Timeline of Intelligent Design - Creationism - The ID Movement Begins

The ID Movement Begins

• 1984 book The Mystery of Life's Origin by Charles Thaxton and others, foreword by Kenyon, argues for 'a profoundly informative intervention' by an intelligent cause, "the authors conclude that while design can be detected in biology, science cannot determine from this evidence whether the design was from a creator outside the cosmos." Barbara Forrest describes this as the beginning of the ID movement.
• 1984 Kenyon's affidavit for what becomes Edwards v. Aguillard gives Definitions "Creation-science means origin through abrupt appearance in complex form, and includes biological creation, biochemical creation (or chemical creation), and cosmic creation.", "Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts." Statements included "The creationist scientific conclusion is that empirical data currently in hand demand the inference that the first living organisms were created." and "The origin of printed texts, manufactured devices, and biomolecular systems require intelligent design and engineering knowhow (Wilder-Smith 1970). In each case the characteristic order of the system must be impressed on matter 'from the outside.'" It claims creation and evolution the only scientific explanations of life — what Forrest calls "the dual model".

This is later described by the DI's Witt as "There Kenyon described a science open to intelligent causes but one free of religious presuppositions or assertions about the identity of the designer. He described how he did origins science, how a science open to intelligent causes ought to be done." Witt claims that this is a different creation science from Young Earth Creationism (YEC).

• 1985 District Court "Aguillard v. Treen" held that there can be no valid secular reason for prohibiting the teaching of evolution, a theory historically opposed by some religious denominations. The court further concluded that "the teaching of 'creation-science' and 'creationism,' as contemplated by the statute, involves teaching 'tailored to the principles' of a particular religious sect or group of sects." (citing Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)). The District Court therefore held that the Creationism Act violated the Establishment Clause either because it prohibited the teaching of evolution or because it required the teaching of creation science with the purpose of advancing a particular religious doctrine. The court of Appeals affirmed.

DI's Witt claims that "In Edwards, the Court found Louisiana's act entailed the teaching of religion by virtue of a specific religious construction, comprised of particular teachings clearly paralleling the 'Book of Genesis. Thus, it was a specific set of teachings or doctrines from a religious source that constituted religion." and so didn't apply to Kenyon's definition of the term "creation science".

• 1985 Michael Denton's book: Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Prominent figures in ID credit his critical examination of Darwinism with their change of view (Behe, Johnson).
• 1986 FTE copyrighted draft entitled Biology and Creation by Kenyon & Davis. (note Charles Thaxton academic editor, not clear from when)
• Autumn 1986 FTE, under the name of "Austin Analytic Consulting", carried out survey of 300 high-school science teachers to show potential mainline publishers that a market existed for a supplementary textbook to "balance" evolution teaching in class.
• 1987 FTE copyrighted draft entitled Biology and Origins by Kenyon & Davis.
• 1987 FTE's founder Jon Buell sought a publisher for the book, telling a Boston firm "A new independent scientific poll (report enclosed) shows almost half of the nation's biology teachers include some creation in their view of biological origins. Many more who don't still believe it should be included in science curriculum.... The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals says that teachers are free to teach scientific information that happens to support creation if they wish. In ruling on the so-called Louisiana "Balanced Treatment Act" this Spring the U.S. Supreme Court may not affirm state-mandated teaching of creation, but they will almost certainly let stand the above academic freedom for teachers." "The enclosed projections showing revenues of Over 6.5 million in five years are based upon modest expectations for the market provided the U.S Supreme Court does not uphold the Louisiana "Balanced Act". If, by chance it should uphold it, then you can throw out these projections, the nationwide market would be explosive!" "the book will not be subject to the major criticism of creation, that the supernatural lies outside of science, because its central statement is that scientific evidence points to an intelligent cause, but that science is silent as to whether that intelligence is within or beyond the material universe. So the book is not appealing to the supernatural."