User:SlimVirgin/ID
{{Intelligent Design}}
Intelligent design is the proposition that aspects of the universe and the variation of life cannot be explained by reference to random mutation and natural selection alone, and that at least some of the diversity of life is not due to chance.Nagel, Thomas. [http://www.stanford.edu/~joelv/teaching/167/nagel%2008%20-%20public%20education%20and%20intelligent%20design.pdf "Public Education and Intelligent Design"], Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 36, no. 2, 2008, pp. 192, 197. Proponents call this the problem of irreducible complexity, and say it can only be explained by reference to intelligence.Ruse, Michael. "Creationism," in Ted Honderich (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 183. The philosopher Thomas Nagel argues that on the face of it this is a scientific claim about what the evidence suggests, one that is not self-evidently absurd, but the argument is rejected by most scientists, who say there are natural explanations for what seems to be irreducible complexity.{{Cite journal| last1 = Clements | first1 = A.| last2 = Bursac | first2 = D.| last3 = Gatsos | first3 = X.| last4 = Perry | first4 = A.| last5 = Civciristov | first5 = S.| last6 = Celik | first6 = N.| last7 = Likic | first7 = V.| last8 = Poggio | first8 = S.| last9 = Jacobs-Wagner | first9 = C.| last10 = Strugnell | first10 = R. A.| last11 = Lithgow | first11 = T.| title = The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine| journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America| volume = 106| issue = 37| pages = 15791–15795| year = 2009| pmid = 19717453| pmc = 2747197| doi = 10.1073/pnas.0908264106|bibcode = 2009PNAS..10615791C | doi-access = free}} ([http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15791.full]), see also Kitzmiller judgement
The concept is a contemporary version of the teleological argument for the existence of God, though it does not specify the nature of the designer;Numbers, Ronald L. The Creationists. Harvard University Press, 2006, pp. 373, 379–380. scientists have called it creationist pseudoscience.[http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v4/n12/abs/nmeth1207-983.html "An intelligently designed response"], Nature Methods, editorial, Vol 4, issue 12, 2007, p. 983; Mu, David. [http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/fall2005/mu.pdf "Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science"], Harvard Science Review, Vol 19, issue 1, Fall 2005. Nagel argues that intelligent design is very different from creation science, in that it does not depend on distortion of the evidence, or on the assumption that it is immune to empirical evidence. It depends only on the idea that the hypothesis of a designer makes sense.
Philosopher Robert B. Johnson writes that most commentators inside and outside the intelligent design movement say the modern form of intelligent design began with Darwin on Trial (1991) by Philip E. Johnson, an American law professor. Johnson was influenced by two books: The Blind Watchmaker (1986) by Richard Dawkins, who argued that random mutation and natural selection could alone account for the diversity of life, and Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985) by Michael Denton, who argued that it could not. Johnson wrote in Darwin on Trial that evolutionary biologists argue for Darwinism not on the basis of evidence, but because their philosophy of science disallows any alternative. He organized conferences in 1992 and 1993, after which a listserv was set up to allow proponents to network. In 1996, the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank, set up its Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture to explore and promote intelligent design, and in November that year a conference at Biola University saw 200 scientists, philosophers, and theologians gather to discuss it.Stewart, Robert B. "Introduction: What are we talking about?" in Robert B. Stewart (ed.). Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue. Fortress Press, 2007, p. 2ff.
Efforts to have intelligent design taught in science classes in the United States culminated in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), when parents of high-school students challenged a school-district requirement that teachers present it in biology classes as an alternative explanation of the origin of life. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005); s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context, pp. 31–32. Also see [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=482&page=578 Edwards v. Aguillard], June 19, 1987.
History
=Origin of the concept=
{{see|Argument from poor design|Teleological argument|Watchmaker analogy}}
File:Socrates Louvre.jpg. The idea of intelligent design, or the argument from design, is an ancient one, held in some form by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.]]
