智能设计
參考資料

↑  Numbers, Ronald L.  Expanded ed., 1st Harvard University Press pbk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2006: 373 [Originally published 1992 as The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism; New York: Alfred A. Knopf]. ISBN 0-674-02339-0. LCCN 2006043675. OCLC 69734583. [ID] captured headlines for its bold attempt to rewrite the basic rules of science and its claim to have found indisputable evidence of a God-like being. Proponents, however, insisted it was 'not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins – one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution.' Although the intellectual roots of the design argument go back centuries, its contemporary incarnation dates from the 1980s".
1 2  Meyer, Stephen C. . National Post (Don Mills, Ontario: CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.). December 1, 2005  [2014-02-28]. （原始内容存档于2006-05-01）.
↑  Boudry, Maarten; Blancke, Stefaan; Braeckman, Johan.  (PDF). The Quarterly Review of Biology (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press). December 2010, 85 (4): 473–482  [2017-11-11]. PMID 21243965. doi:10.1086/656904. （原始内容存档 (PDF)于2017-08-09）.  Article available from Universiteit Gent （页面存档备份，存于）
↑  Pigliucci, Massimo.  (PDF). . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 2010: 160–186  [2017-11-11]. ISBN 978-0-226-66786-7. LCCN 2009049778. OCLC 457149439. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于2017-06-29）.
↑  Young, Matt; Edis, Taner (编). . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 2004: 195-196. ISBN 0-8135-3433-X. JSTOR 40072957. LCCN 2003020100. OCLC 59717533.
↑ . Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. [ 2012-06-16 ] . （原始内容存档于2016-03-03）.
(PDF). Seattle, WA: Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center. 2004  [2012-06-16]. （原始内容存档 (PDF)于2012-05-03）.
. Intelligent Design network. Shawnee Mission, KS: Intelligent Design network, inc.   [2012-06-16]. （原始内容存档于2018-01-21）.
↑
↑
↑  . Nature Methods (Editorial) (London: Nature Publishing Group). December 2007, 4 (12): 983  [2014-02-28]. ISSN 1548-7091. doi:10.1038/nmeth1207-983. （原始内容存档于2014-03-09）.
↑ Meyer, Stephen C.; Nelson, Paul A. . Origins & Design (Book review) (Colorado Springs, CO: Access Research Network). May 1, 1996 [ 2007-05-20 ] . （原始内容存档于2009-10-07）.
Johnson, Phillip E. . Books & Culture (Book review). May–June 1996, 2 (3)  [2012-06-16]. （原始内容存档于2014-02-19）.  The review is reprinted in full by Access Research Network [archived 10 February 1999].
Meyer, Stephen C. . . Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute 9. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press. 2000  [2014-12-01]. ISBN 0-89870-809-5. LCCN 00102374. OCLC 45720008. （原始内容存档于2014-10-09）.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,  04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Whether ID Is Science, p. 66
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,  04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Whether ID Is Science, p. 68. Lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also include astrology.
See also Hanna, John. . Guardian Unlimited (London: Guardian Media Group). Associated Press. February 13, 2007  [2014-02-28]. （原始内容存档于February 16, 2007）.
↑  Giberson, Karl W. . The Daily Beast (New York: The Newsweek Daily Beast Company). April 21, 2014  [2014-05-14]. （原始内容存档于2014-05-14）.
↑
↑  'The British Association', The Times, Saturday, 20 September, 1873; pg. 10; col A.
↑  'Evolution according to Hoyle: Survivors of disaster in an earlier world', By Nicholas Timmins, The Times, Wednesday, 13 January, 1982; pg. 22; Issue 61130; col F.
↑  The Wedge Document （页面存档备份，存于）（PDF file）, a 1999 Discovery Institute fundraising pamphlet. Cited in Handley P. Evolution or design debate heats up. （页面存档备份，存于） The Times of Oman, 7 March 2005.
↑  菲力普·约翰遜：“我們的策略一直是，在學術界和學校内，將智能設計的標題——實質上就是上帝的真實性，做一些改變。”约翰遜2004. Christianity.ca. Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin 的存檔，存档日期2007-06-08.。“不真的是科學争議，也許也不會成為科學争議。這是關于宗教和哲學。”约翰遜1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution （页面存档备份，存于）. “問題是：如何贏得勝利？這就是我開始建立的你們現在看到的鍥入策略：抓住最主要的問題——生命機制和信息系統的建立。把聖經和創世紀從辯論中剔除，因為大家不想見到所謂‘聖經科學’。這様組織語言進行争論，才能讓你的聲音被世俗的科學界聽見，并且團結宗教反對派。這意味着集中在一個話題：你是否需要一個創造者來創造世界，或者大自然能夠自行其是？而避免被其他問題岔開。”约翰遜2000. Touchstone magazine. Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson 的存檔，存档日期2007-06-09.
1 2 3  "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."..."Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"..."I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won 的存檔，存档日期2007-11-07.
↑  Discovery Institute fellows and staff.  （页面存档备份，存于） Center for Science and Culture fellows and staff. .   [2014-02-28]. （原始内容存档于2004-07-14）.
