5
evolutionary synthesis defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation. The frequency of one particular allele will
fluctuate, becoming more or less prevalent relative to other forms of that gene. Evolutionary forces act by driving these changes in
allele frequency in one direction or another. Variation disappears when a new allele reaches the point of fixation — when it either
disappears from the population or replaces the ancestral allele entirely.[41]
Variation comes from mutations in genetic material, migration between populations (gene flow), and the reshuffling of genes through
sexual reproduction. Variation also comes from exchanges of genes between different species; for example, through horizontal gene
transfer in bacteria, and hybridization in plants.[42] Despite the constant introduction of variation through these processes, most of the
genome of a species is identical in all individuals of that species.[43] However, even relatively small changes in genotype can lead to
dramatic changes in phenotype: for example, chimpanzees and humans differ in only about 5% of their genomes.[44]
Mutation
Further information: Mutation and Molecular evolution
Duplication of part of a chromosome.
Random mutations constantly occur in the genomes of organisms; these mutations create genetic variation. Mutations are changes in
the DNA sequence of a cell's genome and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that
occur during meiosis or DNA replication.[45][46][47] These mutations involve several different types of change in DNA sequences; these
can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning. Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster
suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these
mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial. [48]
Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on cells, organisms have evolved mechanisms such as DNA repair to remove
mutations.[45] Therefore, the optimal mutation rate for a species is a trade-off between costs of a high mutation rate, such as deleterious
mutations, and the metabolic costs of maintaining systems to reduce the mutation rate, such as DNA repair enzymes. [49] Viruses that
use RNA as their genetic material have rapid mutation rates,[50] which can be an advantage since these viruses will evolve constantly
and rapidly, and thus evade the defensive responses of e.g. the human immune system.[51]
Mutations can involve large sections of a chromosome becoming duplicated (usually by genetic recombination), which can introduce
extra copies of a gene into a genome.[52] Extra copies of genes are a major source of the raw material needed for new genes to
evolve.[53] This is important because most new genes evolve within gene families from pre-existing genes that share common
ancestors.[54] For example, the human eye uses four genes to make structures that sense light: three for colour vision and one for night
vision; all four are descended from a single ancestral gene. [55]
New genes can be created from an ancestral gene when a duplicate copy mutates and acquires a new function. This process is easier
once a gene has been duplicated because it increases the redundancy of the system; one gene in the pair can acquire a new function
while the other copy continues to perform its original function. [56][57] Other types of mutation can even create entirely new genes from
previously noncoding DNA.[58][59]
The creation of new genes can also involve small parts of several genes being duplicated, with these fragments then recombining to
form new combinations with new functions.[60][61] When new genes are assembled from shuffling pre-existing parts, domains act as
modules with simple independent functions, which can be mixed together creating new combinations with new and complex
functions.[62] For example, polyketide synthases are large enzymes that make antibiotics; they contain up to one hundred independent
domains that each catalyze one step in the overall process, like a step in an assembly line. [63]
Changes in chromosome number may involve even larger mutations, where segments of the DNA within chromosomes break and then
rearrange. For example, two chromosomes in the Homo genus fused to produce human chromosome 2; this fusion did not occur in the
lineage of the other apes, and they retain these separate chromosomes. [64] In evolution, the most important role of such chromosomal
rearrangements may be to accelerate the divergence of a population into new species by making populations less likely to interbreed,
and thereby preserving genetic differences between these populations. [65]
Sequences of DNA that can move about the genome, such as transposons, make up a major fraction of the genetic material of plants
and animals, and may have been important in the evolution of genomes. [66] For example, more than a million copies of the Alu
sequence are present in the human genome, and these sequences have now been recruited to perform functions such as regulating gene
expression.[67] Another effect of these mobile DNA sequences is that when they move within a genome, they can mutate or delete
existing genes and thereby produce genetic diversity.[46]
Sex and recombination
Further information: Genetic recombination and Sexual reproduction
In asexual organisms, genes are inherited together, or linked, as they cannot mix with genes of other organisms during reproduction. In
contrast, the offspring of sexual organisms contain random mixtures of their parents' chromosomes that are produced through
independent assortment. In a related process called homologous recombination, sexual organisms exchange DNA between two
matching chromosomes.[68] Recombination and reassortment do not alter allele frequencies, but instead change which alleles are
associated with each other, producing offspring with new combinations of alleles. [69] Sex usually increases genetic variation and may
increase the rate of evolution.[70][71] However, asexuality is advantageous in some environments as it can evolve in previously sexual
animals.[72] Here, asexuality might allow the two sets of alleles in their genome to diverge and gain different functions. [73]
Recombination allows even alleles that are close together in a strand of DNA to be inherited independently. However, the rate of
recombination is low (approximately two events per chromosome per generation). As a result, genes close together on a chromosome
may not always be shuffled away from each other, and genes that are close together tend to be inherited together, a phenomenon
6
known as linkage.[74] This tendency is measured by finding how often two alleles occur together on a single chromosome, which is
called their linkage disequilibrium. A set of alleles that is usually inherited in a group is called a haplotype. This can be important
when one allele in a particular haplotype is strongly beneficial: natural selection can drive a selective sweep that will also cause the
other alleles in the haplotype to become more common in the population; this effect is called genetic hitchhiking.[75]
When alleles cannot be separated by recombination – such as in mammalian Y chromosomes, which pass intact from fathers to sons –
harmful mutations accumulate.[76][77] By breaking up allele combinations, sexual reproduction allows the removal of harmful
mutations and the retention of beneficial mutations.[78] In addition, recombination and reassortment can produce individuals with new
and advantageous gene combinations. These positive effects are balanced by the fact that sex reduces an organism's reproductive rate,
can cause mutations and may separate beneficial combinations of genes. [78] The reasons for the evolution of sexual reproduction are
therefore unclear and this question is still an active area of research in evolutionary biology, [79][80] that has prompted ideas such as the
Red Queen hypothesis.[81]
Population genetics
White peppered moth
Black morph in peppered moth evolution
Further information: Population genetics
From a genetic viewpoint, evolution is a generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles within a population that shares
a common gene pool.[82] A population is a localised group of individuals belonging to the same species. For example, all of the moths
of the same species living in an isolated forest represent a population. A single gene in this population may have several alternate
forms, which account for variations between the phenotypes of the organisms. An example might be a gene for colouration in moths
that has two alleles: black and white.
A gene pool is the complete set of alleles for a gene in a single population; the allele frequency measures the fraction of the gene pool
composed of a single allele (for example, what fraction of moth colouration genes are the black allele). Evolution occurs when there
are changes in the frequencies of alleles within a population of interbreeding organisms; for example, the allele for black colour in a
population of moths becoming more common.
To understand the mechanisms that cause a population to evolve, it is useful to consider what conditions are required for a population
not to evolve. The Hardy-Weinberg principle states that the frequencies of alleles (variations in a gene) in a sufficiently large
population will remain constant if the only forces acting on that population are the random reshuffling of alleles during the formation
of the sperm or egg, and the random combination of the alleles in these sex cells during fertilization.[83] Such a population is said to be
in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium; it is not evolving.[84]
Gene flow
Further information: Gene flow, Hybrid (biology), and Horizontal gene transfer
When they mature, male lions leave the pride where they were born and take over a new pride to mate, causing gene flow between
prides.[85]
Gene flow is the exchange of genes between populations, which are usually of the same species. [86] Examples of gene flow within a
species include the migration and then breeding of organisms, or the exchange of pollen. Gene transfer between species includes the
formation of hybrid organisms and horizontal gene transfer.
Migration into or out of a population can change allele frequencies, as well as introducing genetic variation into a population.
Immigration may add new genetic material to the established gene pool of a population. Conversely, emigration may remove genetic
material. As barriers to reproduction between two diverging populations are required for the populations to become new species, gene
flow may slow this process by spreading genetic differences between the populations. Gene flow is hindered by mountain ranges,
oceans and deserts or even man-made structures such as the Great Wall of China, which has hindered the flow of plant genes.[87]
Depending on how far two species have diverged since their most recent common ancestor, it may still be possible for them to
produce offspring, as with horses and donkeys mating to produce mules.[88] Such hybrids are generally infertile, due to the two
different sets of chromosomes being unable to pair up during meiosis. In this case, closely related species may regularly interbreed,
but hybrids will be selected against and the species will remain distinct. However, viable hybrids are occasionally formed and these
new species can either have properties intermediate between their parent species, or possess a totally new phenotype. [89] The
importance of hybridization in creating new species of animals is unclear, although cases have been seen in many types of animals, [90]
with the gray tree frog being a particularly well-studied example.[91]
Hybridization is, however, an important means of speciation in plants, since polyploidy (having more than two copies of each
chromosome) is tolerated in plants more readily than in animals.[92][93] Polyploidy is important in hybrids as it allows reproduction,
with the two different sets of chromosomes each being able to pair with an identical partner during meiosis. [94] Polyploids also have
more genetic diversity, which allows them to avoid inbreeding depression in small populations.[95]
Horizontal gene transfer is the transfer of genetic material from one organism to another organism that is not its offspring; this is most
common among bacteria.[96] In medicine, this contributes to the spread of antibiotic resistance, as when one bacteria acquires
resistance genes it can rapidly transfer them to other species. [97] Horizontal transfer of genes from bacteria to eukaryotes such as the
yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and the adzuki bean beetle Callosobruchus chinensis may also have occurred.[98][99] An example of
larger-scale transfers are the eukaryotic bdelloid rotifers, which appear to have received a range of genes from bacteria, fungi, and
7
plants.[100] Viruses can also carry DNA between organisms, allowing transfer of genes even across biological domains.[101] Large-scale
gene transfer has also occurred between the ancestors of eukaryotic cells and prokaryotes, during the acquisition of chloroplasts and
mitochondria.[102]
Mechanisms
The two main mechanisms that produce evolution are natural selection and genetic drift. Natural selection is the process which favors
genes that aid survival and reproduction. Genetic drift is the random change in the frequency of alleles, caused by the random
sampling of a generation's genes during reproduction. The relative importance of natural selection and genetic drift in a population
varies depending on the strength of the selection and the effective population size, which is the number of individuals capable of
breeding.[103] Natural selection usually predominates in large populations, whereas genetic drift dominates in small populations. The
dominance of genetic drift in small populations can even lead to the fixation of slightly deleterious mutations.[104] As a result,
changing population size can dramatically influence the course of evolution. Population bottlenecks, where the population shrinks
temporarily and therefore loses genetic variation, result in a more uniform population. [41]
Natural selection
Further information: Natural selection and Fitness (biology)
Natural selection of a population for dark colouration.
