Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: − +
Reverted edits by Dbro (Talk); changed back to last version by Archangel
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 hypothesis 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]]. The biggest problem with intelligent design is that God is imaginary, so there's no way he could design anything.
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 hypothesis 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 has been one peer-reviewed article supporting Intelligent Design in the ''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]
To date there has been one peer-reviewed article supporting Intelligent Design in the ''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]