Body fat percentage (wiki)

Body fat percentage is the fraction of the total body mass that is adipose tissue, as opposed to lean body mass (muscle, bone, organ tissue, blood, and everything else). This index is often used as a means to monitor progress during a diet or as a measure of physical fitness for certain sports, such as body building. It is more accurate as a measure of excess body weight than body mass index (BMI) since it takes into account muscle mass and frame size. However, its popularity is less than BMI because most of the techniques used to measure body fat percentage require equipment and skills that are not readily available.

Total body fat percentage consists of essential fat and storage fat. Essential fat is that amount necessary for maintenance of life and reproductive functions. The percentage for women is greater than that for men, due to the demands of childbearing and other hormonal functions. Essential fat is 2-5% in men, and 10-13% in women. Storage fat consists of fat accumulation in adipose tissue, part of which protects internal organs in the chest and abdomen. Again, women have slightly more than men. The minimum recommended total body fat percentage exceeds the essential fat percentage value reported above.[1]

Recommendations

Some body fat percentage levels are more culturally valued than others, and some are related to better health or improved athletic performance.

According to Thomas A. Owens, M.D. (Departments of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC), body fat percentage is categorized as follows:^[1] :

Description	Women	Men
Recommended amount	20-21%	13-17%
Adults in United States, average	22- 25%	17-19%
Obese	30%+	25%+

According to Health Check Systems^[2], The American Council on Exercise^[3] has categorized ranges of body fat percentages as follows:

Description	Women	Men
Essential fat	10-12%	2-4%
Athletes	14–20%	6–13%
Fitness	21–24%	14–17%
Acceptable	25–31%	18–25%
Obese	32%+	25%+

Measurement techniques

A person's exact body fat percentage generally cannot be determined, but there are several different ways we can estimate it, each with varying degrees of accuracy.

Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry

Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, or DXA (formerly DEXA), is a good method for estimating body fat percentage.

There are several more complicated procedures that more accurately determine body fat percentage. Some, referred to as multicompartment models, can include DXA measurement of bone, plus independent measures of body water (using the dilution principle with isotopically labeled water) and body volume (either by water displacement or air plethsmography). Various other components may be independently measures, such as total body potassium.

In addition, the most refined method, in-vivo neutron activation, can quantify all the elements of the body and use mathematical relations among the measured elements in the different components of the body (fat, water, protein, etc.) to develop simultaneous equations to estimate total body composition, including body fat. This is the most accurate method. You can also use many other methods to calculate body fat percentage/

Body Average Density Measurement (Hydrostatic Weighing)

Prior to the adoption of DXA, the most accurate method of estimating body fat percentage was to weigh a person underwater in order to obtain the average density (mass per unit volume). Since fat tissue has a lower density than muscles and bones, it is possible to estimate the fat content. This estimate is distorted by the fact that muscles and bones have different densities: for a person with a more-than-average amount of bone tissue, the estimate will be too low. However, this method gives highly reproducible results for individual persons (± 1%), unlike the methods discussed below, which can have an error up to ±10%.^[5] The body fat percentage is commonly calculated from one of two formulas:

• Brozek formula: BF = (4.57/ρ − 4.142) × 100
• Siri formula is: BF = (4.95/ρ − 4.50) × 100

In these formulas, ρ is the body density in kg/L.

where ρ_w is the density of water [0.99780 kg/L at 22 °C (72 °F)]. For example, a person weighing 80 kg needs to hold a floater with a volume of 4.5 L and a mass of 0.5 kg has a density of 1.05 kg/L and hence a body fat percentage of 21%. Note that both the Brozek and Siri formulas are claimed to give systematically too high body fat percentages. ^[6]

Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis

The Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) method is more affordable but less accurate way to estimate body fat percentage. The general principle behind BIA: two conductors are attached to a person's body and a small electrical charge is sent through the body. The resistance between the conductors will provide a measure of body fat, since the resistance to electricity varies between adipose, muscular and skeletal tissue. Criticism of this methodology is based on where the conductors are placed on the body; typically they are placed on the feet, with the current sent up one leg, across the abdomen and down the other leg. As men and women store fat differently around the abdomen and thigh region, the results can be less accurate as a measure of total body fat percentage. Another variable that can affect the amount of body fat this test measures is the amount of liquid an individual has consumed before the test. As electricity travels more easily through water, a person who has consumed a large amount of water before the test will measure as a lower body fat percentage. Less water will increase the percentage of body fat. Bioelectrical impedence analysis is available in a laboratory, or for home use in the form of body fat scales and hand held body fat analyzers.