↑  The Wedge Strategy （页面存档备份，存于） Discovery Institute, Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. 1998 (PDF file)
↑  Barbara Forrest. 2001. "The Wedge at Work: Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics （页面存档备份，存于）
↑  Phillip Johnson. Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. July/August 1999."...the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact." The Wedge （页面存档备份，存于）
↑  Phillip Johnson. Keeping the Darwinists Honest, an interview with Phillip Johnson.Citizen Magazine. April 1999. "Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. ... The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed."
↑  Dembski. 2005. Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris.Reply to Henry Morris Archive.is的存檔，存档日期2012-07-29
↑  Dembski. "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue 4 July/August, 1999 （页面存档备份，存于）
↑  Barbara Forrest. Expert Testimony. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial transcript, Day 6 (October 5) "What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own." ... "Intelligent design, as it is understood by the proponents that we are discussing today, does involve a supernatural creator, and that is my objection. And I am objecting to it as they have defined it, as Professor Johnson has defined intelligent design, and as Dr. Dembski has defined intelligent design. And both of those are basically religious. They involve the supernatural."
↑  Seattle Times. March 31, 2005.Does Seattle group "teach controversy" or contribute to it? （页面存档备份，存于）
↑  National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution 的存檔，存档日期2006-09-27.
↑  IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution 的存檔，存档日期2007-09-27. Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society（PDF file）
↑  美國科學促進會：2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution （页面存档备份，存于）（PDF file）, AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws （页面存档备份，存于）
↑  Coultan, Mark. . 雪梨晨鋒報. 2005-11-27  [2009-02-19]. （原始内容存档于2018-05-29）.
↑  Intelligent Design: Creationism’s Trojan Horse, A Conversation With Barbara Forrest （页面存档备份，存于） Americans United for Separation of Church and State, February 2005
↑  Barbara Forrest, 2000. "Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection （页面存档备份，存于）." In Philo, Vol. 3, No. 2（Fall-Winter 2000）, pp. 7-29.
↑  Phillip E. Johnson. Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education（InterVarsity Press, 1995）, positions himself as a "theistic realist" against "methodological naturalism."
↑  Phillip Johnson. "My colleagues and I speak of 'theistic realism'-- or sometimes, 'mere creation' -- as the defining concept of our [the ID] movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology." Starting a Conversation about Evolution （页面存档备份，存于）
↑  引述菲力普·约翰遜2001年講話。Teresa Watanabe. Los Angeles Times (Sunday Front page) 2001年3月25日。“我們所説的是科學界和學術界大多數人都有的直覺，”試圖用一個傾向上帝的可選擇理論來替代達爾文主義，長老會教徒约翰遜教授説，“我們將消除接受上帝為創造者的文化障礙。”Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator: Believers in 'intelligent design' try to redirect evolution disputes along intellectual lines （页面存档备份，存于）
↑  Joel Belz, 1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution （页面存档备份，存于）
↑  Phillip E. Johnson. American Family Radio. January 10, 2003 "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin 的存檔，存档日期2007-06-08.
↑  Jon Buell & Virginia Hearn (eds), 1992. Proceedings of a Symposium entitled: Darwinism: Scientific Inference of Philosophical Preference? （页面存档备份，存于）"
↑  Karl Giberson. Science & Theology News, December 5, 2005 Intelligent design’s long march to nowhere 的存檔，存档日期2015-09-19.
↑  Claudia Wallis. Time Magazine, August 15, 2005. page 32 Evolution Wars （页面存档备份，存于）
↑  Michael J. Murray, n.d. Natural Providence (or Design Trouble) 的存檔，存档日期2006-08-20.（PDF）
↑  Dembski. What is the position of the NRCSE on the teaching of intelligent design [ID as an alternative to neo-Darwinian evolution in Nebraska schools?] （页面存档备份，存于）
↑  "While the ID crowd have some things of interest to say they, are indeed just a revamped God of the gaps and the Paylean argument from design in a more modern form. Their refusal to engage with the theological issues this engenders is their greatest weakness, it is also a deliberate strategy, to try and show to the secular world they are nothing but scientists and philosophers. It also hides from their Christian constituency that some of their people are not Christian - at least one is a Moonie. Their second weakness is to muddy the waters with terms like "methodological naturalism", "operations science" and "origins science". The fact that some leading Christian philosophers in the US（i.e. Plantiga）are also confused does not help. Their third weakness is that they are their refusal to come clean on the age of the earth. This is to try and hide the fact that they have strong links with the young earthers, at least one of their leading people is a strong young earther. Fourthly, the movement is strongly driven by a US political agenda - the "renewal" of US society and culture through the destruction of materialism via it's supposed foundation of "methodological naturalism", the greatest strength of which is supposedto be evolution. The export of this US agenda, redolent with the culture wars, to the rest of the world, is of grave concern." Intelligent Design? 的存檔，存档日期2006-08-21. ISCAST Bullentin, Issue 48, Spring 2005. Institute for the Study of Christianity in an Age of Science and Technology.（PDF file）