common descent | Page 2 | Discovery Institute

Art Deco ceiling of the National Academy of Sciences by Hildreth Meiere.

^{Casey Luskin
January 15, 2008
Intelligent Design}

The Facts about Intelligent Design

_{Casey Luskin
January 15, 2008
Intelligent Design}

A 1982 poll found that only 9% of Americans believed that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes. Two years later, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued its first Science and Creationism booklet, stating that science and religion occupy "separate and mutually exclusive realms." ¹Public skepticism of evolution remained high — a 1993 poll found that only 11% of Americans believed that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes.

On Open Minded Research

_{Jonathan Wells
March 1, 2001
Intelligent Design}

Some critics have accused Jonathan Wells of being biased in pursuing his Ph.D. in biology from the University of California at Berkeley. As a result, these critics charge, his arguments against Darwinism are false and should not be seriously considered. Read More ›

^{Multiple Authors
May 2, 1993
Uncategorized}

Homology:

_{Multiple Authors
May 2, 1993
Uncategorized}

Before Darwin, homology was defined morphologically and explained by reference to ideal archetypes -- that is, to intelligent design. Darwin reformulated biology in naturalistic* rather than teleological terms, and explained homology as the result of descent with modification from a common ancestor. Descent with modification, however, renders design unnecessary only if it is due entirely tonaturalistic mechanisms. Two such mechanisms have been proposed, genetic programs and developmental pathways, but neither one fits the evidence. Without an empirically demonstrated naturalistic mechanism to account for homology, design remains a possibility which can only be excluded on the basis of questionable philosophical assumptions. * In this article, "naturalism" and "naturalistic" refer to the philosophical doctrine that nature is the whole of reality, and that intelligent causation does not qualify as a scientific explanation. Read More ›