Skinfold Measurements

A simpler procedure for estimating body fat is the skinfold test, whereby a pinch of skin is precisely measured by calipers at several standardized points on the body to determine the subcutaneous fat layer thickness. These measurements are converted to an estimated body fat percentage by an equation. It is of utmost importance to test in a precise location with a fixed pressure.

Girth Comparisons

There exist formulae for estimating body fat percentage from an individual's weight and girth measurements. For example, the U.S. Navy Circumference method compares abdomen or waist and hips measurements to neck measurement and height^[7], and other sites claim to estimate one's body fat percentage by a conversion from the body mass index. Unfortunately, these measures are usually inaccurate as a way of determining body composition.

External links

• A Guide to Body Fat Percentage
• Gallagher D, Heymsfield S, Heo M, Jebb S, Murgatroyd P, Sakamoto Y (2000). "Healthy percentage body fat ranges: an approach for developing guidelines based on body mass index.". Am J Clin Nutr 72 (3): 694-701. PMID 10966886.
• Body Composition
• Yuhasz Skinfold Test
• Fat Caliper Measurement Sites

Body Fat Percentage

Many fad diets, with little or no exercise can cause a person to lose as much muscle tissue as fat. What's more...

There is a good chance that this person will return to their pre-diet weight. Only now they gain back more fat and less lean muscle. Essentially , they are the same weight but they now have a higher body fat percentage and less lean muscle mass. The point to remember is...

Weighing scales will not show any of these changes. Measuring your body fat percentage will. Measure it and you can manage it. If you notice you are losing considerable lean tissue mass as well as fat, you can take appropriate steps to adjust your program.

Sam follows a proper exercise and nutrition program. After a month or so of dedication and determination she notices her weight has changed only slightly if at all... Arrgh!

Not getting discouraged Sam has her body fat percentage measured...

Before her program Sam weighed 150lbs with a body fat percentage of 30%. After 6 weeks she weighs 148lbs. But her body fat percentage has dropped to 26%. The result?

Over 6.5lbs of highly-motivating fat loss! And she has gained 4.5lbs of healthy lean muscle. This situation is so common that you should never gauge the success of a weight loss program with the bathroom scales alone.

And it's exactly the same for someone on weight gain program... only in reverse. In this case any additional weight should come from lean muscle mass. No way to tell that with the bathroom scales. Plus, what if you're weight stays the same? Maybe you put on 10lbs of muscle while losing 10lbs of fat.

So what other benefits does knowing your body fat percentage give you? Let's look at the long term picture and consider your...

---

General Health and Well Being

It would be easy to slip into all the negative consequences of excess body fat here. But let's stay on a positive track...

Why is calculating your body fat percentage so crucial to general health and successful aging?

Studies are showing that a typical person living in the western world steadily loses muscle and gains fat starting at age 20. What does that mean exactly?

Well, even if this person maintains a steady weight throughout their life there's a good chance their body fat percentage is increasing and their lean tissue mass is decreasing.

Traditionally aging and all it's physical frailties was seen as inevitable. Not any more...

Most gerontologists agree that simple lifestyle changes can have a dramatic effect on the aging process. The loss of functional strength, increase in body fat percentage, decrease in bone density, reduction in flexibility and decline in aerobic power are all under our control.

Measure your body fat percentage regularly and many of the detrimental signs of old age won't quietly creep up on you.

You'll be able to see, first hand, the changes occurring in your body and, if you choose, you can do something about it.

Before we move on to optimum body fat percentages and the very best ways to measure it, there's one more area affected by your body fat percentage...

---

---

Your Ideal Body Fat Percentage

The absolute perfect body fat percentage does NOT exist. Age and gender make a big contribution to the ideal value, but most importantly...

Everyone is an individual. Some people might feel and perform better at a higher or lower body fat percentage than others of the same age and sex. And that's why...

Ranges and guidelines exist. Have a look at the tables below. The first table gives the ideal body fat percentage ranges for the general population. The second table is the average body fat percentage for different athletes. The important thing to remember is...