Natural selection is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become, and remain, more common in
successive generations of a population. It has often been called a "self-evident" mechanism because it necessarily follows from three
simple facts:
 Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms.
 Organisms produce more offspring than can survive.
 These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce.
These conditions produce competition between organisms for survival and reproduction. Consequently, organisms with traits that give
them an advantage over their competitors pass these advantageous traits on, while traits that do not confer an advantage are not passed
on to the next generation.[105]
The central concept of natural selection is the evolutionary fitness of an organism.[106] Fitness is measured by an organism's ability to
survive and reproduce, which determines the size of its genetic contribution to the next generation. [106] However, fitness is not the
same as the total number of offspring: instead fitness is indicated by the proportion of subsequent generations that carry an organism's
genes.[107] For example, if an organism could survive well and reproduce rapidly, but its offspring were all too small and weak to
survive, this organism would make little genetic contribution to future generations and would thus have low fitness. [106]
If an allele increases fitness more than the other alleles of that gene, then with each generation this allele will become more common
within the population. These traits are said to be "selected for". Examples of traits that can increase fitness are enhanced survival, and
increased fecundity. Conversely, the lower fitness caused by having a less beneficial or deleterious allele results in this allele
becoming rarer — they are "selected against".[108] Importantly, the fitness of an allele is not a fixed characteristic; if the environment
changes, previously neutral or harmful traits may become beneficial and previously beneficial traits become harmful. [1] However, even
if the direction of selection does reverse in this way, traits that were lost in the past may not re-evolve in an identical form (see Dollo's
law).[109][110]
A chart showing three types of selection. 1.Disruptive selection 2.Stabilizing selection 3.Directional selection
Natural selection within a population for a trait that can vary across a range of values, such as height, can be categorised into three
different types. The first is directional selection, which is a shift in the average value of a trait over time — for example, organisms
slowly getting taller.[111] Secondly, disruptive selection is selection for extreme trait values and often results in two different values
becoming most common, with selection against the average value. This would be when either short or tall organisms had an
advantage, but not those of medium height. Finally, in stabilizing selection there is selection against extreme trait values on both ends,
which causes a decrease in variance around the average value and less diversity.[105][112] This would, for example, cause organisms to
slowly become all the same height.
A special case of natural selection is sexual selection, which is selection for any trait that increases mating success by increasing the
attractiveness of an organism to potential mates.[113] Traits that evolved through sexual selection are particularly prominent in males of
some animal species, despite traits such as cumbersome antlers, mating calls or bright colours that attract predators, decreasing the
survival of individual males.[114] This survival disadvantage is balanced by higher reproductive success in males that show these hard
to fake, sexually selected traits.[115]
Natural selection most generally makes nature the measure against which individuals, and individual traits, are more or less likely to
survive. "Nature" in this sense refers to an ecosystem, that is, a system in which organisms interact with every other element, physical
as well as biological, in their local environment. Eugene Odum, a founder of ecology, defined an ecosystem as: "Any unit that
includes all of the organisms...in a given area interacting with the physical environment so that a flow of energy leads to clearly
defined trophic structure, biotic diversity, and material cycles (ie: exchange of materials between living and nonliving parts) within the
system."[116] Each population within an ecosystem occupies a distinct niche, or position, with distinct relationships to other parts of the
system. These relationships involve the life history of the organism, its position in the food chain, and its geographic range. This broad
understanding of nature enables scientists to delineate specific forces which, together, comprise natural selection.
8
An active area of research is the unit of selection, with natural selection being proposed to work at the level of genes, cells, individual
organisms, groups of organisms and species.[117][118] None of these are mutually exclusive and selection can act on multiple levels
simultaneously.[119] An example of selection occurring below the level of the individual organism are genes called transposons, which
can replicate and spread throughout a genome.[120] Selection at a level above the individual, such as group selection, may allow the
evolution of co-operation, as discussed below.[121]
Genetic drift
Further information: Genetic drift and Effective population size
Genetic drift is the change in allele frequency from one generation to the next that occurs because alleles in offspring are a random
sample of those in the parents, as well as from the role that chance plays in determining whether a given individual will survive and
reproduce. In mathematical terms, alleles are subject to sampling error. As a result, when selective forces are absent or relatively
weak, allele frequencies tend to "drift" upward or downward randomly (in a random walk). This drift halts when an allele eventually
becomes fixed, either by disappearing from the population, or replacing the other alleles entirely. Genetic drift may therefore eliminate
some alleles from a population due to chance alone. Even in the absence of selective forces, genetic drift can cause two separate
populations that began with the same genetic structure to drift apart into two divergent populations with different sets of alleles.[122]
The time for an allele to become fixed by genetic drift depends on population size, with fixation occurring more rapidly in smaller
populations.[123] The precise measure of population that is important is called the effective population size. The effective population is
always smaller than the total population since it takes into account factors such as the level of inbreeding, the number of animals that
are too old or young to breed, and the lower probability of animals that live far apart managing to mate with each other.[124]
An example when genetic drift is probably of central importance in determining a trait is the loss of pigments from animals that live in
caves, a change that produces no obvious advantage or disadvantage in complete darkness. [125] However, it is usually difficult to
measure the relative importance of selection and drift,[126] so the comparative importance of these two forces in driving evolutionary
change is an area of current research.[127] These investigations were prompted by the neutral theory of molecular evolution, which
proposed that most evolutionary changes are the result of the fixation of neutral mutations that do not have any immediate effects on
the fitness of an organism.[128] Hence, in this model, most genetic changes in a population are the result of constant mutation pressure
and genetic drift.[129] This form of the neutral theory is now largely abandoned, since it does not seem to fit the genetic variation seen
in nature.[130][131] However, a more recent and better-supported version of this model is the nearly neutral theory, where most mutations
only have small effects on fitness.[105]
Outcomes
Evolution influences every aspect of the form and behavior of organisms. Most prominent are the specific behavioral and physical
adaptations that are the outcome of natural selection. These adaptations increase fitness by aiding activities such as finding food,
avoiding predators or attracting mates. Organisms can also respond to selection by co-operating with each other, usually by aiding
their relatives or engaging in mutually beneficial symbiosis. In the longer term, evolution produces new species through splitting
ancestral populations of organisms into new groups that cannot or will not interbreed[citation needed].
These outcomes of evolution are sometimes divided into macroevolution, which is evolution that occurs at or above the level of
species, such as extinction and speciation, and microevolution, which is smaller evolutionary changes, such as adaptations, within a
species or population.[132] In general, macroevolution is regarded as the outcome of long periods of microevolution. [133] Thus, the
distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the difference is simply the time involved.[134] However, in
macroevolution, the traits of the entire species may be important. For instance, a large amount of variation among individuals allows a
species to rapidly adapt to new habitats, lessening the chance of it going extinct, while a wide geographic range increases the chance
of speciation, by making it more likely that part of the population will become isolated. In this sense, microevolution and
macroevolution might involve selection at different levels – with microevolution acting on genes and organisms, versus
macroevolutionary processes such as species selection acting on entire species and affecting their rates of speciation and
extinction.[135][136][137]
A common misconception is that evolution has goals or long-term plans; realistically however, evolution has no long-term goal and
does not necessarily produce greater complexity. [138][139] Although complex species have evolved, they occur as a side effect of the
overall number of organisms increasing, and simple forms of life still remain more common in the biosphere. [140] For example, the
overwhelming majority of species are microscopic prokaryotes, which form about half the world's biomass despite their small size,[141]
and constitute the vast majority of Earth's biodiversity. [142] Simple organisms have therefore been the dominant form of life on Earth
throughout its history and continue to be the main form of life up to the present day, with complex life only appearing more diverse
because it is more noticeable.[143] Indeed, the evolution of microorganisms is particularly important to modern evolutionary research,
since their rapid reproduction allows the study of experimental evolution and the observation of evolution and adaptation in real
time.[144][145]
Adaptation
For more details on this topic, see Adaptation.
Adaptation is one of the basic phenomena of biology, [146] and is the process whereby an organism becomes better suited to its
habitat.[147][148] Also, the term adaptation may refer to a trait that is important for an organism's survival. For example, the adaptation
of horses' teeth to the grinding of grass, or the ability of horses to run fast and escape predators. By using the term adaptation for the
evolutionary process, and adaptive trait for the product (the bodily part or function), the two senses of the word may be distinguished.
Adaptations are produced by natural selection.[149] The following definitions are due to Theodosius Dobzhansky.
1. Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats.[150]
9
2. Adaptedness is the state of being adapted: the degree to which an organism is able to live and reproduce in a given set of
habitats.[151]
3. An adaptive trait is an aspect of the developmental pattern of the organism which enables or enhances the probability of
that organism surviving and reproducing.[152]
Adaptation may cause either the gain of a new feature, or the loss of an ancestral feature. An example that shows both types of change
is bacterial adaptation to antibiotic selection, with genetic changes causing antibiotic resistance by both modifying the target of the
drug, or increasing the activity of transporters that pump the drug out of the cell. [153] Other striking examples are the bacteria
Escherichia coli evolving the ability to use citric acid as a nutrient in a long-term laboratory experiment,[154] Flavobacterium evolving
a novel enzyme that allows these bacteria to grow on the by-products of nylon manufacturing,[155][156] and the soil bacterium
Sphingobium evolving an entirely new metabolic pathway that degrades the synthetic pesticide pentachlorophenol.[157][158] An
interesting but still controversial idea is that some adaptations might increase the ability of organisms to generate genetic diversity and
adapt by natural selection (increasing organisms' evolvability).[159][160]
A baleen whale skeleton, a and b label flipper bones, which were adapted from front leg bones: while c indicates vestigial leg bones,
suggesting an adaptation from land to sea.[161]
Adaptation occurs through the gradual modification of existing structures. Consequently, structures with similar internal organization
may have different functions in related organisms. This is the result of a single ancestral structure being adapted to function in
different ways. The bones within bat wings, for example, are very similar to those in mice feet and primate hands, due to the descent
of all these structures from a common mammalian ancestor. [162] However, since all living organisms are related to some extent,[163]
even organs that appear to have little or no structural similarity, such as arthropod, squid and vertebrate eyes, or the limbs and wings
of arthropods and vertebrates, can depend on a common set of homologous genes that control their assembly and function; this is
called deep homology.[164][165]
During adaptation, some structures may lose their original function and become vestigial structures.[166] Such structures may have little
or no function in a current species, yet have a clear function in ancestral species, or other closely related species. Examples include
pseudogenes,[167] the non-functional remains of eyes in blind cave-dwelling fish,[168] wings in flightless birds,[169] and the presence of
hip bones in whales and snakes.[161] Examples of vestigial structures in humans include wisdom teeth,[170] the coccyx,[166] the
vermiform appendix,[166] and other behavioral vestiges such as goose bumps,[171] and primitive reflexes.[172][173][174][175]
However, many traits that appear to be simple adaptations are in fact exaptations: structures originally adapted for one function, but
which coincidentally became somewhat useful for some other function in the process. [176] One example is the African lizard Holaspis
guentheri, which developed an extremely flat head for hiding in crevices, as can be seen by looking at its near relatives. However, in
this species, the head has become so flattened that it assists in gliding from tree to tree—an exaptation.[176] Within cells, molecular
machines such as the bacterial flagella[177] and protein sorting machinery[178] evolved by the recruitment of several pre-existing
proteins that previously had different functions.[132] Another example is the recruitment of enzymes from glycolysis and xenobiotic
metabolism to serve as structural proteins called crystallins within the lenses of organisms' eyes.[179][180]
A critical principle of ecology is that of competitive exclusion: no two species can occupy the same niche in the same environment for
a long time.[181] Consequently, natural selection will tend to force species to adapt to different ecological niches. This may mean that,
for example, two species of cichlid fish adapt to live in different habitats, which will minimise the competition between them for
food.[182]
An area of current investigation in evolutionary developmental biology is the developmental basis of adaptations and exaptations.[183]
This research addresses the origin and evolution of embryonic development and how modifications of development and
developmental processes produce novel features.[184] These studies have shown that evolution can alter development to create new
structures, such as embryonic bone structures that develop into the jaw in other animals instead forming part of the middle ear in
mammals.[185] It is also possible for structures that have been lost in evolution to reappear due to changes in developmental genes, such
as a mutation in chickens causing embryos to grow teeth similar to those of crocodiles.[186] It is now becoming clear that most
alterations in the form of organisms are due to changes in a small set of conserved genes. [187]
Co-evolution
Common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis) which has evolved resistance to tetrodotoxin in its amphibian prey.
Further information: Co-evolution
Interactions between organisms can produce both conflict and co-operation. When the interaction is between pairs of species, such as
a pathogen and a host, or a predator and its prey, these species can develop matched sets of adaptations. Here, the evolution of one
species causes adaptations in a second species. These changes in the second species then, in turn, cause new adaptations in the first
species. This cycle of selection and response is called co-evolution.[188] An example is the production of tetrodotoxin in the roughskinned newt and the evolution of tetrodotoxin resistance in its predator, the common garter snake. In this predator-prey pair, an
evolutionary arms race has produced high levels of toxin in the newt and correspondingly high levels of toxin resistance in the
snake.[189]
Co-operation
Further information: Co-operation (evolution)
10
However, not all interactions between species involve conflict. [190] Many cases of mutually beneficial interactions have evolved. For
instance, an extreme cooperation exists between plants and the mycorrhizal fungi that grow on their roots and aid the plant in
absorbing nutrients from the soil.[191] This is a reciprocal relationship as the plants provide the fungi with sugars from photosynthesis.
Here, the fungi actually grow inside plant cells, allowing them to exchange nutrients with their hosts, while sending signals that
suppress the plant immune system.[192]
Coalitions between organisms of the same species have also evolved. An extreme case is the eusociality found in social insects, such
as bees, termites and ants, where sterile insects feed and guard the small number of organisms in a colony that are able to reproduce.
On an even smaller scale, the somatic cells that make up the body of an animal limit their reproduction so they can maintain a stable
organism, which then supports a small number of the animal's germ cells to produce offspring. Here, somatic cells respond to specific
signals that instruct them whether to grow, remain as they are, or die. If cells ignore these signals and multiply inappropriately, their
uncontrolled growth causes cancer.[45]
Such cooperation within species may have evolved through the process of kin selection, which is where one organism acts to help
raise a relative's offspring.[193] This activity is selected for because if the helping individual contains alleles which promote the helping
activity, it is likely that its kin will also contain these alleles and thus those alleles will be passed on.[194] Other processes that may
promote cooperation include group selection, where cooperation provides benefits to a group of organisms. [195]
Speciation
Further information: Speciation
The four mechanisms of speciation.
Speciation is the process where a species diverges into two or more descendant species. [196] Evolutionary biologists view species as
statistical phenomena and not categories or types. This view is counterintuitive since the classical idea of species is still widely held,
with a species seen as a class of organisms exemplified by a "type specimen" that bears all the traits common to this species. Instead, a
species is now defined as a separately evolving lineage that forms a single gene pool. Although properties such as genetics and
morphology are used to help separate closely related lineages, this definition has fuzzy boundaries. [197] Indeed, the exact definition of
the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes, [198] and this is called the species problem.[199] Biologists have
proposed a range of more precise definitions, but the definition used is a pragmatic choice that depends on the particularities of the
species concerned.[199] Typically the actual focus on biological study is the population, an observable interacting group of organisms,
rather than a species, an observable similar group of individuals.
Speciation has been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. [200] In sexually reproducing
organisms, speciation results from reproductive isolation followed by genealogical divergence. There are four mechanisms for
speciation. The most common in animals is allopatric speciation, which occurs in populations initially isolated geographically, such as
by habitat fragmentation or migration. Selection under these conditions can produce very rapid changes in the appearance and
behaviour of organisms.[201][202] As selection and drift act independently on populations isolated from the rest of their species,
separation may eventually produce organisms that cannot interbreed. [203]
The second mechanism of speciation is peripatric speciation, which occurs when small populations of organisms become isolated in a
new environment. This differs from allopatric speciation in that the isolated populations are numerically much smaller than the
parental population. Here, the founder effect causes rapid speciation through both rapid genetic drift and selection on a small gene
pool.[204]
The third mechanism of speciation is parapatric speciation. This is similar to peripatric speciation in that a small population enters a
new habitat, but differs in that there is no physical separation between these two populations. Instead, speciation results from the
evolution of mechanisms that reduce gene flow between the two populations. [196] Generally this occurs when there has been a drastic
change in the environment within the parental species' habitat. One example is the grass Anthoxanthum odoratum, which can undergo
parapatric speciation in response to localised metal pollution from mines. [205] Here, plants evolve that have resistance to high levels of
metals in the soil. Selection against interbreeding with the metal-sensitive parental population produced a gradual change in the
flowering time of the metal-resistant plants, which eventually produced complete reproductive isolation. Selection against hybrids
between the two populations may cause reinforcement, which is the evolution of traits that promote mating within a species, as well as
character displacement, which is when two species become more distinct in appearance. [206]
Geographical isolation of finches on the Galápagos Islands produced over a dozen new species.
Finally, in sympatric speciation species diverge without geographic isolation or changes in habitat. This form is rare since even a small
amount of gene flow may remove genetic differences between parts of a population. [207] Generally, sympatric speciation in animals
requires the evolution of both genetic differences and non-random mating, to allow reproductive isolation to evolve.[208]
One type of sympatric speciation involves cross-breeding of two related species to produce a new hybrid species. This is not common
in animals as animal hybrids are usually sterile. This is because during meiosis the homologous chromosomes from each parent are
from different species and cannot successfully pair. However, it is more common in plants because plants often double their number of
chromosomes, to form polyploids.[209] This allows the chromosomes from each parental species to form matching pairs during
meiosis, since each parent's chromosomes are represented by a pair already. [210] An example of such a speciation event is when the
plant species Arabidopsis thaliana and Arabidopsis arenosa cross-bred to give the new species Arabidopsis suecica.[211] This
happened about 20,000 years ago,[212] and the speciation process has been repeated in the laboratory, which allows the study of the
11
genetic mechanisms involved in this process.[213] Indeed, chromosome doubling within a species may be a common cause of
reproductive isolation, as half the doubled chromosomes will be unmatched when breeding with undoubled organisms.[93]
Speciation events are important in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which accounts for the pattern in the fossil record of short
"bursts" of evolution interspersed with relatively long periods of stasis, where species remain relatively unchanged. [214] In this theory,
speciation and rapid evolution are linked, with natural selection and genetic drift acting most strongly on organisms undergoing
speciation in novel habitats or small populations. As a result, the periods of stasis in the fossil record correspond to the parental
population, and the organisms undergoing speciation and rapid evolution are found in small populations or geographically restricted
habitats, and therefore rarely being preserved as fossils.[215]
Extinction
Further information: Extinction
Tyrannosaurus rex. Non-avian dinosaurs died out in the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous period.
Extinction is the disappearance of an entire species. Extinction is not an unusual event, as species regularly appear through speciation,
and disappear through extinction.[216] Nearly all animal and plant species that have lived on Earth are now extinct, [217] and extinction
appears to be the ultimate fate of all species.[218] These extinctions have happened continuously throughout the history of life, although
the rate of extinction spikes in occasional mass extinction events.[219] The Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, during which the nonavian dinosaurs went extinct, is the most well-known, but the earlier Permian–Triassic extinction event was even more severe, with
approximately 96 percent of species driven to extinction. [219] The Holocene extinction event is an ongoing mass extinction associated
with humanity's expansion across the globe over the past few thousand years. Present-day extinction rates are 100–1000 times greater
than the background rate, and up to 30 percent of species may be extinct by the mid 21st century. [220] Human activities are now the
primary cause of the ongoing extinction event;[221] global warming may further accelerate it in the future.[222]
The role of extinction in evolution is not very well understood and may depend on which type of extinction is considered. [219] The
causes of the continuous "low-level" extinction events, which form the majority of extinctions, may be the result of competition
between species for limited resources (competitive exclusion).[19] If one species can out-compete another, this could produce species
selection, with the fitter species surviving and the other species being driven to extinction. [117] The intermittent mass extinctions are
also important, but instead of acting as a selective force, they drastically reduce diversity in a nonspecific manner and promote bursts
of rapid evolution and speciation in survivors.[223]
Evolutionary history of life
Main article: Evolutionary history of life
See also: Timeline of evolution and Timeline of human evolution
Origin of life
Further information: Abiogenesis and RNA world hypothesis
The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared
and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.[224] The current scientific consensus is
that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred. [225] Not
much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last
universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[226][227] Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but
proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA,[228] and the assembly of simple cells.[229]
Common descent
Further information: Common descent, Evidence of common descent, and Homology (biology)
The hominoids are descendants of a common ancestor.