Whether the complexity of nature indicates purposeful design has been the subject of debate since the Greeks. In the 4th century BCE, Plato posited a good and wise "demiurge" as the creator and first cause of the cosmos in his Timaeus.[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus "Plato's Timaeus"], The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, October 25, 2005. In his Metaphysics, Aristotle developed the idea of an "Unmoved Mover".Aristotle, Metaphysics Bk. 12 In De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods, 45 BCE) Cicero wrote that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature."Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus. The Philosophy of Religion: An Historical Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, 2007, p. 31l Cicero, De Natura Deorum, Book I, 36–37. This line of reasoning has come to be known as the teleological argument for the existence of God. Some well-known forms of it were expressed in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas and in the 19th century by William Paley. Aquinas, in his Summa Theologiae, used the concept of design in his "fifth proof" for God's existence.Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae "[http://web.archive.org/web/20070926220422/http://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS+Subjects/Philosophyofreligion/fiveways.htm Thomas Aquinas' 'Five Ways'] ([http://web.archive.org/web/20070808152431/http://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS+Subjects/Philosophyofreligion/fiveways.htm archive link])" in faithnet.org.uk.
In the 17th century the English physician Sir Thomas Browne wrote a Discourse arguing the case for intelligent design. His 1658 The Garden of Cyrus is one of the earliest examples of 'proof' of the wisdom of God and gives examples of intelligent design in botany. In the early 19th century, Paley's argument from design in Natural Theology (1802), used the watchmaker analogy,William Paley, [http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=A142&viewtype=text&pageseq=1 Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity], 1809, London, Twelfth Edition. and such arguments led to the development of what was called natural theology, the study of nature as way of understanding "the mind of God". This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens, which ultimately led to Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859). Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in theistic evolution, who consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer. In correspondence about the question with Asa Gray, Darwin wrote that "I cannot honestly go as far as you do about Design. I am conscious that I am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the result of chance; & yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of Design."{{cite web |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2998 |title=Letter 2998 — Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa, 26 Nov (1860) |publisher=Darwin Correspondence Project|quote= |accessdate=2010-08-11}} Though he had studied Paley's work while at university, by the end of his life he came to regard it as useless for scientific development.{{cite book|title=Evolutionary epistemology, rationality, and the sociology of knowledge|year=1993|publisher=Open Court Publishing|isbn=0812690397|author=Gerard Radnitzky|coauthors=William Warren Bartley, Karl Raimund Popper|page=140}}
=Development of its modern form=
Intelligent design in the late 20th and early 21st century is a development of natural theology that seeks to change the basis of science and undermine evolutionary theory.See, e.g., the publisher's editorial description of the 2006 paperback printing of William Paley (1803) ''Natural Theology" : "William Paley's classic brings depth to the history of intelligent design arguments. The contrivance of the eye, the ear, and numerous other anatomical features throughout the natural world are presented as arguments for God's presence and concern. While there are distinctive differences between Paley's argument and those used today by intelligent design theorists and creationists, it remains a fascinating glimpse of the nineteenth-century's debate over the roles of religion and science".
- David C. Steinmetz (2005) "The Debate on Intelligent Design" in The Christian Century, (December 27, 2005, pp. 27–31.)
- Leading intelligent design proponent William Dembski (2001) argues the opposing view in [http://www.designinference.com/documents/2001.03.ID_as_nat_theol.htm Is Intelligent Design a form of natural theology?] As evolutionary theory expanded to explain more phenomena, the examples held up as evidence of design changed, though the essential argument remains the same: complex systems imply a designer. Past examples have included the eye and the feathered wing; current examples are typically biochemical: protein functions, blood clotting, and bacterial flagella; see irreducible complexity.
