Intelligent design

Intelligent design (ID) proponents claim that a great intelligence designed the universe. Their beliefs are similar to those of Deism, a theology founded upon reason that was common among intellectuals in the Enlightenment, including Thomas Jefferson. However, unlike Deism or any other theology, the proponents of intelligent design present it as science rather than as a religious view. The ID Movement emerged in the 1990s as a political movement to reduce the influence of modern biology in American schools, because it fears the immoral implications of a world without God playing a central role. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has concluded that in its present form, intelligent design cannot be classified as scientific hypothesis or theory. In a scientific sense, these terms only apply to ideas which are testable and provable. Thus far the claims made by proponents of intelligent design are not testable and rely solely on the opinions and conclusions of proponents.

Prominent modern ID proponents chiefly rely on the thesis that if an entity or object, such as a human being, lion, or oak tree appears to have been designed then, unless proven otherwise, that entity or object is most logically accepted as having been designed. In the sole article supporting the intelligent design thesis in the world's peer reviewed scientific literature, this assumption is used as a null hypothesis to account for the great diversity of life forms that "suddenly" (in geologic time scale) appeared millions of years ago according to the fossil record. The well accepted scientific theory to account for this evidence is the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis", that is, the theory that natural selection acts on inheritable variation in surviving progeny for many generations accounts for such creatures. In the single article appearing in the scientific literature that supports ID, it is argued that if the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" is found to have logical inconsistencies, then it fails and the null hypothesis, intelligent design, must be accepted a more likely alternative theory to account for living things. However it is not clear why there is a justification for preferring intelligent design over natural selection as the null hypothesis. There is also a counter-argument that specific intelligent design criticisms of evolutionary theory are invalid, and it is unclear why intelligent design cannot also be excluded on the basis of logical inconsistency.

See intelligent design movement for an account of the political efforts to employ ID to rebut evolution to better promote education about intelligent design within schools.

An Argument for Intelligent Design

The classic design argument for the existence of an intelligent creator may be traced from ancient philosophy, through the works of medieval scholastics such as the philosopher-theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), who argued that the existence of God could be deduced by reason.

In the 18th century, Deist theologian William Paley (1743-1805) introduced the "watchmaker analogy", one of the best known metaphors in the philosophy of science, as an argument for the existence of God. The argument is, in essence, as follows: Imagine walking on a pebbled beach, where the pebbles may be wonderfully shaped, beautiful in different ways, interesting and varied one from another. However interesting and beautiful you find them, you will not doubt that they are the products of purely natural causes. However, if amongst the pebbles you find a watch, even if you have never seen a watch before, you will immediately recognise it as qualitatively different from the pebbles. Inspecting it, from the intricacy of its design, and the clear purpose of that design, you will inevitably and correctly conclude that the watch is not a 'natural' object but an artifact, something designed by a powerful and intelligent agent.

Casual observation might similarly lead to the conclusion that, compared to a watch, even the simplest living form is incredibly complex, giving it the appearance of being designed for a purpose. There must be a designer, said Paley, "and that designer is God."

To many who believe in a Creator of the universe, the idea that the nature of living things might contain some evidence that they have been built purposefully rather than having been evolved by natural selection is a natural one. Some modern proponents of intelligent design have accordingly broached this issue in a theoretical manner, by considering how, objectively, it might be possible to ascertain whether any particular object has been designed for a purpose as opposed to having evolved to fit an apparent purpose. These proponents have proposed two criteria for deciding whether something has been designed in this way. the second to the noption of "specified complexity".

Irreducible Complexity

The first criterion relates to the notion of "irreducible complexity". Proponents of intelligent design argue that irreducible complexity is a common feature of biological systems, but cannot plausibly be accounted for by evolution through 'undirected' natural selection. They argue instead that irreducibly complex systems must have arisen by some form of 'directed' evolution, i.e. towards a predetermined end. They assume without argument or evidence that directedness presupposes an Intelligent Designer.

A complex system is a system that performs a discrete function, where there are many interactions between its component parts. A system is irreducibly complex if removing of any one of the parts of a complex system causes it to effectively cease functioning. In No Free Lunch, William Dembski extends this basic definition, and states that a system is irreducibly complex

"if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function."

