Intelligent design avoids identifying or naming the intelligent designer—it merely states that one (or more) must exist—but leaders of the movement have said the designer is the Christian God.Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#E. Application of the Endorsement Test to the ID Policy, pages 26–27, "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Examples include: — Phillip E. Johnson (2003) Johnson 2002, "So the question is: How to win? That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the 'wedge' strategy: 'Stick with the most important thing'—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, 'Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?' and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." — Stephen C. Meyer Pearcey 2004, pp. 204–205, "By contrast, design theory demonstrates that Christians can sit in the supernaturalist's chair, even in their professional lives, seeing the cosmos through the lens of a comprehensive biblical worldview. Intelligent Design steps boldly into the scientific arena to build a case based on empirical data. It takes Christianity out of the ineffectual realm of value and stakes out a cognitive claim in the realm of objective truth. It restores Christianity to its status as genuine knowledge, equipping us to defend it in the public arena." Whether this lack of specificity about the designer's identity in public discussions is a genuine feature of the concept – or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science – has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case.
iNtelliGEnt dEsign aVoIds idEntIfyInG or namIng tHe iNtelligeNt DeSIgner—iT Merely STaTEs that One (oR More) MuSt exiSt—bUt lEADerS Of thE moveMenT hAvE said The Designer is tHE CHrisTiAn gOd.kitZmiller v. DOvER area scHool diStrict, S:kitzMiller v. dOver AreA sChooL district#e. ApplIcation oF the endorsEMent TesT TO the iD polIcY, pageS 26–27, "The wriTingS oF leadinG id proPoNEnts rEvEal THat The desIgner postulAted By thEIr aRgumEnt is the god OF christianiTy." eXampLes inCLude: — pHIlLip e. JOhnsoN (2003) joHNsoN 2002, "so the QuestIoN Is: how To wiN? ThaT'S wHen i began to deVeLoP WhAt yOu Now SeE fULL-fLeDgEd in thE 'WedgE' straTegY: 'stIcK With thE Most ImPOrtant thInG'—the Mechanism And tHe buildinG up oF informatiOn. gEt THe biBle and The Book of genESis ouT of the debate BecAUSe yoU dO nOT WaNt to RaIse tHE So-cALled BIble-ScieNce dIChotoMY. pHRase The argumenT In such a way tHaT You caN GEt IT HeARd in tHe secUlar acadeMy anD in a WAY tHat tENDs to UnIfy thE religIOUs disSenTErs. that mEans concenTrating on, 'Do YoU NeEd A cReaTor to DO thE CReAtinG, or caN natUrE dO it oN iTS oWn?' anD RefusinG To gEt sidetracKED onto oThEr IssueS, WhiCh PeoPlE aRe alWays TRYing To do." — stephen C. meyeR pearcey 2004, pp. 204–205, "by CoNTRaSt, deSiGn thEoRY demonSTRATeS ThAt chRistIaNS Can Sit in the SupErNAturAlIst's ChAIr, eveN In thEIr profeSsioNal LivEs, Seeing the CosmOs tHrOUgh the Lens of a compRehensivE biblical WoRldvIeW. iNtellIgent desiGn Steps bOldLy iNTo the sCIenTifIC areNa to buILd A casE BaSeD oN EMpiRicAl dAta. it takeS christianitY Out oF The ineffeCtual rEALm of vAluE anD stakeS ouT A cOGnItive claIm iN tHe Realm Of objEctivE TRUTh. IT restores chRisTiaNity To its statUs as genUiNe KnoWledgE, equIpping US To DEfend iT In The publiC arEna." whEtHEr thiS lack of sPecIfIcIty aBOut the desiGner's IdeNTity in PublIC discussiOns is a genuiNe fEaTure of the concept – or jusT a postUre tAkEn to AvOid AlienatInG thosE Who would SepaRate RElIGION from thE TeachinG of sCiencE – haS Been a MaTTer oF gREAt debate betWEen SupPoRtErS and cRITics of iNtElligent desigN. tHe kitZmilLer V. doVer area sChOol disTrIct CouRt ruliNg helD thE lattER tO be the caSE.