Philosopher Barbara Forrest writes that the intelligent design movement began in 1984 with the publication by Jon A. Buell's the Foundation for Thought and Ethics of The Mystery of Life's Origin by Charles B. Thaxton, a chemist and creationist. Thaxton held a conference in 1988, "Sources of Information Content in DNA," which attracted creationists such as Stephen C. Meyer. Forrest writes that, in December 1988, Thaxton decided to use the term "intelligent design," instead of creationism, for the movement.Forrest, Barbara. [http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/11/8448/52824 Know Your Creationists: Know Your Allies]
In March 1986 a review by Meyer used information theory to suggest that messages transmitted by DNA in the cell show "specified complexity" specified by intelligence, and must have originated with an intelligent agent.{{cite web|url=http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_notalone.htm|title=We Are Not Alone|accessdate=2007-10-10|author=Stephen C. Meyer|authorlink=Stephen C. Meyer|date=March 1986|year=1986|work=Eternity|publisher=Access Research Network}} In November of that year Thaxton described his reasoning as a more sophisticated form of Paley's argument from design.{{cite web|url=http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html|title=DNA, Design and the Origin of Life|accessdate=2007-10-10|author=Charles B. Thaxton, Ph.D.|authorlink=Charles Thaxton|date=November 13–16, 1986|publisher=Christian Leadership Ministries}} At the Sources of Information Content in DNA conference in 1988 he said that his intelligent cause view was compatible with both metaphysical naturalism and supernaturalism,
Intelligent design avoids identifying or naming the agent of creation—it merely states that one (or more) must exist—but leaders of the movement have said the designer is the Christian God."the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity". {{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
}}, Ruling p. 26. A selection of writings and quotes of intelligent design supporters demonstrating this are found in [http://home.kc.rr.com/bnpndxtr/download/HorsesMouth-BP007.pdf Horse's Mouth] (PDF) by Brian Poindexter, dated 2003.William A. Dembski, when asked in an interview whether his research concluded that God is the Intelligent Designer, stated "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God". {{cite web
|url=http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006139.cfm
|title=CitizenLink: Friday Five: William A. Dembski
|accessdate=2007-12-15
|author=Devon Williams
|date=December 14, 2007
|publisher=Focus on the Family
}}Dembski: "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," [http://touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=49 Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999]Phillip Johnson: "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca. [http://www.christianity.ca/news/social-issues/2004/03.001.html Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin]. "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." Johnson 1996. World Magazine. [http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/world2.html Witnesses For The Prosecution]. "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." Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070609033219/site=http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.5docs/15-5pg40.html |date=June 9, 2007 |title=Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson }}Stephen C. Meyer: "I think the designer is God ..." ([http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p90.htm Darwin, the marketing of Intelligent Design] . Nightline ABC News, with Ted Koppel, August 10, 2005);
Nancy Pearcey: "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". ([http://web.archive.org/web/20061028204903/http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2005/09/why_sciencetype.html Total Truth], Crossway Books, June 29, 2004, {{ISBN|1581344589}}, pp. 204-205) 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.
=Origin of the term=
{{seealso|Timeline of intelligent design}}
:Image:Pandas and ppl.jpg was the first modern intelligent design book. Rethinking Schools magazine characterizes it as a "creationist treatise dressed up to look like a legitimate discussion of science".
{{cite web
|url=http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/12_02/panda.shtml
|title=Vol 12 No 2 - Rethinking Schools Online
|author=Leon Lynn
|date=Winter 1997/98
|work=Creationists Push Pseudo-Science Text
|quote=
|accessdate=2009-02-08
}}]]
The phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American,{{cite web |url=http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/the-true-origin.html |title=The true origin of "intelligent design" |author= Nick Matzke |authorlink=Nick Matzke |date= August 14, 2007 |publisher=The Panda's Thumb |accessdate=2010-01-21}}
{{cite web |url=http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=scia;cc=scia;rgn=full%20text;idno=scia0002-48;didno=scia0002-48;view=image;seq=00383;node=scia0002-48%3A1 |title=Journals: Scientific American (1846 - 1869) |format= |accessdate=2010-01-21}} in an 1850 book by Patrick Edward Dove,Dove, Patrick Edward, The theory of human progression, and natural probability of a reign of justice. London, Johnstone & Hunter, 1850. LC 08031381 "Intelligence-Intelligent Design". and in an 1861 letter from Charles Darwin.