Anywhere inside the range is good. Staying below the upper limit should be your target but as you'll soon see lower is not necessarily better.

Body Fat Percentage for The Average Population
Age	Up to 30	30-50	50+
Females	14-21%	15-23%	16-25%
Males	9-15%	11-17%	12-19%

>

Average Body Fat Percentage of Athletes
Sport	Male	Female	Sport	Male	Female
Baseball	12-15%	12-18%	Rowing	6-14%	12-18%
Basketball	6-12%	20-27%	Shot Putters	16-20%	20-28%
Body building	5-8%	10-15%	Skiing (X country)	7-12%	16-22%
Cycling	5-15%	15-20%	Sprinters	8-10%	12-20%
Football (Backs)	9-12%	No data	Swimming	9-12%	14-24%
Football (Linemen)	15-19%	No data	Tennis	12-16%	16-24%
Gymnastics	5-12%	10-16%	Triathlon	5-12%	10-15%
High/long Jumpers	7-12%	10-18%	Volleyball	11-14%	16-25%
Ice/field Hockey	8-15%	12-18%	Weightlifters	9-16%	No data
Racquetball	8-13%	15-22%	Wrestlers	5-16%	No data

---

Lower is Not Necessarily Better

A certain amount of body fat is vital for the body to function normally and healthy. In fact striving for a body fat percentage that is too low can be dangerous. Here's why...

Measuring your body fat percentage calculates your TOTAL body fat. This total body fat can be split into 2 categories...

Storage Fat -- This consists mainly of fat deposited just under the skin or subcutaneous fat. Storage fat for men and women is fairly similar. For the average man 12% of bodyweight is storage fat and for the average woman 15% of bodyweight is storage fat.

Essential Body Fat -- For the body to function normally and healthily a certain amount of body fat is required. This is called essential fat. For women the average amount of essential fat is 12% of bodyweight and for men it is 3%.

Trying to achieve a body fat percentage that is so low it affects your essential fat stores is NOT good for your health.

Some storage fat is also required for good health. It's used to protect internal organs in the chest and abdomen. So remember...

Aim to stay within the range for age and gender and rest assured you are taking one of the most positive steps to life-long health you can.

Return to Body Fat Percentage Archive

Corby worst, Bristol best in 'yob map' of England

One in two people in Corby believe anti-social behaviour is a problem

The Northamptonshire town of Corby has been named the "yob" capital of England in a spending watchdog report.

The National Audit Office used official figures to assess residents' perceptions of anti-social behaviour.

Analysis of the data suggested 48.8% of adults in Corby believed bad behaviour was a problem.

The study also suggests 17% of the population across England thought there were high levels of anti-social behaviour in general.

As part of its report The Home Office: Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour, the National Audit Office (NAO) said the percentage of people who believed anti-social behaviour was a problem had risen from 16% two years ago.

The worst 10 towns and cities Corby 48.8 Mansfield 44.4 Hackney 42.7 Nottingham 42.7 Luton 42.7 Slough 42.0 Ashfield (Notts) 41.2 Knowsley (Merseyside) 39.2 Middlesbrough 39.3 Easington (Durham) 38.9 Percentage of adults who think anti-social behaviour is a problem

The survey of all English local authorities suggested almost one in two people believed so-called "yobbish" behaviour was a big or fairly big problem in Corby.

Bristol was named as the place with the fewest perceived anti-social problems with only 5.7% of residents describing it as a big or fairly big issue.

The best 10 Bristol 5.7 Staffordshire Moorlands 6.0 Basingstoke and Deane 7.4 Wolverhampton 7.5 Leeds 8.9 Winchester 9.6 Sevenoaks 9.9 City of London 10.2 Richmond upon Thames 10.6 Blaby 10.8

The report also suggested about 55% of anti-social behaviour orders had been breached.

The Asbos were either breached by offenders committing more offences or by breaking the terms of the order.

The NAO said 35% of Asbo holders breached the order on five or more occasions, but the average number was four per person.

The government said the findings did not mean Asbos were failing.

Scanner could reveal hidden fat

The scan can pinpoint the exact distribution of

A body scanner could help fitness fans work out exactly how much of their bodies are made up of fat.

