Intelligent Design: A Bibliography

by Luke Muehlhauser on December 5, 2009 in Design Argument,Intelligent Design,Resources

dna art

Please comment with suggestions and additions. I will keep this page updated. This bibliography is not interested in the debate about science education, but about the epistemic merits of intelligent design theory. Also, in brackets I’ve labeled whether the author is mostly supportive or critical of intelligent design theory.

Also see the Discovery Institute’s Peer-Reviewed and Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design.

Ordered by publication date. Use Ctrl+F to search by name or title.

What am I missing?

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 60 comments… read them below or add one }

Aeiluindae December 5, 2009 at 7:31 am

I’ve got one additional suggestion. The Language of God, by Francis Collins. The author, who was the head of the Human Genome Project, supports a specific type of intelligent design that is intended to be fully compatible with our current knowledge of biology.

  (Quote)

Bradm December 5, 2009 at 7:32 am

You really should include Ratzsch’s entire book Nature, Design, and Science, not just the appendix. It is probably one of the better books on design and science that you will find.

  (Quote)

Charles December 5, 2009 at 7:48 am

Collins advocates “theistic evolution”, not ID. Aren’t these different?

  (Quote)

Lorkas December 5, 2009 at 7:51 am

Charles: Collins advocates “theistic evolution”, not ID. Aren’t these different?  

Yes. Both are unsupported by empirical evidence, but at least TE doesn’t contradict the known evidence.

  (Quote)

Briang December 5, 2009 at 7:54 am

What about Behe’s paper in the journal “Protein Science”? There was also a paper critical of Behe in the same journal, as well as a final response by Behe. I don’t know the exact reference off hand, but I can look them up later if you want.

  (Quote)

Briang December 5, 2009 at 8:08 am

Charles: Collins advocates “theistic evolution”, not ID. Aren’t these different?  

I think that the problem is that the ID side isn’t all arguing for the same thing. One side seems closer to an old earth special creation, God created basic kinds independently, and then they evolved from there. Others, like Behe, accept common descent, and suggest that maybe God created the first cell. Still others have God merely designing the laws of nature.

This creates a bit of a problem for us theists. If we say that we accept “intelligent design” it could be interpreted as saying that we are rejecting evolution and accepting a watered down version of creationism. If we say we reject intelligent design, it could be taken to mean that we don’t think that God had any part in the creation of the universe — a position which would be problematic not just for Christians, but deists and other forms of theism as well.

  (Quote)

Wesley R. Elsberry December 5, 2009 at 8:16 am

Wilkins, John S, and Wesley R Elsberry. 2001. The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance. Biology and Philosophy 16 (November):711-724.

Unedited online version at

http://talkdesign.org/cs/theft_over_toil

I’m not sure what you are trying to do with the tags, but I’m not an atheist. I strongly criticize religious antievolution arguments because it seems to me that they are rife with error. I have co-authored work with those who would be comfortable being noted as atheists, though, including one of the entries already listed above. There’s a fair amount of criticism of the “intelligent design” creationism arguments that is done by theists, including myself, Ken Miller (“Finding Darwin’s God”), Rob Pennock (“Tower of Babel”), and many others. So I would suggest “critical” as the sole tag for ones that I’m an author on.

  (Quote)

Badger3k December 5, 2009 at 8:19 am

“What am I missing?”

The fact that there are no epistemic (or any other kind of) merits to ID?

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 5, 2009 at 8:39 am

Thanks for your additions, all!

  (Quote)

Kris December 5, 2009 at 8:54 am

The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism
by Niles Eldredge (2000)

And doesn’t The God Delusion by Dawkins talk about intelligent design?

  (Quote)

Stallion December 5, 2009 at 9:17 am

You could throw this one under “critical”: Why Intelligent Design Fails

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Intelligent-Design-Fails-Creationism/dp/081353433X

  (Quote)

Justfinethanks December 5, 2009 at 9:19 am

One of the best Critiques of ID I’ve ever read is “Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism.” The third essay “Common Descent: It’s all Or Nothing” is worth the price of admission alone.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Intelligent-Design-Fails-Creationism/dp/081353433X

I also don’t think I saw “Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design.” That book more deals with the religious and cultural goals of the Intelligent Design movement, as exposed by the “Wedge Document.”

It isn’t quite as good as “Why Intelligent Design Fails,” but I suppose you should include “Intelligent Thought: Science versus Intelligent Design,” which is another collection of essays (which include prominent names like Jerry Conye and Daniel Dennett)

I haven’t read it, but “Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design” would probably make a good addition to the list.

