Difference between revisions of "Intelligent design"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(please see my newest posting to the talk page)
(Consensus version while editors review comments on talk page)
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Intelligent Design is the theory that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than natural processes, such as proscribe by the [[Theory of evolution]][http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]. Many design leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be [[God]].  
+
Intelligent Design is the theory that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than natural processes, such as proscribed by the [[Theory of evolution]][http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]. Many design theorist leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some admit to believing the intelligent cause is [[God]].  
  
Recently, there has been articles which defended the intelligent design position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]
+
To date there has been one peer-reviewed article supporting Intelligent Design in mainstream science journals, ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington''  [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]  However, the journal later withdrew the article citing improper reviewing practices. [http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html] The former editor of that journal, however, asserts he followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. [http://www.rsternberg.net/]
  
Design theory enjoys a small amount of stated support within the worldwide scientific community (creationist scientists report there is widespread discriminatory action against creationist scientists[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp]), but it is steadily growing. From 2001 to 2007 over 700 scientists had signed the pro-Intelligent Design manifesto ''A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism'' published by the leaders of the design movement, the Discovery Institute. [http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/] This has caused some scientists to question the claim of the dominant scientific community that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life and call for public school science students to study the evidence supporting it in greater detail.  
+
Design theory enjoys a small amount of stated support within the worldwide scientific community (creationist scientists report there is widespread discriminatory action against creationist scientists[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp]). From 2001 to 2007 over 700 scientists had signed the pro-Intelligent Design manifesto ''A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism'' published by the leaders of the design movement, the Discovery Institute. [http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/] This has caused some scientists to question the claim of the dominant scientific community that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life and call for public school science students to study the evidence supporting it in greater detail.  
  
 
In a recent trial in Dover, Pennsylvania Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design was not valid science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".  However, the WorldNetDaily stated: "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] This information was originally published in a press release from the [[Discovery Institute]]. Critics contend that it is a misrepresentation of legal precedent and that the ruling followed standard procedure. [http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/casey_luskinnot.html]
 
In a recent trial in Dover, Pennsylvania Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design was not valid science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".  However, the WorldNetDaily stated: "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] This information was originally published in a press release from the [[Discovery Institute]]. Critics contend that it is a misrepresentation of legal precedent and that the ruling followed standard procedure. [http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/casey_luskinnot.html]
  
 
In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League, Jones said that "had I decided the Dover matter in a different way, I would have then engaged in just the kind of judicial activism which critics decry," stating that he was bound by "over a half century of strong legal precedents."[http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp]
 
In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League, Jones said that "had I decided the Dover matter in a different way, I would have then engaged in just the kind of judicial activism which critics decry," stating that he was bound by "over a half century of strong legal precedents."[http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp]
 
 
 
== Evidence ==
 
== Evidence ==
 
+
One of the first major books with evidence for intelligent design was [[Michael J. Behe]]'s.  Behe is a Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University.  He alleges in "Darwin's Black Box" [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834936/thetalkorigin-20/] that there are certain ''irreducible complexities'' which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer. Most scientist who reviewed Behe's book felt that the structures he defined could evolve through the mechanisms of naturalist evolution and that the evidence provided was not convincing. [http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/nature.shtml]
One of the first major books with evidence for intelligent design was [[Michael J. Behe]]'s.  Behe is a Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University.  He alleges in "Darwin's Black Box" [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834936/thetalkorigin-20/] that there are certain ''irreducible complexities'' which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer.
+
  
 
== Analogies ==
 
== Analogies ==
 
+
Many Intelligent Design advocates propose the "watch" analogy.
Many Intelligent Design advocates propose the "watch" analogy. Imagine you are walking along a beach, and you suddenly encounter a wrist-watch.  Given its relative sophistication vis-a-vis its environment, and the obvious non-random care with which it was made, does the wrist-watch pre-suppose an Intelligent Designer? Evolutionary thinkers would have us believe that humans (the wrist-watch) just evolved there, on the beach, whereas Intelligent Design advocates properly realize that the watch (us, ourselves) was simply created, by God. 
+
:Imagine one is walking along a beach and suddenly encounters a wrist-watch.  Given its relative sophistication vis-a-vis its environment, and the obvious non-random care with which it was made, does the wrist-watch pre-suppose an Intelligent Designer?
 
+
 
+
 
== External Link ==
 
== External Link ==
 
[http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Main_Page ResearchID.org]
 
[http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Main_Page ResearchID.org]

Revision as of 19:02, 24 March 2007

Intelligent Design is the theory that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than natural processes, such as proscribed by the Theory of evolution[1]. Many design theorist leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[2]. However, some admit to believing the intelligent cause is God.

To date there has been one peer-reviewed article supporting Intelligent Design in mainstream science journals, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington [3] However, the journal later withdrew the article citing improper reviewing practices. [4] The former editor of that journal, however, asserts he followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. [5]

Design theory enjoys a small amount of stated support within the worldwide scientific community (creationist scientists report there is widespread discriminatory action against creationist scientists[6]). From 2001 to 2007 over 700 scientists had signed the pro-Intelligent Design manifesto A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism published by the leaders of the design movement, the Discovery Institute. [7] This has caused some scientists to question the claim of the dominant scientific community that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life and call for public school science students to study the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

In a recent trial in Dover, Pennsylvania Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design was not valid science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". However, the WorldNetDaily stated: "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by ACLU lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." [8] This information was originally published in a press release from the Discovery Institute. Critics contend that it is a misrepresentation of legal precedent and that the ruling followed standard procedure. [9]

In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League, Jones said that "had I decided the Dover matter in a different way, I would have then engaged in just the kind of judicial activism which critics decry," stating that he was bound by "over a half century of strong legal precedents."[10]

Evidence

One of the first major books with evidence for intelligent design was Michael J. Behe's. Behe is a Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University. He alleges in "Darwin's Black Box" [11] that there are certain irreducible complexities which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer. Most scientist who reviewed Behe's book felt that the structures he defined could evolve through the mechanisms of naturalist evolution and that the evidence provided was not convincing. [12]

Analogies

Many Intelligent Design advocates propose the "watch" analogy.

Imagine one is walking along a beach and suddenly encounters a wrist-watch. Given its relative sophistication vis-a-vis its environment, and the obvious non-random care with which it was made, does the wrist-watch pre-suppose an Intelligent Designer?

External Link

ResearchID.org