{{cite web
|url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-3154.html
|title=Letter 3154—Darwin, C. R. to Herschel, J. F. W., 23 May 1861
|author=Charles Darwin
|work=Darwin Correspondence Project
|date=May 23, 1861
}} The phrase was used in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science by Paleyite botanist George James Allman:
{{quotation|No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible—in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design.
{{cite news
|title=The British Association
|pages=10; col A
|work=The Times
|date=September 20, 1873
}}}}
The phrase can be found again in Humanism, a 1903 book by one of the founders of classical pragmatism, F.C.S. Schiller: "It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design". A derivative of the phrase appears in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) in the article titled, "Teleological argument for the existence of God": "Stated most succinctly, the argument runs: The world exhibits teleological order (design, adaptation). Therefore, it was produced by an intelligent designer".
{{cite book
|article=Teleological Argument for the Existence of God
|author=William P. Alston
|title=Encyclopedia of Philosophy
|publisher=Macmillan Publishing Company, The Free Press, Collier Macmillan Publishers
|location=New York City, London
|editor=Paul Edwards
|year=1967
|isbn=0028949900
}}
Robert Nozick (1974) wrote: "Consider now complicated patterns which one would have thought would arise only through intelligent design".
{{cite book
|author=Robert Nozick
|title=Anarchy, State, and Utopia
|publisher=Basic Books
|location=USA
|year=1974
|page=19
|isbn=0465097200
}}
The phrases "intelligent design" and "intelligently designed" were used in a 1979 philosophy book Chance or Design? by James Horigan
{{cite book
|author=James E. Horigan
|title=Chance or Design?
|publisher=Philosophical Library
|year=1979
|isbn=
}} and the phrase "intelligent design" was used in a 1982 speech by Sir Fred Hoyle in his promotion of panspermia.
{{cite news
|title=Evolution according to Hoyle: Survivors of disaster in an earlier world
|author=Nicholas Timmins
|newspaper=The Times
|date=January 13, 1982
|pages=22
|issue=61130
|quote=F. Hoyle stated in a 1982 speech: '...one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design.'
|url=http://telicthoughts.com/sir-fred-hoyle-and-the-origins-of-id/
}}
=Modern use of the term=
The modern use of the words "intelligent design", as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry, began after the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), ruled that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science curricula. A Discovery Institute report says that Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term".
{{cite web
|url=http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/post_6.html
|title=Evolution News & Views: Dover Judge Regurgitates Mythological History of Intelligent Design
|accessdate=2007-10-05
|author=Jonathan Witt
|date=December 20, 2005
|publisher=Discovery Institute
}} In drafts of the book over one hundred uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creation science", were changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent design", while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists".{{sic}}
{{cite web
|url=http://ncse.com/rncse/26/1-2/design-trial
|title=NCSE Resource -- 9.0. Matzke (2006): The Story of the Pandas Drafts
|accessdate=2009-11-18
|author=Nick Matzke
|authorlink=Nick Matzke
|year=2006
|publisher=National Center for Science Education
}} *{{cite web
|url=http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?p=80
|title=Missing Link discovered!
|accessdate=2009-11-18
|author=Nick Matzke
|authorlink=Nick Matzke
|year=2006
|publisher=National Center for Science Education
|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20070114121029/http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?p=80
|archive-date=2007-01-14
}} In June 1988 Thaxton held a conference titled "Sources of Information Content in DNA" in Tacoma, Washington,
{{cite web
|url=http://www.leaderu.com/offices/thaxton/docs/inpursuit.html
|title=In Pursuit of Intelligent Causes: Some Historical Background
|accessdate=2007-10-06
|author=Charles B. Thaxton
|authorlink=Charles Thaxton
|date=June 23–26, 1988, revised July 1988 and May 1991
}} and in December decided to use the label "intelligent design" for his new creationist movement.
