<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article
  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.2 20120330//EN" "http://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.2/JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"
         xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
         article-type="research-article"
         dtd-version="1.2"
         xml:lang="en">
   <front>
      <journal-meta>
         <journal-id>ZYGO</journal-id>
         <journal-title-group>
            <journal-title>Zygon®</journal-title>
            <abbrev-journal-title/>
         </journal-title-group>
         <issn pub-type="print">0591-2385</issn>
         <issn pub-type="electronic">1467-9744</issn>
      </journal-meta>
      <article-meta>
         <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/1467-9744.00406</article-id>
         <title-group>
            <article-title>The Intelligent‐Design Movement: Science or Ideology?</article-title>
         </title-group>
         <contrib-group>
            <contrib contrib-type="author">
               <name name-style="western">
                  <surname>Peterson</surname>
                  <given-names>Gregory R.</given-names>
               </name>
            </contrib>
         </contrib-group>
         <aff id="a1"/>
         <pub-date publication-format="electronic" iso-8601-date="2002-03-02">
            <day>02</day>
            <month>03</month>
            <year>2002</year>
         </pub-date>
         <volume>37</volume>
         <issue>1</issue>
         <issue-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/zygo.2002.37.issue-1</issue-id>
         <fpage>7</fpage>
         <lpage>23</lpage>
         <permissions>
            <copyright-statement>2002 by the Joint Publication Board of Zygon</copyright-statement>
         </permissions>
         <abstract>
            <p>The past decade has seen the rise of a new wave of criticism of evolutionary biology, led by claims that it should be replaced by a new science of intelligent design. While the general question of inferring design may fairly be considered worthy of attention, claims that intelligent‐design theory (IDT) constitutes a biological science are highly problematic. This article briefly summarizes the assertions made about IDT as a biological science and indicates why they do not stand up to analysis. While claiming that IDT is a biological science, its advocates have failed to actually produce a research program that merits serious attention. As such, it is clear that IDT is more driven by ideological considerations than by attention to actual scientific research.</p>
         </abstract>
         <kwd-group>
            <kwd>Michael Behe</kwd>
            <kwd>demarcation</kwd>
            <kwd>William Dembski</kwd>
            <kwd>evolutionary theory</kwd>
            <kwd>intelligent‐design theory</kwd>
            <kwd>Imre Lakatos</kwd>
         </kwd-group>
         <counts>
            <fig-count count="0"/>
            <table-count count="0"/>
         </counts>
      </article-meta>
   </front>
   <back/>
</article>