  (Quote)

Briang December 5, 2009 at 9:23 am

Wesley R. Elsberry: Wilkins, John S, and Wesley R Elsberry. 2001. The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance. Biology and Philosophy 16 (November):711-724.Unedited online version athttp://talkdesign.org/cs/theft_over_toilI’m not sure what you are trying to do with the tags, but I’m not an atheist. I strongly criticize religious antievolution arguments because it seems to me that they are rife with error. I have co-authored work with those who would be comfortable being noted as atheists, though, including one of the entries already listed above. There’s a fair amount of criticism of the “intelligent design” creationism arguments that is done by theists, including myself, Ken Miller (”Finding Darwin’s God”),Rob Pennock (”Tower of Babel”), and many others. So I would suggest “critical” as the sole tag for ones that I’m an author on.  

As you point out, there are a number of theists who are critical of intelligent design. I think it would be helpful to know whether someone is a critical theist or a critical atheist. If the author position is unknown, that can be expressed. If the book is written by several authors with different views that can be noted as well.

  (Quote)

Justfinethanks December 5, 2009 at 9:25 am

I almost forgot. Earlier this year, this was this fantastic paper that shot down the idea that “molecular machines” cannot conceivably come about is gradual steps: “The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/08/25/0908264106.abstract

  (Quote)

Alex December 5, 2009 at 9:36 am

Two suggestions:

Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics (edited by Bob Pennock)

Doubting Darwin? Creationist Designs on Evolution (Sahotra Sarkar)

Pennock’s edited volume has lots of essays from different perspectives. And Sarkar’s book is just excellent.

  (Quote)

Reginald Selkirk December 5, 2009 at 9:36 am

Also see the Discovery Institute’s Peer-Reviewed and Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design.

Please do. While you’re there, take note of how many of the listed publications are not scientific publications (e.g. articles from philosophical or religious journals) and how many of them are not peer-reviewed (such as popular books).

If you need tips on how to pad a resume, you might also notice:
* Publications listed as peer-reviewed which are not.
* Publications listed twice; once as ‘highlighted” work and again in the complete listing.
* Publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals which are not in the area of speciality of the journal (e.g. a paper on population genetics in a journal which specializes in protein chemistry and structure).
* A book listed, and separate chapters from that book also listed.
* Publications whose editorial treatment and peer-review are questionable, and have been disavowed by the journal’s board.
* Works of open Christian apologetics by the likes of William Lane Craig, despite the Discovery Institute’s pretense that ID has nothing to do with religion.
* Add up all the publications, questionable or not, and compare it to a literature search about some questionable area of science such as cold fusion.

  (Quote)

Justfinethanks December 5, 2009 at 9:38 am

Also there are two great books by Robert Pennock ” “Intelligent Design Creationism and it’s Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and scientific perspectives,” which has both supportive and critical essays (including an essay by Plantiga).

And also: “Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism”

Also, when creationists talk about the book that “opened their eyes” to the problems of evolution, they almost invariably cite Phillip Johnson’s “Darwin On Trial” and Michael Denton’s 1985 book “Evolution: A Theory In Crisis.” (The latter can be seen in William Lane Craig’s hand on the front page of his Reasonable Faith website in the picture where he is standing at the podium)

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 5, 2009 at 9:52 am

Thanks again, everyone!

  (Quote)

Summa December 5, 2009 at 10:08 am

I highly recommend “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.”

The author, Francis Collins, is not merely the head of the Human Genome Project; he is a former self-described “obnoxious atheist,” one of the greatest genetic scientists the world will ever know, has a Yale Ph.D in Physical Chemistry (and an M.D. from UNC), and heads the BioLogos foundation, whose brilliant THEISTIC EVOLUTION theory is turning a whole lot of heads in the science community.

Oh but wait, this is an atheist website. Collins is a Christian so he must be an ignorant, superstitious, loony tune who worships a sado masochistic beast God who tortures his offspring with hellfire for all eternity out of love! Sigh. Has to be tough for the atheists to see science giants like Collins and McGrath changes teams. If I were atheist, I would at least want to dig in and find out what makes a man 5000x times my scientific, naturalistic, and intellectual superior want to abandon my atheistic religion and go praise God. Then again, as another former atheist-turned-apologist-theologian noted, “An atheist can not be too careful of his reading choices.” Amen to that.

Also, if you’re going to include the God Delusion, you must also be fair and list the Dawkins Delusion.

