❦ INT EL L I GENT D E SIG N u can be ignored, as they are terms with u2 and 2N exceedingly small (Gillespie 2004; Kimura and Crow 1964). is yields ( ) 1 H′ ≈ 1 − H + 2u(1 − H) 2N e equilibrium amount of diversity occurs ̂ = H ′ = H, which is equivalent to when when H ΔH = H ′ − H = 0 (Gillespie 2004; Kimura and Crow 1964). e value that satis es this requirement is Ĥ = 4Nu 1 + 4Nu 881 Hedrick, Phillip W. 2000. Genetics of Populations, 2nd edition. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Kimura, Motoo, 1968. “Evolutionary Rate at the Molecular Level.” Nature 217: 624–26. Kimura, Motoo. 1983. e Neutral eory of Molecular Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kimura, Motoo. 1991. “Recent Development of the Neutral eory Viewed from the Wrightian Tradition of eoretical Population Genetics.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 88: 5969–97. Kimura, Motoo, and James F. Crow. 1964. “ e Number of Alleles at Can Be Maintained in a Finite Population.” Genetics 49 (4): 725–38. ̂ the equilibrium frequency of As F̂ = 1 − H, homozygotes is F̂ = ❦ 1 1 + 4Nu e relative strength mutation and dri may be determined by examining how the rates of each force interact to determine the level of diversity. Mutation generates new alleles at a rate that is proportional to the inverse of the mutation rate, u1 , while genetic dri removes variants at a rate that is proportional to population size, N (Gillespie 2004). Figure 2 illustrates the amount of heterozygosity the in nite allele model predicts given di erent combinations of population sizes and mutation rates. When N ≪ u1 , the time scale of dri is relatively short, and variation is removed, yielding low values of Ĥ (Gillespie 2004; Kimura and Crow 1964). Conversely, when N ≫ u1 , the time scale for mutation is less, and ̂ variation is maintained, resulting in high H (Gillespie 2004; Kimura and Crow 1964). Almost equivalently, the value of 휃 = 4Nu can be used to understand the interaction between genetic dri and mutation. When 휃 ≪ 1, genetic dri is the primary driver of evolution, and diversity is low, while when 휃 ≫ 1 mutation dominates and diversity is high (Hedrick 2000). SEE ALSO: Evolution; Genotype; Heterozygosity; Migration/gene ow; Polymorphism REFERENCES Gillespie, John. 2004. Population Genetics: A Concise Guide. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Intelligent design BRIANA POBINER Smithsonian Institution, USA MARK TERRY The Northwest School, USA Historical and philosophical perspective Intelligent design (ID) refers to an ancient philosophical and religious concept as well as to a modern movement opposed to evolutionary science in research and education. Advocates of ID believe that an intelligent entity brought the universe, life, and human beings into existence, and conversely that no unguided natural process could have given rise to such complexity and elegance. Evolution (see ), understood as an undirected, natural process involving genes, probability, and populations, is declared to be insu cient to produce any novelty in the development of organisms. Greek philosophers, as well as others in other cultures, saw intricacy, beauty, and functionality in natural objects, particularly living organisms. Development of animals from eggs, and trees and owers from seeds, appeared to be highly organized and restricted, as though following a plan. e notion of a plan behind anatomy and development suggested the action of a planning agent, a designer, a supreme mover. is idea is akin to and o en expressed with notions of ❦ ❦ ❦ 882 ❦ INT EL L I GE NT D ES IG N teleology, or purpose, and is sometimes referred to as the “Argument from Design.” In religious traditions, such teleological, design-based thinking has o en been employed to underpin or even prove the existence of a supreme being, of God or Allah in the Abrahamic religions. A prime, succinct example is the h argument for the existence of God set forth by St omas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. In the history of evolutionary and anthropological thought, no expression of the Argument from Design is more important than that proposed by English clergyman William Paley in his Natural eology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity (1802). Paley set forth as much as he knew about the intricacies of anatomy and the natural world, particularly human anatomy, and claimed, enthusiastically, that all of this was evidence of not only the existence of the Creator but also the benign character of the Creator. He begins with the o -cited “watchmaker” analogy, which holds that the complex workings of the natural world necessitate an intelligent Creator no less than do the complex mechanisms of a watch. is thinking was popular, widely disseminated, and considered scienti c in the early nineteenth century. e eight Bridgewater Treatises (1833–40) expanded on Paley’s work, touching on everything from anatomy and behavior to chemistry and geology, all with the aim of praising the good work of the Creator. Treatise #4, e Hand: Its Mechanism and Endowments as Evincing Design (Bell 1833), is of particular interest, since it explores the human hand, including the comparative anatomy of extremities of a wide variety of vertebrates, including