Evolution by natural selection proceeds via successive minor alterations to the form of a structure, each of which results in an incremental improvement in fitness. It has long been recognised that one of the most difficult challenges for biologists is to explain how highly complex structures can have evolved in this way, as the requirement that every intermediate form must have a selection advantage beyond the previous form is a constraint that severely limits the possible paths by which evolution might have proceeded. This constraint becomes particularly hard to reconcile with evolutionary explanations when the final form absolutely requires the involvement of each of several different elements for the final form to have any effective functionality. Thus, a structure is said to be 'irreducibly complex' if any modification of any of several different elements leads to a wholly non-functional structure. To proponents of intelligent design, it is inconceivable that evolution by natural selection could have perfected multiple elements that only have any functionality when all are complete and assembled. To them, this is clear evidence of design in anticipation of a purpose, design according to a predetermined plan or "blueprint",

Specified complexity

The second criterion relates to the concept of "specified complexity". Complex structures can arise by natural processes, or by chance mechanisms and some may happen to have functionality that can be exploited; thus complexity per se is not evidence of intentional design, nor is the improbability of a structure or pattern arising by simple chance any evidence that it did not in fact arise by chance. However, proponents of intelligent design argue that when a structure clearly fulfils a function that is essential for the function of living things - in other words when an outcome of an evolutionary process is absolutely required by the organism, then they argue that it is legitimate to consider how likely it is that that outcome could have been achieved through the chance processes that are said to be involved.

This is a complex argument, perhaps best explained by analogy. If an archer fires an arrow into the air at random, then it might land anywhere within a large area, and the probability of it landing at any particular place within this area is very low. In this case, we cannot draw any conclusions from the simple fact that the arrow lands at a place where it has a very low probability of landing - the arrow must, after all land somewhere. However, if it lands in the very centre of a predrawn target that lies on the grass, then we can draw some conclusions - we might reasonably conclude that the arrow was not fired at random, but was aimed. This conclusion comes not solely from the fact that the outcome of firing the arrow was an unlikely complex event, but from this combined with the fact that it was a prespecified complex event - and the evidence of the specification is there in the form of the target on the grass.

Proponents of intelligent design argue that there are features of living organisms that show such specified complexity. In other words, evolutionary processes have achieved outcomes that are complex in specific ways that, to proponents of intelligent design, are suggestive of a predetermined purpose. These proponents argue that, for such outcomes, it is legitimate to calculate the probability of their occurrence according to the conditional probabilities of occurrence of the multiple chance elements that are involved. Dembski has argued that when such calculation produces an impossibly tiny figure for the conditional probability, then the hypothesis that it is the result of those chance processes must be discarded. He has proposed that conditional probabilities of the order of 10-120 are thus evidence of purpose, or intelligent design.

The statistical reasoning behind these arguments is complex, and the notion of specified complexity is not one that has been widely endorsed by professional mathematicians and information theorists. Part of the problem with applying this approach is the problem of assigning probabilities to particular molecular events in a reliable way. Another part of the problem arises from the difficulty in deciding what exactly constitutes specified complexity in a biological context.

Intelligent design and molecular biology

It is important to note that proponents of intelligent design do not deny evolution, nor do they dispute any of the findings of molecular biology. On the contrary, they regard evolution as part of the mechanisms by which living things are designed, and they consider that molecular biology, by displaying the vast complexity that underlies even the simplest living things, provides evidence that makes explanations based on natural selection less plausible rather than more plausible.

Interestingly, watches have been found in living organisms. These are molecular timing devices present in organisms, that produce 'circadian rhythms', biological cycles with a definite innately determined time period. For instance, such a timekeeper mechanism has been found in single celled blue-green algae and enables this microbe's genes to vary in their intensity of activity in rhythm with daily changes in sunlight. The biological watch inside the microbe is composed of widely distributed genetic components recruited from other signalling and information processing activities of the cell. In this case the watch is constructed from simple molecular components that function regularly and predictably according to well characterised principles of biochemistry - the timing mechanism arises as a result of feed back loops whereby gene products regulate gene expression; in this case there seems no need to postulate intelligent design in its construction.