From Wikipedia: In reviewing The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine by Alister McGrath, Dr. Francis Collins says “Addressing the conclusions of The God Delusion point by point with the devastating insight of a molecular biologist turned theologian, Alister McGrath dismantles the argument that science should lead to atheism, and demonstrates instead that Dawkins has abandoned his much-cherished rationality to embrace an embittered manifesto of dogmatic atheist fundamentalism.”

Also, I highly recommend avoiding books with oxymoronic titles like: “Simple evolutionary pathways to complex proteins.” Compare: “Learn Astrophysics in 24 Hours.” Just tryin to keep it real dudes. w00t!

Also, add a movie: EXPELLED, NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED. If you can watch that movie and stay an atheist, you will have made a narrow escape.

  (Quote)

Reginald Selkirk December 5, 2009 at 10:17 am

Summa: one of the greatest genetic scientists the world will ever know

It’s amazing how believe in God inflates one credentials.

  (Quote)

Reginald Selkirk December 5, 2009 at 10:19 am

Summa: Has to be tough for the atheists to see science giants like Collins and McGrath changes teams.

Which McGrath would that be, Alister E.? What has he accomplished which would have you characterize him as a “science great”?

  (Quote)

Reginald Selkirk December 5, 2009 at 10:22 am

Summa: Also, if you’re going to include the God Delusion, you must also be fair and list the Dawkins Delusion.

Why would that be “fair” when the point of the exercise is to list works on Intelligent Design? The Dawkins Delusion attempts to challenge The God Delusion on theology, not on intelligent design.

  (Quote)

Charles December 5, 2009 at 10:26 am

Didn’t realize you were including works that were critical. In that case, you should add,

“Can a Darwinian be a Christian?: The Relationship between Science and Religion” by Michael Ruse, 2000. [critical]

http://www.amazon.com/Can-Darwinian-Christian-Relationship-Religion/dp/0521631440

  (Quote)

Reginald Selkirk December 5, 2009 at 10:35 am

Summa: Also, add a movie: EXPELLED, NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED. If you can watch that movie and stay an atheist, you will have made a narrow escape.

Is Summa a Poe? If you can watch Expelled and not lose your lunch, you will have made a narrow escape.

  (Quote)

Omgredxface December 5, 2009 at 10:44 am

At the risk of beating a dead horse…“Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism.” is a GREAT time sink if your interested in the subject at all.

Summa…Thanks for the reference’s, but whats with the unnecessary sarcasm?

  (Quote)

majinrevan666 December 5, 2009 at 10:48 am

There has been a debate recently on the origins of life
between Stephen Meyer and Michael Shermer that can be
downloaded here:

http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009/12/origins-of-life-debate-mp3-audio-meyer.html

  (Quote)

Jeff H December 5, 2009 at 10:52 am

Summa: Also, add a movie: EXPELLED, NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED. If you can watch that movie and stay an atheist, you will have made a narrow escape.  

LOL! That’s hilarious. I actually watched this movie again last night, coincidentally enough. I was hanging out with a bunch of my atheist friends and we decided that a good comedy would be nice to watch. Expelled seemed like a natural choice.

  (Quote)

Evan December 5, 2009 at 11:34 am
Anthony December 5, 2009 at 11:40 am

Luke,

Here is a list of several more that you may want to consider adding.

Mark Perakh, Unintelligent Design [critical]

Intelligent Design: William Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue, edited by Robert B. Stewart [support and critical]

Steve Fuller, Dissent Over Descent: Intelligent Design’s Challenge to Darwinism [supportive]

God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory by Niall Shanks [critical]

Intelligent Design: Science or Religion? Critical Perspectives edited by Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum [critical]

  (Quote)

Fortuna December 5, 2009 at 1:21 pm

Summa;

Has to be tough for the atheists to see science giants like Collins and McGrath changes teams. If I were atheist, I would at least want to dig in and find out what makes a man 5000x times my scientific, naturalistic, and intellectual superior want to abandon my atheistic religion and go praise God.

It’s not a secret. We’ve all heard their reasons, and been profoundly unimpressed. That’s one of the things your team just seems perpetually unable to assimilate; it doesn’t matter how smart the person is, or what their credentials are. What matters is what kind of arguments they can muster for their beliefs, and they are never good ones.

  (Quote)

John D December 5, 2009 at 3:14 pm

Summa: Has to be tough for the atheists to see science giants like Collins and McGrath changes teams.

WTF? Collins did some neat stuff in medical genetics. But most of his public acclaim comes from administrative work. McGrath, on the other hand, switched to theology immediately after his PhD.

