Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,420
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 8:
Line 8: − + + + +
→Intelligent design response to the God of the gaps argument
== Intelligent design response to the God of the gaps argument ==
== Intelligent design response to the God of the gaps argument ==
[[Intelligent design]]
[[Intelligent design]] (ID) is the empirically testable<ref>"Dembski and Wells argue calmly and convincingly that intelligent design theory is empirically testable (in spite of Darwinists' shrill protests to the contrary) by indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory, namely a clear demonstration that systems exhibiting [[irreducible complexity]] with specified complexity can in fact arise spontaneously by purely material processes" source: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Design-Life-Discovering-Intelligence/dp/0980021308 The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems - Amazon page]</ref> theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.<ref>
An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ ID Defined]</ref> As [[Jonathan Wells]] wrote, "ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes." <ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/wired_science_one_long_bluff028441.html</ref>
=== ID response to the God of the gaps argument
*[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1159 Is ID a "god-of-the-gaps" argument?] - Idea Center
*[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1159 Is ID a "god-of-the-gaps" argument?] - Idea Center