Modern Evolutionary Synthesis

The currently accepted account of the origin of living things is known as the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis". Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a theoretical and observational framework which expresses the theory of evolution by natural selection in a form consistent with molecular biology and population genetics. By this theory, all extant living things are the products of descent with modification from common ancestors that lived 3-4 billion years ago. This theory (and an abundant array of evidence of evolutionary process that are seen in nature) explains all evolution as resulting from processes of natural selection among populations among which genetic novelty and novel combinations of genetic components are generated by numerous genetic mechanism. Natural selection is a creative process because, as favorable genotypes accumulate over generations and combine in different ways, this produces a huge diversity of organisms - more than 10 million living species.

There are important features that distinguish the 'design' achieved by natural selection from the kind produced by an intelligent designer. Natural selection is undirected in that it has no preordained plan, but is simply a result of the differential survival and reproduction of living beings. Natural selection and genetic mechanism provide powerful ways of generating novel design features which are stored in the DNA code and passed on to the subsequent generations.. Natural selection has no foresight, and so environmental changes may threaten the survival of organisms that were thriving. As a result, species extinction is common: it is estimated that "more than 99% of all species that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct."

Modern proponents of intelligent design argue that evolution by an 'undirected' process like natural selection cannot adequately account for the complexity of life. They argue that essential features of even the simplest extant living things are 'irreducibly complex', in that such features arise only in highly complex systems and do not appear in even a rudimentary form in simple systems. They argue that an irreducibly complex system is very unlikely to be produced by successive, slight modifications of a previously existing system, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part would be unable to function at all.

It has not been possible to reconstruct in reliable detail the events that gave rise to the simplest form of life; there is too much that remains unknown. Accordingly, intelligent design theory argues that it is just as appropriate to postulate an intelligent agent to explain the mysteries of life as it is to postulate an intelligent watchmaker to explain the watch found on a beach.

Some ID proponents believe that alternative explanations (including Darwinian evolution) are not feasible, as they argue that the well-documented natural selection mechanisms that have been used to explain the "apparent design" of numerous components and interactions of living organisms cannot explain all features of organism complexity. They see evolution as an "undirected, chance-based process"; ID does not emphasize that selection for reproductive success intrinsically directs evolutionary change towards functional design solutions, or that numerous genetic mechanisms exist to provide a vast array of genetic diversity from which well designed components can be selected. ID theorists have not considered whether ID is all direction by the designer or some combination of direction and chance.

Contemporary and high profile proponents of intelligent design

Prominent ID proponent William Dembski has a PhD in mathematics from the University of Chicago, and is research professor in philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. In 1998, Cambridge University Press published Dembski's first book, a philosophical monograph entitled The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities. Dembski has published several books since, but has published no papers on intelligent design in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Dembski is particularly associated with the concept of 'specified complexity'.

Another prominent proponent, and one particularly associated with arguments related to the concept of 'irreducible complexity', is Michael J. Behe. Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Behe holds that some biological structures are too biochemically complex to be plausibly explained as a result of evolution by natural selection. Unlike many in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the evidence for the common descent of species, including the conclusion that humans descended from other primates; however, he claims that common descent alone cannot fully explain the differences between species.

Both Dembski and Behe are senior fellows of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture in Seattle. The Discovery Institute is a Christian educational foundation established to promote creationist thought, founded by Stephen C. Meyer, Bruce Chapman and George Gilder. Meyer gained a Ph.D in history and philosophy of science from Cambridge University for a dissertation entitled "Of clues and causes : a methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."

The argument has been made that these proponents are not presenting scientific theory for the purpose of advancing science. Opponents have charged that the Discovery Institute and its fellows are using Intelligent Design as a wedge to drive their particular religious agenda into the public schools, where they hope to rebut the teachings and their perceptions about mainstream evolutionary science. Thus far the efforts of the Intelligent Design Movement have been unsuccessful due to their inability to craft an argument for intelligent design that mainstream science (and the courts) can recognize as scientific hypothesis or theory.