  (Quote)

Scott December 5, 2009 at 4:18 pm

What about the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling? It deals specifically with the issue of teaching ID in science classes. Fascinating story – a modern-day Scopes trial. The judge’s entire ruling is free online: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Also, NOVA made an excellent, fair, award-winning documentary about it. It, too, is free online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

For lighter fare, there’s the excellent Spencer Tracy film “Inherit the Wind”, a dramatization of the Scopes Trial. Not really ID, but an interesting look at how much these debates repeat themselves.

For a thorough list of ID material, pro- & con-, there’s always wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_on_intelligent_design

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 5, 2009 at 6:49 pm

I’d like to remind people that this bibliography isn’t interested in whether ID is science or whether it should be taught in schools.

  (Quote)

Anonymous December 5, 2009 at 10:22 pm

Two papers by Lydia McGrew:

http://www.lydiamcgrew.com/PhiloTestability.pdf,

and

http://www.lydiamcgrew.com/PhilChristiLikelihoods.pdf.

The first was published in _Philo_ and the second in _Philosophia Christi_.

  (Quote)

Anonymous December 5, 2009 at 10:30 pm

I don’t know if you want magazine articles, but these two by H. Allen Orr have been discussed a bit in the literature.

http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html

http://bostonreview.net/BR27.3/orr.html

  (Quote)

Hansen December 5, 2009 at 10:52 pm

lukeprog: I’d like to remind people that this bibliography isn’t interested in whether ID is science or whether it should be taught in schools.  

I don’t quite understand that. Showing that ID isn’t science goes right to the core of whether it has any “epistemic merit”.

  (Quote)

Anonymous December 5, 2009 at 10:53 pm

Robin Collins’ article in _A Reason for the Hope Within_ is here:

http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/FINETLAY.HTM.

And he has a few others here:

http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/ft.htm.

  (Quote)

Justfinethanks December 5, 2009 at 11:10 pm

I don’t quite understand that. Showing that ID isn’t science goes right to the core of whether it has any “epistemic merit”.

I found this exclusion to be a bit confusing as well. Especially since Luke has already included articles that deal with the “Is ID science?” question. For example, the 2007 article “What is wrong with intelligent design?” which you provide argues that ID isn’t science on the basis of not being falsifiable.

  (Quote)

Reginald Selkirk December 6, 2009 at 10:20 am

  (Quote)

Reginald Selkirk December 6, 2009 at 10:45 am

Justfinethanks: Also, when creationists talk about the book that “opened their eyes” to the problems of evolution, they almost invariably cite Phillip Johnson’s “Darwin On Trial” and Michael Denton’s 1985 book “Evolution: A Theory In Crisis.”

Michael Behe is one of those who states that Denton’s book was opened his eyes (as reported in Edward Humes’ book Monkey Girl, about the Dover trial). having read Denton’s book myself, I hereby state that if Behe found it convincing, that is an indictment of his competence.

  (Quote)

Reginald Selkirk December 6, 2009 at 10:47 am

Of Pandas and People, by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon (Haughton Publishing Co. 1989)

  (Quote)

Reginald Selkirk December 6, 2009 at 10:51 am
Reginald Selkirk December 6, 2009 at 11:04 am

Natural Theology by William Paley. (Originally published 1802)

The Bridgewater Treatises On the Power Wisdom and Goodness of God As Manifested in the Creation (various authors) (approx 1830s)

  (Quote)

Reginald Selkirk December 6, 2009 at 11:08 am

The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name
by Jerry Coyne (2005)

Best essay-length summary I have seen of the evidence for evolution and explanation of why ID is not science

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 6, 2009 at 5:10 pm

Anonymous,

I don’t want magazine articles. But I love the McGrews; I can’t believe I forgot about those papers by Lydia!

I’m drawing a very fuzzy line between literature on design arguments in general and arguments associated with the term ‘intelligent design.’ I think I’ll only list the first one here.

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 6, 2009 at 5:22 pm

Reginald,

Yet another excellent link! Keep ‘em coming!

  (Quote)

Wellington December 7, 2009 at 2:26 am

The Design Matrix by Mike Gene

The author(Mike Gene is a pen name)is a proponent of front-loaded evolution.

Here’s his website:
http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/

He gives a helpful summary of his position on evolution and design here:
http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/ways-to-approach-a-design-inference/

I apologize if someone mentioned this one already.

