Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
46 bytes removed ,  07:56, March 11, 2007
no edit summary
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 ([[God]]), rather than natural processes, such as [[evolution]]. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]
+
Intelligent Design is the theory that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause ([[God]], or else [[extraterrestrial beings]]), rather than natural processes, such as [[evolution]]. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]
    
To date there have been over 40 peer reviewed articles supporting Intelligent Design in such notable publications as the ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' and internationally respected scientific journals such as ''Rivista di Biologia.'' [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]
 
To date there have been over 40 peer reviewed articles supporting Intelligent Design in such notable publications as the ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' and internationally respected scientific journals such as ''Rivista di Biologia.'' [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]
Line 11: Line 11:  
In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League, Jones replied 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 replied 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]
   −
However, this ruling was made because science is dependent upon observable, empirical, measurable evidence. If a supreme being was responsible for the creation of life, this can not be scientifically proven. Thus, Intelligent Design cannot be a scientific theory. If a supreme being was not responsible, Intelligent Design is a logical paradox - if intelligence is too complex a quality to have occurred by chance, what created the creating intelligence?
+
However, this ruling was made because science is dependent upon observable, empirical, measurable evidence. If a supreme being was responsible for the creation of life, this can not be scientifically proven. Thus, Intelligent Design cannot be a scientific theory, and can't engage in any sort of meaningful discourse with the scientific claims of evolutionary biologists.
    
[[Category:Biology]]
 
[[Category:Biology]]
 
[[Category:Religion]]
 
[[Category:Religion]]
 
[[Category:Politics]]
 
[[Category:Politics]]

Navigation menu