ID publications

Books

Many books on ID have been written

Journals

However, very few ID research papers or monographs have been published in connentional peer-reviewed scientific journals, but ID advocates have created several journals devoted to publishing ID materials.

On 4 August 2004, an article by Stephen Meyer, an intelligent design proponent, appeared in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, questioning conventional evolutionary explanations for the Cambrian Explosion and proposing intelligent design as an alternative. Later, however, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington retracted the article. The managing editor for the journal at the time, the process structuralist Richard Sternberg, stated that the article had been properly peer reviewed by three well qualified referees. His decision to publish the paper nevertheless resulted in protests, and colleagues at the Smithsonian Institute, where he was employed, sought to discredit him and created what the The U.S. Office of Special Council (which is authorized to investigate allegations of prohibited personnel practices and activities prohibited by civil service law) called "a hostile working environment".

The lack of peer reviewed articles is cited by ID opponents as evidence that ID is unscientific. ID supporters point to the Proceedings incident as showing just the opposite: that the scientific climate is so prejudiced against ID that not even peer review is enough to overcome publication bias. ID proponent Dominque Tassot of the Center for Studies and Prospectives on Science, France, states the reasons as

[Evolutionary scientists] live and think inside the paradigm of evolution. As Thomas Kuhn explained [in the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions], theories are accepted or rejected in order to defend the dominant paradigm. Information which conflicts with that paradigm is set aside, it doesn’t get published.

Distinct from creationism

Most proponents of the intelligent design hypothesis are also creationists, meaning they believe the universe was created by a deity or some other power beyond the full comprehension of mortal man. The hypothesis, however, is not the same as young earth creationism, which is a belief that the account of the creation of the universe and of life as given by the Bible is literally true. Intelligent design does not try to identify the designer as supernatural, nor does it try to establish the veracity of a particular narrative, although some leading proponents of intelligent design have stated that they believe the designer to be the Christian God.

As intelligent design avoids identifying the designer, its focus is different to that of arguments in natural theology, such as the teleological argument. William Dembski argues that intelligent design can be formulated as a scientific theory of information that has empirical consequences and which is devoid of any religious commitments.[1] By this view, intelligent design asks whether design can be detected in nature from purely scientific and mathematical considerations.

Other proponents of intelligent design see no conflict between intelligent design and evolution, and indeed see evolution as evidence of intelligent design.

Criticisms of intelligent design

One of the main weaknesses of the intelligent design is absence of factual peer-reviewed evidence to support the concept. It is a theoretical opinion which has not been tested by objective evidence demanded by professional science.

Proponents of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory rather than a matter of religious belief, despite its base of support in the religious community. Critics and US courts reject this assertion. Scientists consider that for a theory to be 'scientific' it must generate predictions by which it can be tested; in other words it must be open to attempted disproof. For example, the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued that a theory that has no testable components "has no connection with the real world." ID proponents have not yet proposed a test and so it is not a scientific theory in this sense (see Scientific method).

Critics dismiss the "null hypothesis" claim that the intervention of a higher intelligence is the null hypothesis that must be accepted if science can not explain certain phenomenon. Critics do not regard such a lack of understanding as good evidence for any scientific or philosophical conclusions.

Critics hold that the postulate of an intelligent designer is not an explanation for life at all, but a "deus ex machina"--that is, an evasion of attempted explanation. By this view, intelligent design has no content: it concludes where there is ignorance, that is proof of ID.

Opponents of intelligent design who are scientists consider that the evidence of complexity in biological systems can be explained by conventional biological theory. There are also many opponents of intelligent design who are religious, and who believe that the role of science is to seek natural, physical explanations of the world; although they believe that there is a God who created the world and life in it, for them this is a matter of faith not of science. Opponents of intelligent design doubt the intellectual honesty of intelligent design theory, in that they do not consider it to be a viable alternative to the theory of evolution by natural selection, and hence consider that the only reason for promoting it is for the religious message that it is said to contain, not for the intrinsic intellectual merits of the arguments.