All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[163][230] Current species are a stage in the
process of evolution, with their diversity the product of a long series of speciation and extinction events. [231] The common descent of
organisms was first deduced from four simple facts about organisms: First, they have geographic distributions that cannot be
explained by local adaptation. Second, the diversity of life is not a set of completely unique organisms, but organisms that share
morphological similarities. Third, vestigial traits with no clear purpose resemble functional ancestral traits, and finally, that organisms
can be classified using these similarities into a hierarchy of nested groups – similar to a family tree.[14] However, modern research has
suggested that, due to horizontal gene transfer, this "tree of life" may be more complicated than a simple branching tree since some
genes have spread independently between distantly related species. [232][233]
Past species have also left records of their evolutionary history. Fossils, along with the comparative anatomy of present-day
organisms, constitute the morphological, or anatomical, record.[234] By comparing the anatomies of both modern and extinct species,
paleontologists can infer the lineages of those species. However, this approach is most successful for organisms that had hard body
parts, such as shells, bones or teeth. Further, as prokaryotes such as bacteria and archaea share a limited set of common morphologies,
their fossils do not provide information on their ancestry.
More recently, evidence for common descent has come from the study of biochemical similarities between organisms. For example,
all living cells use the same basic set of nucleotides and amino acids.[235] The development of molecular genetics has revealed the
record of evolution left in organisms' genomes: dating when species diverged through the molecular clock produced by mutations.[236]
12
For example, these DNA sequence comparisons have revealed that humans and chimpanzees share 96% of their genomes and
analyzing the few areas where they differ helps shed light on when the common ancestor of these species existed. [237]
Evolution of life
For more details on this topic, see Timeline of evolution
Evolutionary tree showing the divergence of modern species from their common ancestor in the center.[238] The three domains are
coloured, with bacteria blue, archaea green, and eukaryotes red.
Despite the uncertainty on how life began, it is generally accepted that prokaryotes inhabited the Earth from approximately 3–4 billion
years ago.[239][240] No obvious changes in morphology or cellular organization occurred in these organisms over the next few billion
years.[241]
The eukaryotes were the next major change in cell structure. These came from ancient bacteria being engulfed by the ancestors of
eukaryotic cells, in a cooperative association called endosymbiosis.[102][242] The engulfed bacteria and the host cell then underwent coevolution, with the bacteria evolving into either mitochondria or hydrogenosomes.[243] An independent second engulfment of
cyanobacterial-like organisms led to the formation of chloroplasts in algae and plants.[244] It is unknown when the first eukaryotic cells
appeared though they first emerged between 1.6 – 2.7 billion years ago.
The history of life was that of the unicellular eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and archaea until about 610 million years ago when
multicellular organisms began to appear in the oceans in the Ediacaran period.[239][245] The evolution of multicellularity occurred in
multiple independent events, in organisms as diverse as sponges, brown algae, cyanobacteria, slime moulds and myxobacteria.[246]
Soon after the emergence of these first multicellular organisms, a remarkable amount of biological diversity appeared over
approximately 10 million years, in an event called the Cambrian explosion. Here, the majority of types of modern animals appeared in
the fossil record, as well as unique lineages that subsequently became extinct. [247] Various triggers for the Cambrian explosion have
been proposed, including the accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere from photosynthesis.[248]
About 500 million years ago, plants and fungi colonised the land, and were soon followed by arthropods and other animals.[249] Insects
were particularly successful and even today make up the majority of animal species. [250] Amphibians first appeared around 300 million
years ago, followed by early amniotes, then mammals around 200 million years ago and birds around 100 million years ago (both
from "reptile"-like lineages). However, despite the evolution of these large animals, smaller organisms similar to the types that
evolved early in this process continue to be highly successful and dominate the Earth, with the majority of both biomass and species
being prokaryotes.[142]
Applications
Further information: Artificial selection and Evolutionary computation
Evolutionary biology, and in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, is an area of science
with many practical applications.[251] A major technological application of evolution is artificial selection, which is the intentional
selection of certain traits in a population of organisms. Humans have used artificial selection for thousands of years in the
domestication of plants and animals.[252] More recently, such selection has become a vital part of genetic engineering, with selectable
markers such as antibiotic resistance genes being used to manipulate DNA in molecular biology. It is also possible to use repeated
rounds of mutation and selection to evolve proteins with particular properties, such as modified enzymes or new antibodies, in a
process called directed evolution.[253]
Understanding the changes that have occurred during organism's evolution can reveal the genes needed to construct parts of the body,
genes which may be involved in human genetic disorders.[254] For example, the Mexican tetra is an albino cavefish that lost its
eyesight during evolution. Breeding together different populations of this blind fish produced some offspring with functional eyes,
since different mutations had occurred in the isolated populations that had evolved in different caves. [255] This helped identify genes
required for vision and pigmentation, such as crystallins and the melanocortin 1 receptor.[256] Similarly, comparing the genome of the
Antarctic icefish, which lacks red blood cells, to close relatives such as the Antarctic rockcod revealed genes needed to make these
blood cells.[257]
As evolution can produce highly optimised processes and networks, it has many applications in computer science. Here, simulations
of evolution using evolutionary algorithms and artificial life started with the work of Nils Aall Barricelli in the 1960s, and was
extended by Alex Fraser, who published a series of papers on simulation of artificial selection.[258] Artificial evolution became a
widely recognised optimization method as a result of the work of Ingo Rechenberg in the 1960s and early 1970s, who used evolution
strategies to solve complex engineering problems.[259] Genetic algorithms in particular became popular through the writing of John
Holland.[260] As academic interest grew, dramatic increases in the power of computers allowed practical applications, including the
automatic evolution of computer programs.[261] Evolutionary algorithms are now used to solve multi-dimensional problems more
efficiently than software produced by human designers, and also to optimise the design of systems. [262]
Social and cultural responses
Further information: Social effect of evolutionary theory and Objections to evolution
13
As evolution became widely accepted in the 1870s, caricatures of Charles Darwin with an ape or monkey body symbolised
evolution.[263]
In the 19th century, particularly after the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859, the idea that life had evolved was an active
source of academic debate centered on the philosophical, social and religious implications of evolution. Nowadays, the fact that
organisms evolve is uncontested in the scientific literature and the modern evolutionary synthesis is widely accepted by scientists.[19]
However, evolution remains a contentious concept for some theists.[264]
While various religions and denominations have reconciled their beliefs with evolution through concepts such as theistic evolution,
there are creationists who believe that evolution is contradicted by the creation myths found in their respective religions and who raise
various objections to evolution.[132][265][266] As had been demonstrated by responses to the publication of Vestiges of the Natural
History of Creation in 1844, the most controversial aspect of evolutionary biology is the implication of human evolution that human
mental and moral faculties, which had been thought purely spiritual, are not distinctly separated from those of other animals.[13] In
some countries—notably the United States—these tensions between science and religion have fueled the current creation-evolution
controversy, a religious conflict focusing on politics and public education.[267] While other scientific fields such as cosmology[268] and
Earth science[269] also conflict with literal interpretations of many religious texts, evolutionary biology experiences significantly more
opposition from religious literalists.
The teaching of evolution in American secondary school biology classes was uncommon in most of the first half of the 20th century.
The Scopes Trial decision of 1925 caused the subject to become very rare in American secondary biology textbooks for a generation,
but it was gradually re-introduced about a generation later and legally protected with the 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas decision. Since
then, the competing religious belief of creationism was legally disallowed in secondary school curricula in various decisions in the
1970s and 1980s, but it returned in the form of intelligent design, to be excluded once again in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area
School District case.[270]
Another example somewhat associated with evolutionary theory that is now widely regarded as unwarranted is "Social Darwinism", a
derogatory term associated with the 19th century Malthusian theory developed by Whig philosopher Herbert Spencer. It was later
expanded by others into ideas about "survival of the fittest" in commerce and human societies as a whole, and led to claims that social
inequality, sexism, racism, and imperialism were justified.[271] However, these ideas contradict Darwin's own views, and contemporary
scientists and philosophers consider these ideas to be neither mandated by evolutionary theory nor supported by data. [272][273][274]
 Current research in evolutionary biology
Intelligent design
For other uses, see Intelligent design (disambiguation).
For the philosophical "argument from design", see Teleological argument.
Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent
cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the
traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the
designer.[3] Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[n
1][4]
—believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. [n 2][n 3]
Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution
controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[5][n 4][6] Proponents argue that intelligent
design is a scientific theory.[1] In so doing, they seek to fundamentally redefine science to include supernatural explanations.[7] The
overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science,[n 5][n 6][8][9] and indeed is pseudoscience.[n
7][10][n 8]
Intelligent design originated in response to the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the
teaching of "creation science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state.[5] The first significant published
use of intelligent design was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.[11] From the mid1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by the Discovery Institute which, together with its Center for Science and
Culture, planned and funded the "intelligent design movement".[12][n 1] They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public
school curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III
ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and
that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.[13]
Origin of the concept
Further information: Argument from poor design, Teleological argument, and Watchmaker analogy
A marble bust based on a portrait ca. 370 BC of Plato. The teleological argument, or "argument from design", is an ancient one, held
in some form by Plato and Aristotle.
