Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

John E. Jones III

2008-04-18T18:34:19Z

ErnieO:

[[Image:Judgejohnjones.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''John E. Jones III''' is an activist federal judge notable for ruling that [[Intelligent design]] is another name for creationism in the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]] case.<ref name="csmon">Grier , Peter and Josh Burek [http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1221/p01s01-ussc.html Banned in Biology Class: Intelligent Design] Christian Science Monitor</ref>

Judge Jones is a [[Republican in name only|Republican]] judge from [[Pennsylvania]], and was appointed by President [[George W. Bush]].<ref name="Cohn">Cohn, Robert A. [http://www.stljewishlight.com/news/325553899591448.php ''Judge explains 'intelligent design' ruling''] St. Louis Jewish Light January 1, 2008 </ref> One such case, the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]], was brought by the parents of 11 students from the Dover school district to remove [[Intelligent Design]] from district classrooms. Jones ruled that it should be removed, and this has sparked a controversy. [[Ann Coulter]] called Judge Jones a "hack."<ref name="Cohn"/>

==Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District ruling==

Legal scholars Jay D. Wexler and Arnold H. Loewy questioned Judge Jones's ruling. <ref name="casey">Luskin, Casey [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/03/kitzmiller_attorney_uses_harsh.html ''Kitzmiller Plaintiffs' Attorney Uses Ridicule and Harsh Rhetoric against Legal Scholars Who Question Judge Jones''] Evolution News March 16, 2007</ref>

In his ruling, Judge Jones cut and pasted (read: plagiarized) material from [[ACLU]] briefs.<ref name="moore">Moore, Art [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330 ''Judge copied ACLU in anti-intelligent design ruling''] World Net Daily</ref><ref name="west and DeWolf">West, John G. and David K. DeWolf (December 12, 2006) [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1186 ''A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with
Plaintiffs’ Proposed "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law"''] Discovery Institute.</ref><ref>Luskin, Casey (January 26, 2007) [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/a_response_to_darwinist_defend.html ''A Response to Darwinist Defenders of Judge Jones' Copying from the ACLU''] Evolution News</ref><ref>Judge Jones even copied a misspelling of Antony Flew [http://darkbuzz.com/2007-11.htm#2007-11-04+01:47:00+226]</ref> The Discovery Institute states that Judge Jones followed the ACLU and ignored contrary facts.<ref>Crowther, Robert (December 21, 2005)[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/judge_jones_follows_aclu_ignor.html ''Judge Jones Follows ACLU, Ignores Contrary Facts''] Evolution News</ref>

After the trial, Judge Jones ordered the school district to pay over $2 million in legal fees to the ACLU's side.

Jones later made statements making clear that he knew that he had engaged in [[judicial activism]] in the case.<ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html</ref>

== Dickinson College Commencement Address==
In December 2006, a Discovery Institute blogger suggested that Judge Jones plagiarized a scholar's book in his Dickinson College commencement speech and gave a comparison of the speech and the scholar's work.<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/did_judge_jones_plagiarize_sch.html Did Judge Jones Plagiarize Scholar's Book in Dickinson College Commencement Speech? (Robert Crowther, 2006)]</ref> The source is currently acknowledged in the online published text of the speech.<ref>[http://www.dickinson.edu/commencement/2006/address.html Judge John E. Jones, Commencement Address (Dickinson College, May 19-21, 2006). Accessed April 21, 2007.]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Political People]]
[[category:judicial activism]]

User talk:PASTORKOK3

2008-04-18T18:31:27Z

ErnieO: Signature

== Signature ==

I don't think you are supposed to sign articles. --[[User:ErnieO|ErnieO]] 14:31, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-18T18:23:50Z

ErnieO: /* Reception */

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a documentary charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[Theory of Evolution]].
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and set for release Friday, April 18, 2008.