The basic thesis of intelligent design that 'natural selection is undirected' is open to logical challenge. Natural selection of organism survival is indirectly specific on organism subcomponents, because many features of the subcomponents are determined by genes whose retention is determined by their importance for reproductive success of the organism. Organism survival selects for effective function of the organism sub-components as part of a coherently functioning whole. In any organism, survival places specific and subtle requirements and restrictions on particular components such as enzymes, sensors, organs and systems that interact to generate behavior of living things.

While proponents of intelligent design see evidence of design in how well complex structures fit their purpose, molecular biologists see something very different in the fine details of those structures. So far from seeing genetic information being perfectly and economically fashioned to suit a given purpose, they see wastefulness, duplication, errors, the detritus of now redundant genes in gene sequences - in other words, things they would expect to see as the residue of evolution by natural selection. In short, despite the appearance of efficient design at a high level, at a molecular level the design shows little sign of purposeful intelligence but extensive signs of chance processes.

Problems with the logic and assumptions of irreducible complexity

By the original common and uncontroversial definition many biological systems are irreducibly complex. However, conventional evolutionary theory has no intrinsic difficulty in explaining how a system can have arisen by natural selection and yet be irreducibly complex.

The key assumption which is problematic for Intelligent Design is the assumption introduced by Dembski that the basic function of a system is the same as its original function. This assumption is one that modern evolutionary biologists vigorously dispute. They claim that, on the contrary, systems often evolved for one purpose and then were "exapted" to a different function.

An example is the evolution of the wing. A small wing is useless for flying, so how could an aerodynamically effective wing ever have begun to evolve? The answer of evolutionary biologists is that small wings are indeed useless for flight but in insects, they are useful structures for thermoregulation - thus wings may have evolved for thermoregulation and increased in surface area to be more effective radiators of heat; while in mammals small wings can be used to increase running speed. The aerodynamic consequences would have been incidental to the original basic function, but when species had evolved wings of a sufficient size for gliding, then this originally incidental benefit may have become the major focus of further natural selection.

Another obvious way by which a system might become irreducibly complex is via the eliminative actions of natural selection. For example, genes that were once important in precursor forms of an organism are likely to be eliminated by natural selection if they later become redundant. Many see this as analogous to the scaffolding and buttresses that are used to construct a building and then removed after the building is completed, and therefore removing all evidence of the scaffolding. Thus in a currently living organism we see only the final structure - with little remaining evidence of the "scaffolds" by which evolution built it.

Another explanation is that genes used in an irreducibly complex system were once used for another purpose, much like melanocyte stimulating hormone (MSH), which acts as an antioxidant in organisms that don't produce melanin.

Michael Behe further adapted Dembski's definition to apply it to evolutionary pathways:

"An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations)."

This step makes an overt link between irreducible complexity and intelligent design. As a definition, it can only be applied after assuming that evolution was directed (i.e. after assuming that there is any such thing as an unselected mutation)

Problems with assuming genetic mechanisms cannot produce intelligent design

An assumption in intelligent design is that genetic mechanisms cannot accomplish complex design outcomes, and that they are intrinsically random. Detailed modern genetics has, to the contrary, discovered that organisms have evolved mechanisms to evolve rapidly in a quasi-directed fashion. Sexual reproduction is one of these, and Mobile DNAs are another. ( See DNA and molecular evolution.)

The human immune system is a good illustration of the design capabilities of such genetic mechanisms. The creation of highly adapted antibodies that neutralise poisons and pathogens to which the body has never been previously exposed occurs by such natural selection events occurring in rapidly evolving cells of the immune system ( see Clonal Selection Theory of Acquired Immunity. Conversely pathogens use equally powerful genetic strategies ( such as sets of alternative genes for related structures) to evolve rapidly and to deftly switch their antigenic features so as to evade the immune system.

The power of such quasi-intelligent systems is recognised by artificial intelligence engineers when they create software that exploits a genetic algorithm.

Could the flagellum have evolved by natural selection?

