| − | '''Intelligent Design''' is the hypothesis 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 theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [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 hypothesis 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 theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause 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 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] |
| − | It is claimed that the 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, it has been claimed, Intelligent Design cannot be a scientific theory. However, as noted above, Intelligent Design as a scinetific theory does not identify the source of the intelligence responsible for life forms. If a supreme being was not responsible, it is claimed, 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 may be countered by the argument that the creating intelligence has always existed, and did not have a creator. | + | It is claimed that the 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, it has been claimed, Intelligent Design cannot be a scientific theory. However, as noted above, Intelligent Design as a scientific theory does not identify the source of the intelligence responsible for life forms. If a supreme being was not responsible, it is claimed, 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 may be countered by the argument that the creating intelligence has always existed, and did not have a creator. |