14
Whether the order and complexity of nature indicates purposeful design has been the subject of debate since the Greeks. In the 4th
century BCE, Plato posited a good and wise "demiurge" as the creator and first cause of the cosmos in his Timaeus.[14] In his
Metaphysics, Aristotle developed the idea of an "Unmoved Mover".[15][16] In De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods, 45 BCE)
Cicero wrote that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature." [17] This line of
reasoning has come to be known as the teleological argument for the existence of God. Some well-known forms of it were expressed
in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas and in the 19th century by William Paley. Aquinas, in his Summa Theologiae, used the
concept of design in his "fifth proof" for God's existence. [18]
In the early 19th century, Paley's argument from design in Natural Theology (1802), used the watchmaker analogy,[19] and such
arguments led to the development of what was called natural theology, the study of nature as way of understanding "the mind of God".
This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens, which ultimately led to Charles Darwin's On
the Origin of Species (1859). Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in theistic
evolution, who consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer. In
correspondence about the question with Asa Gray, Darwin wrote that "I cannot honestly go as far as you do about Design. I am
conscious that I am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; & yet I cannot
look at each separate thing as the result of Design."[20] Though he had studied Paley's work while at university, by the end of his life he
came to regard it as useless for scientific development.[21]
Intelligent design in the late 20th and early 21st century is a development of natural theology that seeks to change the basis of science
and undermine evolutionary theory.[n 9] As evolutionary theory expanded to explain more phenomena, the examples held up as
evidence of design changed, though the essential argument remains the same: complex systems imply a designer. Past examples have
included the eye and the feathered wing; current examples are typically biochemical: protein functions, blood clotting, and bacterial
flagella; see irreducible complexity.
Philosopher Barbara Forrest writes that the intelligent design movement began in 1984 with the publication by Jon A. Buell's the
Foundation for Thought and Ethics of The Mystery of Life's Origin by Charles B. Thaxton, a chemist and creationist. Thaxton held a
conference in 1988, "Sources of Information Content in DNA," which attracted creationists such as Stephen C. Meyer. Forrest writes
that, in December 1988, Thaxton decided to use the term "intelligent design," instead of creationism, for the movement. [22]
In March 1986 a review by Meyer used information theory to suggest that messages transmitted by DNA in the cell show "specified
complexity" specified by intelligence, and must have originated with an intelligent agent.[23] In November of that year Thaxton
described his reasoning as a more sophisticated form of Paley's argument from design. [24] At the Sources of Information Content in
DNA conference in 1988 he said that his intelligent cause view was compatible with both metaphysical naturalism and
supernaturalism,[25]
Intelligent design avoids identifying or naming the agent of creation—it merely states that one (or more) must exist—but leaders of
the movement have said the designer is the Christian God.[n 2][n 3][26][n 10][n 11] Whether this lack of specificity about the designer's
identity in public discussions is a genuine feature of the concept, or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate
religion from the teaching of science, has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case.
Origin of the term
See also: Timeline of intelligent design
The phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American,[28] in an 1850 book by Patrick Edward Dove,[29]
and in an 1861 letter from Charles Darwin.[30] The Paleyite botanist George James Allman used the phrase in an address to the 1873
annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science:
"No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of
its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible—in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not
the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at
last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design."[31]
The phrase can be found again in Humanism, a 1903 book by one of the founders of classical pragmatism, F.C.S. Schiller: "It will not
be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design". A derivative of the phrase
appears in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) in the article titled, "Teleological argument for the existence of God":
"Stated most succinctly, the argument runs: The world exhibits teleological order (design, adaptation). Therefore, it was produced by
an intelligent designer".[32] Robert Nozick (1974) wrote: "Consider now complicated patterns which one would have thought would
arise only through intelligent design".[33] The phrases "intelligent design" and "intelligently designed" were used in a 1979 philosophy
book Chance or Design? by James Horigan[34] and the phrase "intelligent design" was used in a 1982 speech by Sir Fred Hoyle in his
promotion of panspermia.[35]
Use of the terms "creationism" versus "intelligent design" in sequential drafts of the book Of Pandas and People[36]
The modern use of the words "intelligent design", as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry, began after the Supreme Court of
the United States, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), ruled that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science
curricula. A Discovery Institute report says that Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People, had picked the phrase up from a
NASA scientist, and thought "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term". [37] In drafts of the book over one hundred uses of
the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creation science", were changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent
15
design",[11] while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists". [sic][36] In June 1988
Thaxton held a conference titled "Sources of Information Content in DNA" in Tacoma, Washington,[25] and in December decided to
use the label "intelligent design" for his new creationist movement. [38] Stephen C. Meyer was at the conference, and later recalled that
"the term came up".[39]
Of Pandas and People was published in 1989, and was the first book to make frequent use of the phrases "intelligent design," "design
proponents," and "design theory", thus representing the beginning of the modern "intelligent design" movement. [40] "Intelligent
design” was the most prominent of around fifteen new terms it introduced as a new lexicon of creationist terminology to oppose
evolution without using religious language.[41] It was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its present use, as
stated both by its publisher Jon Buell,[42][43] and by William A. Dembski in his expert witness report.[44] The book presented all of the
basic arguments of intelligent design proponents before any research had been done to support these arguments, and was actively
promoted by creationists for public school use. [40] Rethinking Schools magazine has criticized the book, saying it was a "creationist
treatise" packaged to look like a high quality science textbook, with a "glossy cover, full-color illustrations, and chapter titles such as
'Homology' and 'Genetics and Macroevolution'", with numerous "professionally prepared charts and illustrations appear to show how
concrete scientific evidence supports the existence of the unnamed 'designer'". Philosopher of science Michael Ruse believes the
contents were "worthless and dishonest", and it was described by an ACLU lawyer as a political tool aimed at students who did not
"know science or understand the controversy over evolution and creationism". [27]
Integral concepts
Irreducible complexity
Further information: Irreducible complexity
The concept of irreducible complexity was popularised by Michael Behe, in his 1996 book, Darwin's Black Box.
The term "irreducible complexity" was introduced by biochemist Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, though he had
already described the concept in his contributions to the 1993 revised edition of Of Pandas and People.[40] Behe defines it as "a single
system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any
one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". [45]
Behe uses the analogy of a mousetrap to illustrate this concept. A mousetrap consists of several interacting pieces—the base, the
catch, the spring and the hammer—all of which must be in place for the mousetrap to work. Removal of any one piece destroys the
function of the mousetrap. Intelligent design advocates assert that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems,
because the selectable function is present only when all parts are assembled. Behe argued that irreducibly complex biological
mechanisms include the bacterial flagellum of E. coli, the blood clotting cascade, cilia, and the adaptive immune system.[46][47]
Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary
and therefore could not have been added sequentially.[48][49] They argue that something which is at first merely advantageous can later
become necessary as other components change. Furthermore, they argue, evolution often proceeds by altering preexisting parts or by
removing them from a system, rather than by adding them. This is sometimes called the "scaffolding objection" by an analogy with
scaffolding, which can support an "irreducibly complex" building until it is complete and able to stand on its own. [n 12] Behe has
acknowledged using "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof". [n 13] Irreducible
complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the Dover trial, the court held that "Professor
Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific
community at large".[50]
Specified complexity
Further information: Specified complexity
In 1986 the creationist chemist Charles Thaxton used the term "specified complexity" from information theory when claiming that
messages transmitted by DNA in the cell were specified by intelligence, and must have originated with an intelligent agent.[23] The
intelligent design concept of "specified complexity" was developed in the 1990s by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian
William Dembski. Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and "specified",
simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of
natural processes. He provides the following examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long
sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified".[51] He states
that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological
molecules such as DNA.
William Dembski proposed the concept of specified complexity.[52]
Dembski defines complex specified information (CSI) as anything with a less than 1 in 10150 chance of occurring by (natural) chance.
Critics say that this renders the argument a tautology: complex specified information cannot occur naturally because Dembski has
defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature. [53][n 14][54]
The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument has been widely discredited by the scientific and
mathematical communities.[55][56][57] Specified complexity has yet to be shown to have wide applications in other fields as Dembski
asserts. John Wilkins and Wesley Elsberry characterize Dembski's "explanatory filter" as eliminative, because it eliminates
explanations sequentially: first regularity, then chance, finally defaulting to design. They argue that this procedure is flawed as a
16
model for scientific inference because the asymmetric way it treats the different possible explanations renders it prone to making false
conclusions.[58]
Richard Dawkins, another critic of intelligent design, argues in The God Delusion that allowing for an intelligent designer to account
for unlikely complexity only postpones the problem, as such a designer would need to be at least as complex.[59] Other scientists have
argued that evolution through selection is better able to explain the observed complexity, as is evident from the use of selective
evolution to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems which are considered problems too complex for human
"intelligent designers".[60]
Fine-tuned Universe
Further information: Fine-tuned Universe
Intelligent design proponents have also occasionally appealed to broader teleological arguments outside of biology, most notably an
argument based on the fine-tuning of universal constants that make matter and life possible and which are argued not to be solely
attributable to chance. These include the values of fundamental physical constants, the relative strength of nuclear forces,
electromagnetism, and gravity between fundamental particles, as well as the ratios of masses of such particles. Intelligent design
proponent and Center for Science and Culture fellow Guillermo Gonzalez argues that if any of these values were even slightly
different, the universe would be dramatically different, making it impossible for many chemical elements and features of the Universe,
such as galaxies, to form.[61] Thus, proponents argue, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure that the requisite features
were present to achieve that particular outcome.
Scientists have generally responded that this argument cannot be tested and is therefore not science but metaphysics. Some scientists
argue that even when taken as mere speculation, these arguments are poorly supported by existing evidence. [62] Victor J. Stenger and
other critics say both intelligent design and the weak form of the anthropic principle are essentially a tautology; in his view, these
arguments amount to the claim that life is able to exist because the Universe is able to support life.[63][64][65] The claim of the
improbability of a life-supporting universe has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination for assuming no other forms
of life are possible. Life as we know it might not exist if things were different, but a different sort of life might exist in its place. A
number of critics also suggest that many of the stated variables appear to be interconnected and that calculations made by
mathematicians and physicists suggest that the emergence of a universe similar to ours is quite probable. [66]
Proponent Granville Sewell argues that the evolution of complex forms of life represents a decrease of entropy, and that it thus
violates the second law of thermodynamics and so supports intelligent design.[67] This, however, is a misapplication of thermodynamic
principles.[68] The second law applies to closed systems only. If Granville's argument were valid, living things could not be born and
grow, as this also would be a decrease in entropy. Neither evolution nor the growth of living things violates the second law of
thermodynamics because living things are not closed systems—they have external energy sources (e.g. food, oxygen, sunlight) whose
production requires an offsetting net increase in entropy.