Critics of intelligent design argue that the idea that every piece of any biological machine must be assembled in its final form before anything useful can emerge is wrong. Evolution produces complex biochemical machines by copying, modifying, and combining proteins that were previously used for other functions. For example, Michael Behe argues that if you remove almost any of its parts, the bacterial flagellum does not work. However, it is argued by evolutionary theorists that many features of organisms evolved to fit one function and were then adapted through natural selection to fulfill a different function. By this view, natural selection is not a single path, but a multiply branching path with many dead ends, with many branching points where genes were duplicated, and with many changes of direction where the 'destination' changed. In other words, critics argue that the proponents of intelligent design misrepresent or misunderstand the processes involved in natural selection.

In particular, the flagellum is a structure that allows bacteria to move: 30 to 40 different proteins may be required in a particular arrangement for the flagellum to work, and it is argued by proponents of Intelligent design that a flagellum is useless if it won't move, needs all its parts to function, and that it is difficult to conceive that it arose by successive gradual mutations.

Flagella are modular devices and the modules serve other functions

Flagella are modular devices, that exist in thousands, if not millions of different versions in nature. Many of these versions lack many of the components deemed by Intelligent design to be irreplaceable (for example in Gram positive bacteria the P- and L-rings present in the flagella of Gram negative bacteria are missing. Many different radical variations of flagella design occur, some rotate in two directions, others only in one. All flagella include modular, fully functional subcomponents called T3SS that are devices widely used by bacteria for secretion of proteins. This T3SS submodule is used to assemble the flagella, but it also is used to secrete other molecules from the cell. There are also versions of flagella that are defective in providing motility, but which have a distinct functional role in infection (eg in the pathogen Brucella melitensis)- evidence that flagellum related components have useful biological functions apart from movement.

Additionally, there is evidence that the flagellum structure arose from structurally simpler parental structures by gene duplication and further evolution, a common mechanism of gene evolution. Thus when the similarities among the different flagellum protein components are examined it appears that the flagellum proteins evolved from just two precursors (a proto-flagellin and a proto-rod/hook protein) by multiple rounds of gene duplication and diversification.

Relatives of some flagellum proteins are used in other bacterial structures. A protein similar to flagellum component FlgA is used in assembly of Type IV pili surface appendages superficially like flagella but having no necessary role in movement. Flagellum protein FlgJ contains a region that digests the rigid bacterial cell wall during flagellum insertion through the wall, and many similar bacterial proteins do other tasks.

In summary, many of the components of the flagellum are used by bacteria for other functions, such as for injecting poisons into other cells and enabling infections of animals, and they are not irreducibly complex. Accordingly, biologists believe it is likely that different elements of the flagellum evolved separately to fulfill other functions such as secretion or adherence to surfaces in ancestral organisms, and that motility arose relatively late in evolution, once many of the elements used in the flagellum were already in place for other reasons. The modularity of flagella is not surprising. There are diverse complex surface structures in bacteria (such as pili, secretion systems, and conjugation machinery ). Modular adaption and mixing and matching of system sub-components to serve several roles such as secretion, uptake, protein of DNA injection or twitching motility is a richly documented general rule. This general rule provides evolutionary explanations of biodiversity.

Unconstitutionality of teaching Intelligent design in US state schools

Similar reasoning about flagella to that just given was presented in the 2006 Kitzmiller versus Dover trial in Pennsylvania. The findings of the trial Judge John E. Jones III were that it is "... abundantly clear the board's intelligent design' (ID) policy violates the establishment clause. In making this determination, 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". This court ruling demonstrated that teaching of Intelligent design in American state schools is unconstitutional, as it violates the 'establishment clause' of the First Amendment of the US Constitution stating that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'.

Bibliography

• Simon Coleman and Leslie Carlin, eds. The Cultures of Creationism: Anti-Evolution in English-Speaking Countries (2004) online review
• Lienesch, Michael In the Beginning: Fundamentalism, the Scopes Trial, and the Making of the Antievolution Movement (2007)
• Numbers, Ronald L. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (2nd ed 2006)

See also

• Creationism
• Intelligent design movement
• Design argument for the existence of God
• Evolution

External links

• Intelligent Design? A special report reprinted from Natural History magazine. Three proponents of intelligent design present their views. Each view is followed by a response from a proponent of evolution.
• Coyne, Jerry, Don't know much biology Edge (2007)