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film cites several academic disputes to argue that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]] and a journal editor and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

Before the film opened, some critics trashed the movie using the same kind of illegitimate tactics which the movie describes. For example, ''Time'' said Stein misrepresented evolution as saying that the first cell "arose whole" from the primordial soup, which is unlikely as the movie website correctly acknowledges the evolutionary view that it took millions or billions of years for the first cell to be produced by random, natural processes. The ''Time'' reviewer, having put words in Stein's mouth, then claims that this supposed misrepresentation is a typical example, probably hoping that potential viewers will choose not to watch the movie. Actually, all it shows is that ''Time'' is so desperate to keep people fooled about the weaknesses of the theory of evolution that they will stoop to misquotation and character assassination.

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==Reception==

Predictably, complaints about the film from liberals have not addressed the film's premise. [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who were similarly "deceived" said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

The stridently pro-[[evolution]] science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

The rabidly pro-[[science]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticises the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and claims that the movie "seems to be the next step in sneaking ID into schools after the Kitzmiller vs Dover case saw the compulsory teaching of ID ruled unconstitutional in 2005".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

===Movie Reviews===

Tom Bethel wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]]:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

As described by the review in the ''[[New York Sun]]'', [[Richard Dawkins]] "becomes so flustered at one point that he even posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

Roger Friedman, a [[liberal]] who writes articles on the website for the [[Fox News Channel]] (as part of their ongoing goal to remain balanced), criticized the movie in a celebrity gossip column by personally attacking Ben Stein, and claiming that the movie's "warped premise" that "somehow the theory of evolution is so evil that it caused the [[Holocaust]]" is actually [[anti-Semitic]]:
{{QuoteBox|"Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein... is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck..... Who cares, really, if "Expelled" is anti-Semitic? It will come and go without much fanfare.<ref>Friedman, Roger, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html#2 Ben Stein:Win his career], 9th April, 2008, Fox News</ref>}}

Jeffrey Kluger's review in typically [[liberal]] [[Time Magazine|''Time'' Magazine]] puts words in Ben Stein's mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

Justin Chang wrote the following for the [[liberal]] publication ''Variety'', which has a smaller circulation than ''Conservapedia'''s daily page views:
{{QuoteBox|"...the film's flippant approach undermines the seriousness of its discourse, trading less in facts than in emotional appeals....the filmmakers' failure to offer even a working definition of [Intelligent Design] leaves them open to the common charge that it's all unprovable, faith-based pseudo-science....Even more offensive is the film's attempt to link Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas and Hitler's master-race ambitions (when in doubt, invoke the Holocaust)..."Expelled" is technically well-mounted, though its aesthetics trump its ideas at every turn. If evolution is worth debating, it's worth debating well, and by a more intelligently designed film than this one."<ref>Chang, Justin, [http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936783.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed], April 11th, 2008, Variety</ref>}}

==Alleged Copyright Violations==

On April 9, 2008, legal notice was sent to the producers of ''Expelled'' by the graphic firm XVIVO, LLC, alleging copyright infringement. The notice states that ''Expelled'' includes a segment depicting biological cellular activity that was copied by computer-generated means from a video entitled ''The Inner Life of a Cell''. XVIVO holds the copyright to all the models, processes, and depictions in ''The Inner Life of a Cell'', and had not authorized Premise Media or Rampant Films to make any use of the material. The notice threatens legal action if the producers of ''Expelled'' do not remove the allegedly infringing segment from all copies of the film prior to its scheduled commercial release on April 18, 2008. <ref> [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/EXPELLED-Letter.pdf] </ref>

The producers of ''Expelled'' responded with a lawsuit filed on April 14, 2008, seeking declaratory judgment that there is no copyright or other infringement. This lawsuit is currently unresolved.<ref>[http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080415/20080415006769.html?.v=1] EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed Producers File Lawsuit and Expose Other Efforts to Suppress Free Speech</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed] at the [[IMDB|Internet Movie Database]]
*[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508 Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom] by Barbara Bradley Hagerty at NPR.com

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-18T18:21:32Z

ErnieO: /* Reception */

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a documentary charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[Theory of Evolution]].
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and set for release Friday, April 18, 2008.