Intelligent designer
Further information: Intelligent designer
Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) they
posit. Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way
that only a god could intervene. Dembski, in The Design Inference, speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements.
The authoritative description of intelligent design,[n 15] however, explicitly states that the Universe displays features of having been
designed. Acknowledging the paradox, Dembski concludes that "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over
the origin of the universe or the origin of life".[69] The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe
the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.[n 2][n 3][26]
Beyond the debate over whether intelligent design is scientific, a number of critics argue that existing evidence makes the design
hypothesis appear unlikely, irrespective of its status in the world of science. For example, Jerry Coyne asks why a designer would
"give us a pathway for making vitamin C, but then destroy it by disabling one of its enzymes" (see pseudogene) and why he or she
would not "stock oceanic islands with reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and freshwater fish, despite the suitability of such islands for
these species". Coyne also points to the fact that "the flora and fauna on those islands resemble that of the nearest mainland, even
when the environments are very different" as evidence that species were not placed there by a designer. [70] Previously, in Darwin's
Black Box, Behe had argued that we are simply incapable of understanding the designer's motives, so such questions cannot be
answered definitively. Odd designs could, for example, "have been placed there by the designer ... for artistic reasons, to show off, for
some as-yet undetectable practical purpose, or for some unguessable reason". Coyne responds that in light of the evidence, "either life
resulted not from intelligent design, but from evolution; or the intelligent designer is a cosmic prankster who designed everything to
make it look as though it had evolved".[70]
Asserting the need for a designer of complexity also raises the question "What designed the designer?" [71] Intelligent design
proponents say that the question is irrelevant to or outside the scope of intelligent design.[n 16] Richard Wein counters that the
unanswered questions an explanation creates "must be balanced against the improvements in our understanding which the explanation
provides. Invoking an unexplained being to explain the origin of other beings (ourselves) is little more than question-begging. The
new question raised by the explanation is as problematic as the question which the explanation purports to answer". [54] Richard
Dawkins sees the assertion that the designer does not need to be explained, not as a contribution to knowledge, but as a thoughtterminating cliché.[72][73] In the absence of observable, measurable evidence, the very question "What designed the designer?" leads to
an infinite regression from which intelligent design proponents can only escape by resorting to religious creationism or logical
contradiction.[74]
17
Movement
Further information: Intelligent design movement
The Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture used banners based on "The Creation of Adam" from the
Sistine Chapel. Later it used a less religious image, then was renamed the Center for Science and Culture.[75]
The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s.[6] The scientific and academic communities,
along with a U.S. federal court, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely
intertwined with traditional creationism;[10] [n 8][76][77][78][79] and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design
creationism".[6][80][n 17][81]
The movement is headquartered in the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), established in 1996 as the creationist wing of the
Discovery Institute to promote a religious agenda[n 18] calling for broad social, academic and political changes. The Discovery
Institute's intelligent design campaigns have been staged primarily in the United States, although efforts have been made in other
countries to promote intelligent design. Leaders of the movement say intelligent design exposes the limitations of scientific orthodoxy
and of the secular philosophy of naturalism. Intelligent design proponents allege that science should not be limited to naturalism and
should not demand the adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that dismisses out-of-hand any explanation which contains a supernatural
cause. The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of
"a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".[n 18]
Phillip E. Johnson stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept.[n 10][n 19] All leading intelligent
design proponents are fellows or staff of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture.[82] Nearly all intelligent design
concepts and the associated movement are the products of the Discovery Institute, which guides the movement and follows its wedge
strategy while conducting its Teach the Controversy campaign and their other related programs.
Leading intelligent design proponents have made conflicting statements regarding intelligent design. In statements directed at the
general public, they say intelligent design is not religious; when addressing conservative Christian supporters, they state that
intelligent design has its foundation in the Bible.[n 19] Recognizing the need for support, the institute affirms its Christian, evangelistic
orientation: "Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural
constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip
believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to 'popularize' our ideas in the broader culture." [n 18]
Barbara Forrest, an expert who has written extensively on the movement, describes this as being due to the Discovery Institute's
obfuscating its agenda as a matter of policy. She has written that the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda
for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious world-view that undergirds it".[83]
Religion and leading proponents
Although arguments for intelligent design are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the
designer,[n 20] the majority of principal intelligent design advocates are publicly religious Christians who have stated that in their view
the designer proposed in intelligent design is the Christian conception of God. Stuart Burgess, Phillip E. Johnson, William Dembski,
and Stephen C. Meyer are evangelical Protestants, and Michael Behe is a Roman Catholic, while Jonathan Wells is a member of the
Unification Church. Phillip E. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments that are
carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept
of God as the designer. Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid
having intelligent design identified "as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message".[n 21] Johnson emphasizes that
"the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion"; "after we have separated materialist prejudice from
scientific fact [...] only then can 'biblical issues' be discussed". [n 22]
The strategy of deliberately disguising the religious intent of intelligent design has been described by William Dembski in The Design
Inference.[84] In this work Dembski lists a god or an "alien life force" as two possible options for the identity of the designer; however,
in his book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, Dembski states that "Christ is indispensable to any
scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued
without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ." [85] Dembski also
stated, "ID is part of God's general revelation [...] Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which
suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ". [86] Both
Johnson and Dembski cite the Bible's Gospel of John as the foundation of intelligent design.[26][n 19]
Barbara Forrest contends such statements reveal that leading proponents see intelligent design as essentially religious in nature, not
merely a scientific concept that has implications with which their personal religious beliefs happen to coincide.[n 23] She writes that the
leading proponents of intelligent design are closely allied with the ultra-conservative Christian Reconstructionism movement. She lists
connections of (current and former) Discovery Institute Fellows Phillip Johnson, Charles Thaxton, Michael Behe, Richard Weikart,
Jonathan Wells and Francis Beckwith to leading Christian Reconstructionist organizations, and the extent of the funding provided the
Institute by Howard Ahmanson Jr., a leading figure in the Reconstructionist movement.[87]
Reaction from other creationist groups
Not all creationist organizations have embraced the intelligent design movement. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, a proponent of
Old Earth creationism, believes that the efforts of intelligent design proponents to divorce the concept from Biblical Christianity make
its hypothesis too vague. In 2002 he wrote: "Winning the argument for design without identifying the designer yields, at best, a
sketchy origins model. Such a model makes little if any positive impact on the community of scientists and other scholars… The time
18
is right for a direct approach, a single leap into the origins fray. Introducing a biblically based, scientifically verifiable creation model
represents such a leap."[88]
Likewise, two of the most prominent Young Earth creationism organizations in the world have attempted to distinguish their views
from intelligent design. Henry M. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) wrote, in 1999, that ID, "even if well-meaning
and effectively articulated, will not work! It has often been tried in the past and has failed, and it will fail today. The reason it won't
work is because it is not the Biblical method.” According to Morris: “The evidence of intelligent design… must be either followed by
or accompanied by a sound presentation of true Biblical creationism if it is to be meaningful and lasting." [89] In 2002, Carl Wieland of
Answers in Genesis (AiG) criticized design advocates who, though well-intentioned, "left the Bible out of it" and thereby unwittingly
aided and abetted the modern rejection of the Bible. Wieland explained that "AiG's major 'strategy' is to boldly, but humbly, call the
church back to its Biblical foundations… [so] we neither count ourselves a part of this movement nor campaign against it." [90]
Polls
Several surveys were conducted prior to the December 2005 decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which sought to determine the level of
support for intelligent design among certain groups. According to a 2005 Harris poll, 10% of adults in the United States viewed
human beings as "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them". [91] Although Zogby polls
commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support, these polls suffer from considerable flaws, such as having a very low
response rate (248 out of 16,000), being conducted on behalf of an organization with an expressed interest in the outcome of the poll,
and containing leading questions.[92][93][94]
A May 2005 survey of nearly 1500 physicians in the United States conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute and HCD Research
showed that 63% of the physicians agreed more with evolution than with intelligent design. [n 24]
A series of Gallup polls in the United States from 1982 through 2008 on "Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design" found support
for "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced formed of life, but God guided the process" of between
35% and 40%, support for "God created human beings in pretty much their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so"
varied from 43% to 47%, and support for "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced formed of life, but
God had no part in the process" varied from 9% to 14%. The polls also noted answers to a series of more detailed questions. [95]
Film
The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed sparked further controversy in 2008. This documentary, hosted by Ben Stein, spends
much time focusing on professors who have been asked to leave or have left numerous institutions because, the film insinuates, of
their beliefs in Intelligent Design. One of the film's first screenings resulted in Paul "PZ" Myers, an interviewee in the film, being
asked to leave the theater. There have also been allegations from some interviewees that interviews were recorded many times in order
to get the exact phrasing required by the producer. The production company, Premise Media, also has helped finance some religious
films such as The Passion of the Christ. [96] [97]
Creating and teaching the controversy
Main article: Teach the Controversy
The intelligent design movement states that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved. The movement stresses the
importance of recognizing the existence of this supposed debate, seeking to convince the public, politicians, and cultural leaders that
schools should "Teach the Controversy".[98] In fact, there is no such controversy in the scientific community; the scientific consensus
is that life evolved.[99][100][101] Intelligent design is widely viewed as a stalking horse for its proponents' campaign against what they say
is the materialist foundation of science, which they argue leaves no room for the possibility of God. [102][103]
Advocates of intelligent design seek to keep God and the Bible out of the discussion, and present intelligent design in the language of
science as though it were a scientific hypothesis.[n 20][n 22] However, among a significant proportion of the general public in the United
States the major concern is whether conventional evolutionary biology is compatible with belief in God and in the Bible, and how this
issue is taught in schools.[104] The public controversy was given widespread media coverage in the United States, particularly during
the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in late 2005 and after President George W. Bush expressed support for the idea of teaching intelligent
design alongside evolution in August 2005. In response to Bush’s statement and the pending federal trial, Time magazine ran an eightpage cover story on the Evolution Wars in which they examined the issue of teaching intelligent design in the classroom. [105][106] The
cover of the magazine featured a parody of The Creation of Adam from the Sistine Chapel. Rather than pointing at Adam,
Michelangelo’s God points at the image of a chimpanzee contemplating the caption which read "The push to teach "intelligent design"
raises a question: Does God have a place in science class?".[107] In the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, the court ruled that intelligent design
was a religious and creationist position, finding that God and intelligent design were both distinct from the material that should be
covered in a science class.[n 4]
Empirical science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation and repeated testing of hypotheses
and theories. Intelligent design proponents seek to change this fundamental basis of science [108] by eliminating "methodological
naturalism" from science[109] and replacing it with what the leader of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson, calls
"theistic realism".[n 25] Some have called this approach "methodological supernaturalism", which means belief in a transcendent,
nonnatural dimension of reality inhabited by a transcendent, nonnatural deity.[110] Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic
explanations fail to explain certain phenomena and that supernatural explanations provide a very simple and intuitive explanation for
the origins of life and the universe.[n 26] Proponents say evidence exists in the forms of irreducible complexity and specified
complexity that cannot be explained by natural processes.[1] They also hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both
evolution and intelligent design in schools, saying that teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding creationist
beliefs. Teaching both, they argue, allows for the possibility of religious belief, without causing the state to actually promote such
beliefs. Many intelligent design followers believe that "Scientism" is itself a religion that promotes secularism and materialism in an
19
attempt to erase theism from public life, and they view their work in the promotion of intelligent design as a way to return religion to a
central role in education and other public spheres. Some allege that this larger debate is often the subtext for arguments made over
intelligent design, though others note that intelligent design serves as an effective proxy for the religious beliefs of prominent
intelligent design proponents in their efforts to advance their religious point of view within society. [111][n 27][112]
Intelligent design has not presented a credible scientific case and is an attempt to teach religion in public schools, substituting public
support for scientific research.[113] If the argument to give "equal time for all theories" were actually practiced, there would be no
logical limit to the number of mutually incompatible supernatural "theories" regarding the origins and diversity of life to be taught in
the public school system, including intelligent design parodies such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster "theory"; intelligent design does
not provide a mechanism for discriminating among them. Philosopher of biology Elliott Sober, for example, states that intelligent
design is not falsifiable because "[d]efenders of ID always have a way out". [114][115] Intelligent design proponent Michael Behe
concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment".[104]
Intelligent design proponents cannot legitimately infer that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not
understood scientifically, since they have not shown that anything supernatural has occurred. The inference that an intelligent designer
created life on Earth, which advocate William Dembski has said could alternately be an "alien" life force,[84] has been compared to the
a priori claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids.[116][117] In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is
not repeatable, observable or falsifiable, and it violates the principle of parsimony. From a strictly empirical standpoint, one may list
what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, but one must admit ignorance about exactly how the Egyptians built the
pyramids.