{{cite web
|url=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/11/8448/52824
|title=Daily Kos: Know Your Creationists: Know Your Allies
|accessdate=2007-10-05
|author=DarkSyde
|date=March 11, 2006
|work=interview with Barbara Forrest
}} Stephen C. Meyer was at the conference, and later recalled that "the term came up".
{{cite news
|author=William Safire
|newspaper=New York Times
|date=August 21, 2005
|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/magazine/21ONLANGUAGE.html?position=&ei=5090&en=f2de0d764cc7e0e8&ex=1282276800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1132902202-gyP0H4EZfG7IeNHPMWlcBw
|title=On Language: Neo-Creo
}}
Of Pandas and People was published in 1989, and was the first book to make frequent use of the phrases "intelligent design," "design proponents," and "design theory", thus representing the beginning of the modern "intelligent design" movement.
{{cite web
|url=http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/critique-pandas-people
|title=NCSE Resource
|accessdate=2007-09-24
|author=Nick Matzke
|authorlink=Nick Matzke
|year=2004
|work=Introduction: Of Pandas and People, the foundational work of the 'Intelligent Design' movement
|publisher=National Center for Science Education
}} "Intelligent design” was the most prominent of around fifteen new terms it introduced as a new lexicon of creationist terminology to oppose evolution without using religious language.
{{cite web
|url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/design/aulie_of-pandas.html
|title=A Reader's Guide to Of Pandas and People
|accessdate=2007-10-05|author=Richard P. Aulie
|year=1998
|publisher=National Association of Biology Teachers
}} It was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its present use, as stated both by its publisher Jon Buell,{{cite journal
|authorlink=Eugenie C. Scott|title=Biological design in science classrooms
|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
|volume=104
|issue=Suppl 1
|pages=8669–8676
|publisher=United States National Academy of Sciences
|date=May 15, 2007
|doi=10.1073/pnas.0701505104
|pmid=17494747
|pmc=1876445|doi-access=free |last1=Scott |first1=Eugenie C. |last2=Matzke |first2=Nicholas J. }}{{cite web
|url=http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/i_guess_id_real.html
|title=I guess ID really was "Creationism's Trojan Horse" after all
|accessdate=2009-06-02
|author=Nick Matzke
|coauthors=Jon Buell
|date=October 13, 2005
|publisher=The Panda's Thumb
}}. and by William A. Dembski in his expert witness report.{{cite document
|author=William A. Dembski
|authorlink=William A. Dembski
|title=Expert Witness Report: The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design
|publisher=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial document
|date=March 29, 2005
|url=http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.09.Expert_Report_Dembski.pdf
|accessdate=2009-06-02}} The book presented all of the basic arguments of intelligent design proponents before any research had been done to support these arguments, and was actively promoted by creationists for public school use. Rethinking Schools magazine has criticized the book, saying it was a "creationist treatise" packaged to look like a high quality science textbook, with a "glossy cover, full-color illustrations, and chapter titles such as 'Homology' and 'Genetics and Macroevolution'", with numerous "professionally prepared charts and illustrations appear to show how concrete scientific evidence supports the existence of the unnamed 'designer'". Philosopher of science Michael Ruse believes the contents were "worthless and dishonest", and it was described by an ACLU lawyer as a political tool aimed at students who did not "know science or understand the controversy over evolution and creationism".
{{cite web
|url=http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/12_02/panda.shtml
|volume=12
|issue=2
|title=Rethinking Schools Online
|author=Leon Lynn
|date=Winter 1997/98
|work=Creationists Push Pseudo-Science Text
|quote=
|accessdate=2009-02-08
}}