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film cites several academic disputes to argue that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]] and a journal editor and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

Before the film opened, some critics trashed the movie using the same kind of illegitimate tactics which the movie describes. For example, ''Time'' said Stein misrepresented evolution as saying that the first cell "arose whole" from the primordial soup, which is unlikely as the movie website correctly acknowledges the evolutionary view that it took millions or billions of years for the first cell to be produced by random, natural processes. The ''Time'' reviewer, having put words in Stein's mouth, then claims that this supposed misrepresentation is a typical example, probably hoping that potential viewers will choose not to watch the movie. Actually, all it shows is that ''Time'' is so desperate to keep people fooled about the weaknesses of the theory of evolution that they will stoop to misquotation and character assassination.

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==Reception==

Predictably, complaints about the film from liberals have not addressed the film's premise. [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who were similarly "deceived" said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

The stridently pro-[[evolution]] science magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

The rabidly pro-[[science]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard Michael Moore flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticises the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and claims that the movie "seems to be the next step in sneaking ID into schools after the Kitzmiller vs Dover case saw the compulsory teaching of ID ruled unconstitutional in 2005".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

===Movie Reviews===

Tom Bethel wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]]:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

As described by the review in the ''[[New York Sun]]'', [[Richard Dawkins]] "becomes so flustered at one point that he even posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

Roger Friedman, a [[liberal]] who writes articles on the website for the [[Fox News Channel]] (as part of their ongoing goal to remain balanced), criticized the movie in a celebrity gossip column by personally attacking Ben Stein, and claiming that the movie's "warped premise" that "somehow the theory of evolution is so evil that it caused the [[Holocaust]]" is actually [[anti-Semitic]]:
{{QuoteBox|"Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein... is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck..... Who cares, really, if "Expelled" is anti-Semitic? It will come and go without much fanfare.<ref>Friedman, Roger, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html#2 Ben Stein:Win his career], 9th April, 2008, Fox News</ref>}}

Jeffrey Kluger's review in typically [[liberal]] [[Time Magazine|''Time'' Magazine]] puts words in Ben Stein's mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

Justin Chang wrote the following for the [[liberal]] publication ''Variety'', which has a smaller circulation than ''Conservapedia'''s daily page views:
{{QuoteBox|"...the film's flippant approach undermines the seriousness of its discourse, trading less in facts than in emotional appeals....the filmmakers' failure to offer even a working definition of [Intelligent Design] leaves them open to the common charge that it's all unprovable, faith-based pseudo-science....Even more offensive is the film's attempt to link Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas and Hitler's master-race ambitions (when in doubt, invoke the Holocaust)..."Expelled" is technically well-mounted, though its aesthetics trump its ideas at every turn. If evolution is worth debating, it's worth debating well, and by a more intelligently designed film than this one."<ref>Chang, Justin, [http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936783.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed], April 11th, 2008, Variety</ref>}}

==Alleged Copyright Violations==

On April 9, 2008, legal notice was sent to the producers of ''Expelled'' by the graphic firm XVIVO, LLC, alleging copyright infringement. The notice states that ''Expelled'' includes a segment depicting biological cellular activity that was copied by computer-generated means from a video entitled ''The Inner Life of a Cell''. XVIVO holds the copyright to all the models, processes, and depictions in ''The Inner Life of a Cell'', and had not authorized Premise Media or Rampant Films to make any use of the material. The notice threatens legal action if the producers of ''Expelled'' do not remove the allegedly infringing segment from all copies of the film prior to its scheduled commercial release on April 18, 2008. <ref> [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/EXPELLED-Letter.pdf] </ref>

The producers of ''Expelled'' responded with a lawsuit filed on April 14, 2008, seeking declaratory judgment that there is no copyright or other infringement. This lawsuit is currently unresolved.<ref>[http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080415/20080415006769.html?.v=1] EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed Producers File Lawsuit and Expose Other Efforts to Suppress Free Speech</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/ Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed] at the [[IMDB|Internet Movie Database]]
*[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508 Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom] by Barbara Bradley Hagerty at NPR.com

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]