Supporters of intelligent design have also reached out to other faith groups with similar accounts of creation with the hope that the
broader coalition will have greater influence in supporting science education that does not contradict their religious views. [n 26] Many
religious bodies have responded by expressing support for evolution. The Roman Catholic church has stated that religious faith is fully
compatible with science, which is limited to dealing only with the natural world [118] — a position described by the term theistic
evolution.[119] As well as pointing out that intelligent design is not science, they also reject it for various philosophical and theological
reasons.[120][121] The arguments of intelligent design have been directly challenged by the over 10,000 clergy who signed the Clergy
Letter Project. Prominent scientists who strongly express religious faith, such as the astronomer George Coyne and the biologist Ken
Miller, have been at the forefront of opposition to intelligent design. While creationist organizations have welcomed intelligent
design's support against naturalism, they have also been critical of its refusal to identify the designer, [122][123][124] and have pointed to
previous failures of the same argument.[125]
Rabbi Natan Slifkin directly criticized the advocates of intelligent design as presenting a perspective of God that is dangerous to
religion.[126] Those who promote it as parallel to religion, he asserts, do not truly understand it. Slifkin criticizes intelligent design's
advocacy of teaching their perspective in biology classes, wondering why no one claims that God's hand should be taught in other
secular classes, such as history, physics or geology. Slifkin also asserts that the intelligent design movement is inordinately concerned
with portraying God as "in control" when it comes to things that cannot be easily explained by science, but not in control in respect to
things which can be explained by scientific theory.[126] Kenneth Miller expressed a view similar to Slifkin's: "[T]he struggles of the
Intelligent Design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures - rejected by science because they do
not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God. [127]
Defining science
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge of the natural world without
assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism. Intelligent
design proponents believe that this can be equated to materialist metaphysical naturalism, and have often said that not only is their
own position scientific, but it is even more scientific than evolution, and that they want a redefinition of science as a revived natural
theology or natural philosophy to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design".[128] This presents a demarcation problem,
which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. [129] For a theory to qualify as scientific,[n
28][130][n 29]
it is expected to be:
 Consistent
 Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
 Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
 Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
 Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
 Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
 Progressive (refines previous theories)
 Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer
criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful
sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency, [131] violates the principle of
parsimony,[n 30] is not scientifically useful,[n 31] is not falsifiable,[n 32] is not empirically testable,[n 33] and is not correctable, dynamic,
provisional or progressive.[n 34][n 35][n 36]
Critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the Daubert Standard,[132] the criteria for scientific evidence
mandated by the US Supreme Court. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States
federal courts and most state courts. Its four criteria are:
20
 The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
 The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
 There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.
 The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, using these criteria and others mentioned above, Judge Jones ruled that "... we have
addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself
from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
Against this, the philosopher Thomas Nagel argues that intelligent design is very different from creation science, in that it does not
depend on distortion of evidence, or on the assumption that it is immune to empirical evidence. It depends only on the idea that the
hypothesis of a designer makes sense. Whatever the merits of the positions, he argues that it is a scientific disagreement, not a
disagreement between science and something else.[133]
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention
in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[134] The U.S. National
Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[n 37][10][n 8]
Others in the scientific community have concurred,[n 38] and some have called it junk science.[n 39][135]
Peer review
The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community that withstands
scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design being accepted as valid science. [136] The intelligent design movement has not
published a properly peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal.[136]
Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the principles of science, which limit its inquiries to
empirical, observable and ultimately testable data and which require explanations to be based on empirical evidence. Dembski, Behe
and other intelligent design proponents say bias by the scientific community is to blame for the failure of their research to be
published.[137] Intelligent design proponents believe that their writings are rejected for not conforming to purely naturalistic, nonsupernatural mechanisms rather than because their research is not up to "journal standards", and that the merit of their articles is
overlooked. Some scientists describe this claim as a conspiracy theory.[138] Michael Shermer has rebutted the claim, noting "Anyone
who thinks that scientists do not question Darwinism has never been to an evolutionary conference." He noted that scientists such as
Joan Roughgarden and Lynn Margulis have challenged certain Darwinist theories and offered explanations of their own and despite
this they "have not been persecuted, shunned, fired or even expelled. Why? Because they are doing science, not religion." [139] The
issue that supernatural explanations do not conform to the scientific method became a sticking point for intelligent design proponents
in the 1990s, and is addressed in the wedge strategy as an aspect of science that must be challenged before intelligent design can be
accepted by the broader scientific community.
Critics and advocates debate over whether intelligent design produces new research and has legitimately attempted to publish this
research. For instance, the Templeton Foundation, a former funder of the Discovery Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking
to reconcile science and religion, says that it asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, but none were
ever submitted. Charles L. Harper Jr., foundation vice-president, said: "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness,
the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review". [140]
The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the
publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.[141] Written by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science &
Culture Director Stephen C. Meyer, it appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in
August 2004.[142] The article was a literature review, which means that it did not present any new research, but rather culled quotations
and claims from other papers to argue that the Cambrian explosion could not have happened by natural processes. The choice of venue
for this article was also considered problematic, because it was so outside the normal subject matter (see Sternberg peer review
controversy[n 40]). Dembski has written that "perhaps the best reason [to be skeptical of his ideas] is that intelligent design has yet to
establish itself as a thriving scientific research program." [143] In a 2001 interview, Dembski said that he stopped submitting to peerreviewed journals because of their slow time-to-print and that he makes more money from publishing books. [144]
In the Dover trial, the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing. [145] There, intelligent design
proponents cited just one paper, on simulation modeling of evolution by Behe and Snoke, [146] which mentioned neither irreducible
complexity nor intelligent design and which Behe admitted did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms. [147] Michael Lynch
called the conclusions of the article "an artifact of unwarranted biological assumptions, inappropriate mathematical modeling, and
faulty logic".[148] In sworn testimony, however, Behe said: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent
design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any
biological system occurred".[149] As summarized by the judge, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his
claims of intelligent design or irreducible complexity. In his ruling, the judge wrote: "A final indicator of how ID has failed to
demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory".[136]
The Discovery Institute insists that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals,[150] including
in its list the two articles mentioned above. Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, stating that no
established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Rather, intelligent design proponents have set up their own
journals with peer review that lacks impartiality and rigor,[n 41] consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters. [n 42]
Intelligence as an observable quality
The phrase intelligent design makes use of an assumption of the quality of an observable intelligence, a concept that has no scientific
consensus definition. William Dembski, for example, has written that "Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature". The
21
characteristics of intelligence are assumed by intelligent design proponents to be observable without specifying what the criteria for
the measurement of intelligence should be. Dembski, instead, asserts that "in special sciences ranging from forensics to archaeology to
SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), appeal to a designing intelligence is indispensable". [151] How this appeal is made
and what this implies as to the definition of intelligence are topics left largely unaddressed. Seth Shostak, a researcher with the SETI
Institute, disputed Dembski's comparison of SETI and intelligent design, saying that intelligent design advocates base their inference
of design on complexity—the argument being that some biological systems are too complex to have been made by natural processes—
while SETI researchers are looking primarily for artificiality.[152]
Critics say that the design detection methods proposed by intelligent design proponents are radically different from conventional
design detection, undermining the key elements that make it possible as legitimate science. Intelligent design proponents, they say, are
proposing both searching for a designer without knowing anything about that designer's abilities, parameters, or intentions (which
scientists do know when searching for the results of human intelligence), as well as denying the very distinction between
natural/artificial design that allows scientists to compare complex designed artifacts against the background of the sorts of complexity
found in nature.[n 43]
As a means of criticism, certain skeptics have pointed to a challenge of intelligent design derived from the study of artificial
intelligence. The criticism is a counter to intelligent design claims about what makes a design intelligent, specifically that "no
preprogrammed device can be truly intelligent, that intelligence is irreducible to natural processes". [153] This claim is similar in type to
an assumption of Cartesian dualism that posits a strict separation between "mind" and the material Universe. However, in studies of
artificial intelligence, while there is an implicit assumption that supposed "intelligence" or creativity of a computer program is
determined by the capabilities given to it by the computer programmer, artificial intelligence need not be bound to an inflexible
system of rules. Rather, if a computer program can access randomness as a function, this effectively allows for a flexible, creative, and
adaptive intelligence. Evolutionary algorithms, a subfield of machine learning (itself a subfield of artificial intelligence), have been
used to mathematically demonstrate that randomness and selection can be used to "evolve" complex, highly adapted structures that are
not explicitly designed by a programmer. Evolutionary algorithms use the Darwinian metaphor of random mutation, selection and the
survival of the fittest to solve diverse mathematical and scientific problems that are usually not solvable using conventional methods.