Doctors could use the device - developed by UK scientists - to look for abnormal fat which may be putting their patients at risk.

Scientists at Lancaster University and the Institute of Food Research in Norwich used radiowaves to detect fat beneath the skin.

It is hoped that such machines could be commonplace in leisure centres one day.

The device works on the principle that the human body is a mixture of water and fat.

The amount of fat on a person can be calculated by working out their density using their exact volume and weight.

Other methods pass a tiny electrical current through the body - the level of resistance to the current can be used to estimate fat content.

However, none of these methods is particularly practical to be used in seriously-ill patients - or ordinary members of the public who need an easy way to find out the truth about their bodies.

Field method

The new method, revealed in New Scientist magazine, involves passing coils which create a radio-frequency electromagnetic field over the body.

The make-up of the object within the coil alters the phase of the field - and this can be measured and used to estimate the water content - and hence the fat content.

We should be able to put something like this in a leisure centre and members of the public could use it on a regular basis Dr Henri Tapp, Institute of Food Research

When this information is coupled with an exact measurement of the body's volume collected by four lasers sweeping across it, the researchers can in theory create a rough picture of not only the amount of fat, but also its location on the body.

Dr Henri Tapp, from the Institute of Food Research, told BBC News Online: "The technique is called magnetic induction tomography - it has been around for a while, but it is the first time it has been used this way.

While traditional measures of obesity, such as body mass index, can help doctors predict the risk of diseases such as diabetes or heart disease, there is increasing evidence that the precise location of that fat - whether it evenly distributed or located around the waist - also has a bearing.

'Fat scan' shows up health risk

Fat appears white on the MRI scan

A scan can spot which people harbour dangerous levels of fat around their vital internal organs, scientists say.

Hammersmith Hospital, in west London, is currently the only hospital in Europe using the MRI scan.

Its scientists say 40% of the population have "bad" fat around the heart, liver or pancreas, even though many appear thin. Only a litre of fat should surround these internal organs. People who are thin but do little exercise often exceed this amount.

They warn it is possible to be slim and yet still be at risk of conditions like diabetes because of "hidden" fat.

Evidence suggests the precise location of fat has more of a bearing on health than simply being overweight.

For example, people who have too much weight around their middle, often called an "apple" shape, have a greater risk of developing heart disease and type 2 diabetes than those who are pear shaped and carry the weight around the hips.

Fat is good in general, but when you have too much of it or fat in the wrong places it is bad Researcher Professor Jimmy Bell 'I'm fat on the inside'

While doctors can check whether a person is a healthy weight for their height by calculating their body mass index or BMI (weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared), they cannot see the dangerous hidden fat.

Lead researcher Professor Jimmy Bell, a Medical Research Council scientist, explained: "One of the problems with BMI is it gives you the wrong idea of how much fat you have.

"It's about where you have the fat.

"Fat is good in general, but when you have too much of it or fat in the wrong places it is bad.

"Someone can look really thin and have a normal BMI but have seven litres of fat inside them when they should ideally only have one litre."

Once doctors are aware someone has dangerous levels of hidden fat, they can work out the right combination of exercise and healthy eating needed to shift it, Professor Bell said.

He explained: "We are trying to understand what factors - genetic and environmental - make people put on fat internally and then determine what people need to do to get rid of this fat.

"When you diet you don't lose the right type of fat. If you exercise you lose more of the bad fat.

"If people are only going to do an hour of exercise a week, let's make sure that hour is spent doing the right exercise to shift the important internal fat."

Scientific Method: Parsimonious - sparing in proposed explanations - Occam's Razor

One of the requirements of the Scientific Theory / Scientific Method is Parsimonious: sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor

Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham (Guilhelmi Ockam and Guillermi de Ockam in Latin [1]). Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity in scientific theories.

Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off", those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (law of succinctness):

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,

which translates to:

entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Karl Popper

Karl Popper argues that a preference for simple theories need not appeal to practical or aesthetic considerations. Our preference for simplicity may be justified by his falsifiability criterion: We prefer simpler theories to more complex ones "because their empirical content is greater; and because they are better testable" (Popper 1992). In other words, a simple theory applies to more cases than a more complex one, and is thus more easily refuted.

Science by Razor alone?