primates. Charles Darwin (see , .) studied Paley’s work thoroughly (and occupied Paley’s former rooms at Cambridge), and embarked on the Beagle in 1832 as a proponent of the Argument from Design in its natural theology form. As science has probed the biochemical and genetic nature of living things since Paley’s time, life appears even more complex, and ID proponents credit the “Designer” with producing that complexity. In their publications for mainstream audiences, modern ID proponents make no claims about who the Designer is and o er no explanations about how the Designer works. is appears to be a departure from Paley’s Natural eology, which claimed outright that the intelligence behind all of nature was the God of Christian Scripture. However, in addressing religious audiences, ID proponents identify the designer as the Christian God. Modern ID advocates occupy positions on a scale of beliefs that range all the way from the old-earth creationist position that accepts limited degrees of evolution within species over time, to a young-earth creationist position that insists that all living things, down to their DNA, RNA, and cellular components, were brought into existence only a few thousand years ago and are maintained by the constant activity of the Designer. Such competing views are of more than philosophical interest, because ID followers have taken their place in a long line of creationist authors and activists attempting to in uence how biology in general, and human evolution (or hominin origins) in particular, are taught in public schools. The intelligent design (ID) movement e emergence of an ID movement in the 1990s is best understood in the context of creationist struggles to control the teaching of evolution in US public schools throughout the twentieth century. e landmark Scopes “Monkey” Trial of 1925 ( e State of Tennessee v. John omas Scopes), while popularly remembered for exposing the weakness of the creationist approach, drove publishers away from inclusion of any evolutionary science in high-school textbooks for the next four decades. John Scopes, a substitute high-school teacher, was accused of violating Tennessee’s Butler Act, which made it illegal to teach human evolution in public schools. Although he could not recall whether he had actually taught evolution in class, Scopes agreed to serve as a defendant in this case, which was nanced by the American Civil Liberties Union. Town businessmen hoped the trial would bring publicity and economic gain to Dayton, Tennessee. Scopes was found guilty and ned $100, but the verdict was subsequently overturned by the Tennessee Supreme Court on a technicality, making it impossible for the defense to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. e Butler Act remained in force. In the second half of the century, a serious e ort funded by the Federal Government to ❦ ❦ ❦ INT EL L I GENT D E SIG N ❦ enhance science education suddenly brought evolution back into high-school textbooks, led by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) series, launched in 1963. Creationists responded with further attempts, rst, to ban the teaching of evolution, and, when that tactic failed, to require “equal time” for teaching “Creation Science.” In court cases in Arkansas (1968, 1982) and Louisiana (1987), each of these attempts was found by federal courts to be unconstitutional. As these court battles wrapped up in the 1980s, a group of creationists assembled and began to plan a new approach: promoting ID. Central to this strategy was the notion that ID would be presented as new, cutting-edge science, not creationism. Neither God nor Scripture would be mentioned. e roots of ID in traditional creationism were revealed during an important (and, to date, the only) legal case involving ID (discussed below), when successive early dra s of a supplemental high-school text were closely examined. Of Pandas and People: e Central Question of Biological Origins (Davis and Kenyon 1993) was originally published in 1989. Most of the book’s arguments are identical to those of traditional creationists, and early dra s from the 1980s used “creationism,” “creator,” and “creationist” terminology throughout, making no reference to ID. Following the 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard that found inclusion of “creation science” in Louisiana public school science curricula unconstitutional, all of the original creationist terms were switched throughout subsequent dra s to terms such as “intelligent design,” “agency” or “designer,” and “intelligent design proponent” (Forrest and Gross 2007). In 1996, an infusion of donor funding concentrated the talents of a group of ID advocates and authors at the Discovery Institute (DI), a conservative public a airs think-tank in Seattle, Washington, that was founded in 1990. Since formation of the DI and its Center for Science and Culture (originally the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture), an aggressive print, electronic, video, and conference outreach program has been underway. Most publications have been through either established religious publishing houses or DI’s own press. Four ID authors have succeeded in publishing through major publishers (Michael Behe: Free Press; William Dembski: Rowman 883 & Little eld; Stephen Meyer and Douglas Axe: Harper’s religious imprint, Harper One). ID authors have not succeeded in gaining acceptance by peer-reviewed science journals. ey have instead founded their own journals (e.g., BIO-Complexity, which has been published annually since 2010), much as creationists began their own journals in the 1960s (e.g., Creation Research Society Quarterly, founded in 1964). In addition, like earlier “creation science” organizations (such as the Institute for Creation Research founded in 1972), ID proponents have established their own “research laboratory,” the Biologic Institute, for which the DI provides funding. Shifting strategies: from the “Wedge” to “Academic Freedom” In 1998 a DI fundraising document, subsequently leaked to the public in 1999, outlined an ambitious “Wedge Strategy” to change American culture via the acceptance of ID in scienti c research and in public discourse, education, and policy. e “Wedge” of ID, using a metaphor rst proposed by then-UC Berkeley law professor Philip Johnson, would weaken the grip of “scienti c materialism” and bring America “back” to conservative Christian theistic values and policies throughout public life. An initial goal set forth in this “Wedge Document” was the inclusion of ID in public school science curricula (Forrest and Gross 2007). Alongside the e ort to inject ID into schools, the DI campaigned for a “Teach the Controversy” strategy, promoting a false perception that evolution is a controversial “theory in crisis” being hotly debated within the scienti c community, and that scientists are trying to suppress “new” scienti c information, particularly ID, that challenges the status quo. Beginning in 2004, the DI also began promoting an “Academic Freedom” approach. Template legislation was made widely available for state or local adoption to defend the right of teachers to include whatever material they might nd useful in the teaching of “controversial” topics. Whereas evolution has been traditionally singled out in creationist legislation, these academic freedom bills also commonly target global warming and human cloning. Dozens of state education committees and legislatures have ❦ ❦ ❦ 884 ❦ INT EL L I GE NT D ES IG N dealt with such bills. Some of the language in these bills refers to teaching the “strengths and weaknesses” or undertaking “critical analysis” of evolution, phrases long used in prior creationist campaigns to undermine the teaching of evolution. ree states (Louisiana in 2008, Tennessee in 2012, and Florida in 2017) adopted them. e push to include ID in public school science curricula led to a dramatic outcome in Dover, Pennsylvania, in 2005. Parents sued the Dover School District in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania over the requirement that a statement presenting ID as a scienti c alternative to evolution be read aloud in ninth grade science classes in which evolution was taught. e statement also directed students to the supplemental text Of Pandas and People (Davis and Kenyon 1993), dozens of copies of which were provided in the high-school library. e DI, which had not initiated the Dover policy and failed to persuade the school board to either revise or withdraw it, reluctantly cooperated with the omas More Law Center (TMLC), which represented the board, by agreeing to provide expert witnesses for the defense. Although several of the DI’s witnesses withdrew because of disagreements with the TMLC legal team, three went on to testify, most notably Michael Behe. e trial attracted national and international attention, and the judge’s ruling declared that the Dover School Board had acted with religious intent, contrary to law, and concluded: “In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents” (Jones 2005, 136). Creationism in a wide array of forms continues to thrive in the United States and, to a more limited extent, in many other countries. Young-earth creationists are frequently not in sympathy with the ID movement because of its e orts to appear purely scienti c and to avoid invocation of the identity of any Designer. Highly successful groups such as Answers in Genesis, creators of the Creation Museum, and, recently, the “Ark Encounter,” a replica of Noah’s ark, in Kentucky, are overt in their identi cation with the God of the Bible. Some of these groups, however, appreciate and embrace ID’s ongoing critique of “Darwinism.” Intelligent design and human evolution Contemporary ID authors have made speci c claims about human evolution and paleoanthropology (see ). e section on “ e Origin of Man” in Of Pandas and People (Davis and Kenyon 1993) presents three arguments: (1) fossils of human ancestors are rare and fragmentary (citing an outdated 1984 Science commentary); (2) the fossil record of primates contains “distinct types” that appear abruptly, remain essentially unchanged, and sometimes abruptly disappear; and (3) there is no evidence for transitional forms in the hominin fossil record. ese assertions have been reiterated o en throughout ID literature and are identical to those made by mainstream creationists. Additional ID pronouncements on human evolution allege the weakness and contentiousness of the science: (1) fossil reconstructions are arbitrary; (2) fossils do not establish ancestor–descendant relationships; and (3) fossils are simply placed into pre-existing, pro-evolution narratives. Robust disagreements and discussions among mainstream scientists are presented as signs of weakness rather than strength. DI’s Science and Human Origins (Gauger, Axe, and Luskin 2012) is ID’s most extensive o ering on human evolution. It consists of ve essays by three authors, none of whom has any background in paleoanthropology. e essays reiterate the points already made in Of Pandas and People. Using headlines from the popular press and “sensational” quotations from scientists taken out of context, the attempt is made to portray the eld of human evolution as being in permanent, nonproductive turmoil. A prime example of ID analysis in the book is attorney Casey Luskin’s treatment of the widely accepted evidence of common ancestry that is derived from comparison of human chromosome #2 with two shorter chimpanzee chromosomes. Luskin argues that humans’ and chimpanzees’ genetic similarity could just as easily be taken as evidence for the action of a Designer as for natural, evolutionary processes. Since there are no limits on what a Designer might do, the argument is unassailable and therefore unscienti c. Another key argument against human evolution by modern ID proponents, just as it ❦ ❦ ❦ I N T E R N AT I O N A L O R G A N I Z AT I O NS I N B I O L O G I C A L A NT H R O P O L O GY was in Paley’s day, is that human cognitive and communicative abilities such as intelligence, language, art, abstraction, altruism, and ethics cannot adequately be accounted for by random mutation, natural selection, genetic dri , or any evolutionary process not guided by intelligence. is is essentially the same argument that distanced Alfred Russell Wallace (see , ) from Charles Darwin, since Wallace asserted in his later years that human capabilities could not be explained by gradual natural selection. Darwin maintained they could. e DI credits Alfred Russell Wallace as being ID’s “Lost Ancestor.” ese and other ID arguments about improbability and insu cient time focus on how evolution as currently understood could not possibly work; modern ID is principally a negative argument strategy. REFERENCES Bell, Charles. 1833. e Hand: Its Mechanism and Vital Endowments as Evincing Design. London: William Pickering. Davis, Percival W., and Dean H. Kenyon. 1993. Of Pandas and People: e Central Question of Biological Origins. Dallas: Haughton Publishing Company. Forrest, Barbara, and Paul R. Gross. 2007. Creationism’s Trojan Horse: e Wedge of Intelligent Design. New York: Oxford University Press. Gauger, Ann, Douglas Axe, and Casey Luskin. 2012. Science and Human Origins. Seattle: Discovery Institute Press. Jones, John E, III. 2005. Memorandum Opinion, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Paley, William. 1802. Natural eology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearance of Nature. London: Hallowell. ❦ FURTHER READING Numbers, Ronald L. 2006. e Creationists: From Scienti c Creationism to Intelligent Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pobiner, Briana. 2016. “Accepting, Understanding, Teaching, and Learning (Human) Evolution: Obstacles and Opportunities.” Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 159: S232–74. Scott, Eugenie. C. 2009. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press. International organizations in biological anthropology MICHAEL A. LITTLE Binghamton University, State University of New York, USA Within the general science of anthropology, there are two meanings of the term anthropology. e historically earliest usage equates “anthropology” with what is now called “physical” or “biological anthropology.” Broadly speaking, the more social side of “anthropology” was referred to as “ethnology.” In the United States “anthropology” has been used for many years in the broad sense, to refer to the four elds—sociocultural, biological, archaeological, and linguistic—of anthropology. In many other (but not all) areas around the world today, “anthropology” refers to “physical” or “biological anthropology.” A comment on this ambiguous terminology is needed in order to note that some national societies named “anthropological” are broadly anthropological while others are more narrowly biological anthropological. All societies listed below in this entry (with their publications) are societies of biological anthropology. Not included in this entry are the specialized societies of auxology, human genetics, biodemography, paleoanthropology, forensic anthropology, paleopathology, skeletal biology, bioarchaeology, dental anthropology, primatology, dermatoglyphics, and others. ere would be more than a hundred biological anthropology societies if these were to be included. e largest national society in the world is the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA), which has nearly 2,000 members, while some of the smaller national societies may have 50 or fewer members. Of the 24 active societies listed below, the majority are from Europe (Britain, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Switzerland), which is followed by Latin ❦ View publication stats 885 ❦