Intelligence derived from randomness is essentially indistinguishable from the "innate" intelligence associated with biological
organisms, and poses a challenge to the intelligent design conception that intelligence itself necessarily requires a designer. Cognitive
science continues to investigate the nature of intelligence along these lines of inquiry. The intelligent design community, for the most
part, relies on the assumption that intelligence is readily apparent as a fundamental and basic property of complex systems. [154]
Arguments from ignorance
Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are
arguments from ignorance.[155] In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute
proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies
on a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent
cause. They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more
appropriate response than invoking a cause outside science. [155] Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed
explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a false dichotomy, where either evolution or design is
the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. Scott and Branch also contend that the
supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific
research.
Intelligent design has also been characterized as a "god of the gaps" argument,[156] which has the following form:
 There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
 The gap is filled with acts of God (or intelligent designer) and therefore proves the existence of God (or intelligent
designer).[156]
A god-of-the-gaps argument is the theological version of an argument from ignorance. A key feature of this type of argument is that it
merely answers outstanding questions with explanations (often supernatural) that are unverifiable and ultimately themselves subject to
unanswerable questions.[157]
Kitzmiller trial
Main article: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public
school district that required the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. The plaintiffs successfully argued that
intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution.[158]
Eleven parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania, sued the Dover Area School District over a statement that the school board
required be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught. The plaintiffs were represented by the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and Pepper Hamilton LLP. The National
Center for Science Education (NCSE) acted as consultants for the plaintiffs. The defendants were represented by the Thomas More
Law Center.[159] The suit was tried in a bench trial from September 26, 2005 to November 4, 2005 before Judge John E. Jones III. Ken
Miller, Kevin Padian, Brian Alters, Robert Pennock, Barbara Forrest and John Haught served as expert witnesses for the prosecution.
Michael Behe, Steve Fuller and Scott Minnich served as expert witnesses for the defense.
On December 20, 2005 Judge Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision, ruling that the Dover mandate was
unconstitutional, and barring intelligent design from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms.
22
The eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent design requirement were all defeated in a November 8, 2005
election by challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class, and the current school board president stated
that the board does not intend to appeal the ruling.[160]
In his finding of facts, Judge Jones made the following condemnation of the Teach the Controversy strategy:
"Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by
advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a
canard."
Reaction
Judge Jones himself anticipated that his ruling would be criticized, saying in his decision that:
"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is
manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board,
aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt
an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered
against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover
Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and
personal resources."[161]
As Jones had predicted, John G. West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, said:
"The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of
Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work. He has conflated Discovery
Institute's position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the
scientists who research it."[162]
Newspapers have noted with interest that the judge is "a Republican and a churchgoer".[163][164][165][166]
Subsequently, the decision has been examined in a search for flaws and conclusions, partly by intelligent design supporters aiming to
avoid future defeats in court. In the Spring of 2007 the University of Montana Law review published three articles. [167] In the first,
David K. DeWolf, John G. West and Casey Luskin, all of the Discovery Institute, argued that intelligent design is a valid scientific
theory, the Jones court should not have addressed the question of whether it was a scientific theory, and that the Kitzmiller decision
will have no effect at all on the development and adoption of intelligent design as an alternative to standard evolutionary theory.[106] In
the second Peter Irons responded, arguing that the decision was extremely well reasoned and spells the death knell for the intelligent
design efforts to introduce creationism in public schools, [168] while in the third, DeWolf et al. answer the points made by Irons. [169]
However, fear of a similar lawsuit has resulted in other school boards abandoning intelligent design "teach the controversy"
proposals.[6]
In April 2010, the American Academy of Religion issued Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K‐12 Public Schools in the
United States which included guidance that creation science or intelligent design should not be taught in science classes, as "Creation
science and intelligent design represent worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method
of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." However, they, as well
as other "worldviews that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human
inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature or social sciences courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of
worldviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate
than others."[170]
Status outside the United States
Europe
In June 2007 the Council of Europe's "Committee on Culture, Science and Education" issued a report, The dangers of creationism in
education, which states "Creationism in any of its forms, such as 'intelligent design', is not based on facts, does not use any scientific
reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes." [171] In describing the dangers posed to education by teaching
creationism, it described intelligent design as "anti-science" and involving "blatant scientific fraud" and "intellectual deception" that
"blurs the nature, objectives and limits of science" and links it and other forms of creationism to denialism. On October 4, 2007, the
Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution stating that schools should "resist presentation of creationist ideas
in any discipline other than religion", including "intelligent design" which it described as "the latest, more refined version of
creationism", "presented in a more subtle way". The resolution emphasises that the aim of the report is not to question or to fight a
belief, but to "warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science".[172]
In the United Kingdom, public education includes Religious Education as a compulsory subject, and many "faith schools" that teach
the ethos of particular denominations. When it was revealed that a group called Truth in Science had distributed DVDs produced by
the Discovery Institute affiliate Illustra Media[n 44] featuring Discovery Institute fellows making the case for design in nature, [173] and
claimed they were being used by 59 schools,[174] the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) stated that "Neither creationism nor
intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum" (part of the National Curriculum
which does not apply to independent schools or to Education in Scotland).[175][176] The DfES subsequently stated that "Intelligent
design is not a recognised scientific theory; therefore, it is not included in the science curriculum", but left the way open for it to be
explored in religious education in relation to different beliefs, as part of a syllabus set by a local Standing Advisory Council on
Religious Education.[177] In 2006 the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority produced a Religious Education model unit in which
pupils can learn about religious and nonreligious views about creationism, intelligent design and evolution by natural selection.[178][179]
23
On June 25, 2007, the UK Government responded to an e-Petition by saying that creationism and intelligent design should not be
taught as science, though teachers would be expected to answer pupils' questions within the standard framework of established
scientific theories.[180] Detailed government "Creationism teaching guidance" for schools in England was published on September 18,
2007. It states that "Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science", has no underpinning scientific principles, or explanations, and is
not accepted by the science community as a whole. Though it should not be taught as science, "questions about creationism and
intelligent design which arise in science lessons, for example, as a result of media coverage, could provide the opportunity to explain
or explore why they are not considered to be scientific theories and, in the right context, why evolution is considered to be a scientific
theory". However, "Teachers of subjects such as RE, history or citizenship may deal with creationism and intelligent design in their
lessons".[n 6]
The British Centre for Science Education lobbying group has the goal of "countering creationism within the UK" and has been
involved in government lobbying in the UK in this regard. [181] However, in Northern Ireland the Democratic Unionist Party claims that
the revised curriculum provides an opportunity for alternative theories to be taught, and has sought assurances that pupils will not lose
marks if they give creationist or intelligent design answers to science questions. [182] In Lisburn the DUP has arranged that the City
Council will write to post primary schools asking what their plans are to develop teaching material in relation to "creation, intelligent
design and other theories of origin".[183]
Plans by Dutch Education Minister Maria van der Hoeven to "stimulate an academic debate" on the subject in 2005 caused a severe
public backlash.[184] After the 2007 elections she was succeeded by Ronald Plasterk, described as a "molecular geneticist, staunch
atheist and opponent of intelligent design".[185] As a reaction on this situation in the Netherlands, in Belgium the President of the
Flemish Catholic Educational Board (VSKO) Mieke Van Hecke declared that: "Catholic scientists already accepted the theory of
evolution for a long time and that intelligent design and creationism doesn't belong in Flemish Catholic schools. It's not the tasks of
the politics to introduce new ideas, that's task and goal of science." [186]
Relation to Islam
Creationism has strong political support in many Islamic countries, and antievolutionary views are mainstream among academic
theologians and scientists.[187] In general, Muslim creationists have partnered with the Institute for Creation Research for ideas and
materials which they adapted to their own theological positions. Similarly, some use was made of intelligent design antievolution
resources. Muzaffar Iqbal, a notable Muslim in Canada, signed the Scientific Dissent list of the Discovery Institute.[188] Ideas similar to
intelligent design have been considered respected intellectual options among Muslims, and in Turkey many intelligent design books
have been translated. In Istanbul in 2007, public meetings promoting intelligent design were sponsored by the local government, [187]
and David Berlinski of the Discovery Institute was the keynote speaker at a meeting in May 2007. [189]
Australia
The status of intelligent design in Australia is somewhat similar to that in the UK (see: Education in Australia). When the former
Australian Federal Education Minister, Brendan Nelson, raised the notion of intelligent design being taught in science classes, the
public outcry caused the minister to quickly concede that the correct forum for intelligent design, if it were to be taught, is in religious
or philosophy classes.[190]
See also
 Abiogenesis
 Intelligent falling
 Argument from poor design
 List of works on intelligent design
 Clockwork universe theory
 Neo-Creationism
 Cosmological argument
 Old Earth creationism
 Creation science
 Santorum Amendment
 Flock of Dodos
 Watchmaker analogy
 Flying Spaghetti Monster
24