When it is proposed as a maxim of science, Occam's razor is construed as a decision procedure for choosing among competing systems of hypotheses. In this context a system of hypotheses, together with its supporting definitions and its logical consequences, is commonly described as a theory.

Occam's razor has become a basic tool for those who follow the scientific method. The primary activity of science — formulating theories and selecting the most promising ones — is impossible without a way of choosing from among the theories which fit the evidence equally well, the number of which can be arbitrarily large (see underdetermination).

Creationism creeps into UK schools

"The fact is that creationism, in all its guises, is no longer a quintessentially American problem," says Michael Zimmerman, the architect of The Clergy Letter Project, an alliance of Christians who back evolution.

E O Wilson might want to talk to The Clergy Letter Project. (source: Christopher Govan Street)

IN THE beginning there was the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, the religious think tank that has backed the US "intelligent design" movement. And lo it came to pass that a group called Truth in Science appeared in the land of the Brit-ites.

Now, making what most see as a mockery of its name, Truth in Science has circulated material to UK schools aiming to counter the teaching of evolution in science classes. Some 59 schools in the UK are now using the information packs, which promote the notion that life on Earth was created through intelligent design, a euphemism for the biblical story of creation.

According to The Guardian newspaper in London, the packs include a manual and two DVDs and were sent on 18 September to all the country's secondary schools. "The fact is that creationism, in all its guises, is no longer a quintessentially American problem," says Michael Zimmerman, professor of liberal arts and sciences at Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana, and the architect of The Clergy Letter Project, an alliance of Christians who back evolution.

“Creationism in all its guises is no longer a quintessentially American problem”

"It is spreading worldwide and has made significant inroads in the UK," says Zimmerman. "The best way to overcome this pernicious situation is for religious leaders and scientists to come together to discuss how religion and science can be compatible - how they use different methodologies to help people understand the world and the human condition," he says.

From issue 2580 of New Scientist magazine, 02 December 2006, page 4

Intelligent Design

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."^[1][2][3] All of its leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute.^{[4][5][6][7][8][9]} They say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.^[10]

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,^[11] as pseudoscience^[12][13] or as junk science.^[14][15] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.^[16]

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.^[17]

Scientific critique of creationism

Since the origins of modern geology in the 18th and 19th centuries, forms of creationism have become increasingly separated from mainstream science. As modern science called into question the literal interpretations of biblical account of creation in Genesis, creationists (especially Young Earth creationists) began to actively oppose the scientific consensus on questions of origins.

There is a fundamental difference between the scientific approach to explaining the natural world and the creationist approach. The scientific approach uses the scientific method as a means of discovering information about nature. Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of scientific theories. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. This is a meritocratic form of systematic enquiry, where the best ideas supported by evidence and positive experimental results survive. In principle, the scientific method does not seek answers that fit a certain pre-determined conclusion, but rather works to construct viable, testable, and provable theories based on a solid evidential foundation. The evidential foundation therefore precludes any reference to revelation.

Creationism, on the other hand, works by taking theologically conservative interpretations of scripture as the primary or only source of information about origins. Creationists believe that since the Creator created everything and also revealed scriptures, the scriptures have pre-eminence as a kind of evidence. Consistency with their interpretations of scripture is the measure by which they judge all other evidence. They then accept or reject scientific accounts based on whether or not they agree with their beliefs, discounting that which contradicts their understanding of scriptural revelation. This perspective can be seen as a type of luddism or anti-modernism since any seemingly opposing ideas are either ignored or dismissed. Those who oppose creationism point out that such positions are fundamentally unscientific and a hallmark of pseudoscience. Additionally, aspects of the scriptures which are not subject to scientific examination are not considered as reliable evidence to scientists.

Certain adherents to creationism have declared that there exist versions of creationism (namely creation science) that are based on the scientific method. It was such claims that were the basis for the legal arguments that creationism deserved equal-time in the science classroom. Skeptical critics charge that creation science is not a theory that has come about through a systematic and scientific accumulation of evidence. It is predominantly based on the assumption of a literal interpretation of religious scripture and the emphasis of the authority of scripture over other sources of knowledge is evident in creation science literature.

