2,732
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: − + Line 6:
Line 6: − − The ruling has been described by some as "biased and religiously bigoted." [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2006/01/02/false_judge_makes_mockery_of_case_for_intelligent_design] In addition, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "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.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330]
Removed reference to atheists believing in extraterrestrial genesis. That's only the Raelians; unrepresentative nutjobs...
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 [[evolution]][http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]. The intelligent cause is typically assumed to be [[God]], while atheist proponents of intelligent design assume an [[Aliens| extraterrestrial intelligence]] [http://www.rael.org/rael_content/rael_summary.php].
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 [[evolution]][http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]. The intelligent cause is typically assumed to be [[God]].
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]
In a recent trial in Dover, PA Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design was not valid science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
In a recent trial in Dover, PA Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design was not valid science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
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]