Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,420
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + − + + + + + + Line 12:
Line 17: − + Line 18:
Line 23: − + − + − +
no edit summary
Intelligent Design (ID) is the theory that various features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause and not by undirected processes. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2348][http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2834&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20History%20and%20Philosophy%20of%20Science][http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2571][http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm]
Intelligent Design (ID) is the theory that various features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause and not by undirected processes. <ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2348</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2834&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20History%20and%20Philosophy%20of%20Science</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2571</ref><ref>http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm</ref>
== Evidence ==
== Evidence ==
One of the first major books with evidence for intelligent design was [[Michael J. Behe]]'s. Behe is a Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University. He states in "Darwin's Black Box" [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834936/thetalkorigin-20/] that there are certain ''[[Irreducible complexity|irreducible complexities]]'' which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer.
One of the first major books with evidence for intelligent design was [[Michael J. Behe]]'s. Behe is a Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University. He states in his book "[[Darwin's Black Box]]" [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834936/thetalkorigin-20/] that there are certain ''[[Irreducible complexity|irreducible complexities]]'' in organisms which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer.
[[William Dembski]] in book ''No Free Lunch'', states the the following:
"A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. <ref>William Dembski, ''No Free Lunch'',(2001), p. 285. ISBN 0742512975</ref>
== Analogies ==
== Analogies ==
==Support==
==Support==
Recently, there have been articles which were favorable to the intelligent design position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]
Recently, there have been articles which were favorable to the intelligent design position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. <ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640</ref>
Design theory enjoys a small amount of stated support within the worldwide scientific community (creationist scientists report there is widespread discriminatory action against creationist scientists[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp]). From 2001 to 2007, over 700 scientists had signed the pro-Intelligent Design manifesto, ''A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism'', published by the leaders of the design movement, the Discovery Institute. [http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/] This has caused some scientists to question the claim of the dominant scientific community that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life and call for public school science students to study the evidence supporting it in greater detail.
Design theory enjoys a small amount of stated support within the worldwide scientific community (creationist scientists report there is widespread discriminatory action against creationist scientists[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp]). From 2001 to 2007, over 700 scientists had signed the pro-Intelligent Design manifesto, ''A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism'', published by the leaders of the design movement, the Discovery Institute. [http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/] This has caused some scientists to question the claim of the dominant scientific community that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life and call for public school science students to study the evidence supporting it in greater detail.
== Opposition ==
== Opposition ==
Some scientists who reviewed Behe's book felt that the structures he defined could evolve through the mechanisms of naturalist evolution and that the evidence provided was not convincing. [http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/nature.shtml]
Some scientists who reviewed Behe's book felt that the structures he defined could evolve through the mechanisms of naturalist evolution and that the evidence provided was not convincing. <ref>http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/nature.shtml</ref>
In a recent trial in Dover, Pennsylvania Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design was not valid science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". However, the WorldNetDaily stated: "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.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] This information was originally published in a press release from the [[Discovery Institute]]. Critics contend that it is a misrepresentation of legal precedent and that the ruling followed standard procedure. [http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/casey_luskinnot.html]
In a recent trial in Dover, Pennsylvania Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design was not valid science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". However, the WorldNetDaily stated: "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.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] This information was originally published in a press release from the [[Discovery Institute]]. Critics contend that it is a misrepresentation of legal precedent and that the ruling followed standard procedure. <ref>http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/casey_luskinnot.html</ref>
In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League, Jones said 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 said 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."<ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp</ref>
== See also ==
== See also ==