  (Quote)

Dave December 7, 2009 at 8:03 am

Lurquin, P.F., and L. Stone. Evolution and Religious Creation Myths: How Scientists Respond, Oxford U. Press 2007

Foster, J.B., B. Clark and R. York. Critique of Intelligent Design: Materialism versus Creationism from Antiquity to the Present, Monthly Review Press 2008

Attridge, H.W. (ed), The Religion and Science Debate: Why does it continue?, Yale University Press, 2009

Ayala, F.J. Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion, Joseph Henry Press 2007

Bray, D. Wetware: A computer in every living cell. Yale University Press 2009

Rothman, S. Life Beyond Molecules and Genes: How our adaptations make us alive. Templeton Press 2009

  (Quote)

brgulker December 7, 2009 at 8:25 am

Luke (and others who’ve added to the bibliography),

Thank you so much! This is extraordinarily helpful.

  (Quote)

Alex December 8, 2009 at 12:11 am

Michael Lynch’s paper was a response to a previous paper by Behe & Snoke: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2286568/?tool=pubmed

But depending on what your purposes for this biography are, these may or may not be appropriate. They’re highly technical biochemistry papers.

  (Quote)

Reginald Selkirk December 8, 2009 at 6:17 am

Alex: But depending on what your purposes for this biography are, these may or may not be appropriate. They’re highly technical biochemistry papers.

Actually, no. Behe & Snoke and Lynch are papers on population genetics, not biochemistry. Thus my earlier comment about the inappropriateness of Behe & Snoke appearing in the journal Protein Science, which specializes in protein chemistry and structure.

  (Quote)

Alex December 8, 2009 at 7:30 am

Yup, thanks for correcting.

  (Quote)

majinrevan666 December 9, 2009 at 12:36 pm

I haven’t read it, but “Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves” seems like a very interesting
ID esque book.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Us-Science-Rediscovered-Ourselves/dp/0007120281/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

  (Quote)

danielg December 11, 2009 at 12:20 am

Supportive:

- Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability: A Call to Scientific Integrity (2009)
- Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (2008)
- Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design by Thomas Woodward (2007)
- Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design by Thomas Woodward and William Dembski (2006)
- The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories by Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, and Dean H. Kenyon (1984/1992)

Also, listen to the short podcast Intelligent Design Turns 25, which is where i got these from.

He also argues against the rhetorical weakness of the dys-teleological argument (bad design proves there is no God), as well as the old hack that ID as an idea was created after the 1987 case that barred Creationism from schools (see 1984 book above)

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 11, 2009 at 12:09 pm

danielg,

Sorry, those works don’t really look like the kind of thing I’m including on this list. Maybe the Genetic Entropy one.

  (Quote)

sparc December 24, 2009 at 10:11 pm

Reviews of quite some pro- and anti-ID books can be found on Gert Korthoff’s web pages (wasdarwinwrong.com).

  (Quote)

nate April 10, 2010 at 6:47 am

no kenneth miller? in recent years he may be the most influential critic.

you need “finding darwin’s god” and “only a theory”.

like others, i also don’t get your comment about not being interested in writings criticizing ID for not being science.
the primary thrust of many writings critical of ID is two pronged, evolutionary theory offers a superior explanation, and ID isn’t science…just spiffed up creationism.

  (Quote)

nate April 10, 2010 at 7:55 am

upon reflection, and considering your site’s content, i should have realized you would be more interested in the philosophical aspects of the issue and not the “science”. however, w/o any empirical evidence to support IC how is the philosophical position even relevant? metaphysical musings that do not correspond w/ the observed natural world are of no pragmatic value. of course, one could hold that the designer designed life w/ the appearance of having evolved(or even used evolution as the creative process), but isn’t this a bit superfluous?

  (Quote)

EJL May 20, 2010 at 2:49 am

The Mystery remains despite the efforts of time’s greatest minds.

The gods of human design all find their origins in the human need to define the mystery that each is aware that somehow resides within them. Putting a familiar face to a mystery makes it easier to speculate on.

Speculation only becomes our truths when we give up on the search for the real truth and settle on blind faith instead.

The actual truth about our realities is a much more difficult thing to accept. Self is a delusion created by misunderstanding and settling.

  (Quote)

Justfinethanks June 10, 2010 at 9:20 am

The newest issue of the journal Foundations of Science has an article about Intelligent Design and Methodological Naturalism which argues:

“Evolutionary scientists are on firmer ground if they discard supernatural explanations on purely evidential grounds, instead of ruling them out by philosophical fiat.”

https://biblio.ugent.be/input/download?func=downloadFile&fileOId=969613

Money quote:

“Supernatural claims do not fall beyond the reach of science; they have simply failed.”

  (Quote)

Leave a Comment