All scientific theories are falsifiable; that is, if evidence that contradicts any given theory comes to light, or if the theory is proven to no longer fit with the evidence, the theory itself is shown to be invalid and is either modified to be consistent with all the evidence or is discarded. Scientific theories can be (and often are) found to be incorrect or incomplete. Since creationism rests on an article of faith, its construction assumes that the narrative accounts of origins can never be shown falsified, no matter how strong the evidence is to the contrary.

Evolutionary modern synthesis is the theory that fits all known biological and genetic evidence while being backed up by overwhelming evidence in the fossil record. Contrary to frequent claims by many opponents of the theory of evolution, transitional fossils exist which show a gradual change from one species to another. Moreover, evolutionary selection has been observed in living species (for a macroscopic instance, “tuskless elephants,” see elephant).

In the last ten years, DNA analysis techniques applied to many organisms have demonstrated the genetic relationship between all forms of known life (humans share 50% of their DNA with yeast, 96 with chimpanzees). Even if the theory of evolution was disproved, this would not imply separate human creation, which is the main feature of creationism in the Abrahamic religions. It is exclusively in the public sphere, where young Earth creationists (especially in the U.S.) have fought for recognition of their world view, that the debate about creationism and evolution continues.

Defining intelligent design as science

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge of the natural world without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism. Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to materialist metaphysical naturalism and have often said that not only is their own position scientific, but it is even more scientific than evolution, and that they want a redefinition of science as a revived natural theology or natural philosophy to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design."^[88] This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific, it must be:

• Consistent (internally and externally)
• Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
• Useful (describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena)
• Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
• Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
• Correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
• Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
• Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,^[89] violates the principle of parsimony,^[90] is not falsifiable,^[91] is not empirically testable,^[92] and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.^[93]

In light of its apparent failure to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."^[94] And in October 2005 a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory."^[95]

Critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence used by most courts, the Daubert Standard. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four Daubert criteria are:

• The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
• The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
• There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.
• The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.

In deciding Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District on 20 December 2005, Judge John E. Jones III agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that "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."

Peer review

The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community which withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design's being considered valid science.^[96] To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.^[96][9]

Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the principles of science, which limit its inquiries to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data and which require explanations to be based on empirical evidence. Dembski, Behe and other intelligent design proponents say bias by the scientific community is to blame for the failure of their research to be published. Intelligent design proponents believe that their writings are rejected for not conforming to purely naturalistic, nonsupernatural mechanisms rather than because their research is not up to "journal standards" and that the merit of their articles is overlooked. Some scientists describe this claim as a conspiracy theory.^[97] The issue that the supernatural explanations do not conform to the scientific method became a sticking point for intelligent design proponents in the 1990s and is addressed in the wedge strategy as an aspect of science that must be challenged before intelligent design could be accepted by the broader scientific community.

The debate over whether intelligent design produces new research, as any scientific field must, and has legitimately attempted to publish this research, is extremely heated. Both critics and advocates point to numerous examples to make their case. For instance, the Templeton Foundation, a former funder of the Discovery Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that it asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, but none were ever submitted. Charles L. Harper Jr., foundation vice-president, said: "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review."^[98]

The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.^[99] Written by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture Director Stephen C. Meyer, it appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in August 2004. The article was literature review, which means that it did not present any new research but, rather, culled quotations and claims from other papers to argue that the Cambrian explosion could not have happened by natural processes. The choice of venue for this article was also considered problematic, because it was so outside the normal subject matter (see Sternberg peer review controversy). Dembski has written that "perhaps the best reason [to be skeptical of his ideas] is that intelligent design has yet to establish itself as a thriving scientific research program."^[100] In a 2001 interview, Dembski said that he stopped submitting to peer-reviewed journals because of their slow time-to-print and that he makes more money from publishing books.^[101]

In the Dover trial, the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing.^[102] There, intelligent design proponents cited just one paper, on simulation modeling of evolution by Behe and Snoke, which mentioned neither irreducible complexity nor intelligent design and which Behe admitted did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms.^[102] But in sworn testimony, Behe said: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."^[103] As summarized by the judge, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his claims of intelligent design or irreducible complexity. In his ruling, the judge wrote: "A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory."^[96]

Despite this, the Discovery Institute continues to insist that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals,^[104] including in their list the two articles mentioned above. Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, pointing out that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Instead, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lack impartiality and rigor,^[105] consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.^[106]