Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Phillip E. Johnson

2007-05-27T20:28:46Z

Dimitar:

Phillip E. Johnson is of the leading members of the [[Intelligent Design]] movement and has done much to help these ideas gain acceptance and a wider hearing worldwide, despite the lack of empirical evidence in their favour. Johnson is the author of several books on evolution, philosophical naturalism, and other cultural issues and speaks extensively around the country. Johnson recieved the 2004 William Wilberforce Award a recognition of an individual who has made a difference in the face of formidable societal problems and injustices. The award is given in honor of William Wilberforce, an eighteenth century British parliamentarian who stood against his party in his campaign to abolish the slave trade and honor the basic human right to life.

{{stub2}}

== External Links ==
*[http://phillipejohnson.net/ Phillip E. Johnson] website
*[http://creationwiki.org/Phillip_Johnson CreationWiki - Phillip Johnson]

William Dembski

2007-05-27T20:25:31Z

Dimitar:

[[Image:Wm Dembski.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''William Albert Dembski''' (born July 18, 1960), Ph.D., is a mathematician and philosopher. He earned his doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988, and also earned a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1996. He has held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships, and has taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas. He has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University.

Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, philosophy, and theology journals and is the author/editor of more than ten books. His chief insight has been to observe that design in life systems may be inferred only with an unreasonable degree of confidence if origins other than design have very small probabilities.

*William Dembski is a senior fellow with Seattle's Discovery Institute. Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, philosophy, and theology journals and is the author/editor of more than ten books. In ''The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities'' (Cambridge University Press, 1998), he examines the design argument in the post-[[Darwinian]] context and analyzes the connections linking chance, probability, and intelligent causation. His work has been cited in numerous newspaper and magazine articles, including three front page stories in the ''New York Times''. He has made frequent television appearances. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/about]

He wrote:
*[[materialism|Materialistic]] ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological [[origin debate|origins]] so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that [[science]] is being used illegitimately to promote a [[materialistic world view]], but that this world view is actively undermining [[scientific inquiry]], leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, [[intelligent design]] (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution -- an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.

== External Link ==
*[http://www.uncommondescent.com/ Uncommon Descent -The Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary and friends]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dembski, William}}
[[Category:Intelligent design theorists]]
[[Category: philosophers]]

Phillip E. Johnson

2007-04-16T10:36:19Z

Dimitar:

Phillip E. Johnson is a former Law Professor and is one of the leading members of the [[Intelligent Design]] movement. He has done much to help these ideas gain a wider hearing worldwide, despite an absence of any formal qualification in the relevant scientific field. Johnson is the author of several books on evolution, philosophical naturalism, and other cultural issues and speaks extensively around the country. Johnson’s views on evolution are not congruent with those of the biological science community.

Johnson recieved the 2004 William Wilberforce Award a recognition of an individual who has made a difference in the face of formidable societal problems and injustices. The award is given in honor of William Wilberforce, an eighteenth century British parliamentarian who stood against his party in his campaign to abolish the slave trade and honor the basic human right to life.

{{stub2}}

== External Links ==
*[http://phillipejohnson.net/ Phillip E. Johnson] website
*[http://creationwiki.org/Phillip_Johnson CreationWiki - Phillip Johnson]

Materialism

2007-04-15T18:35:50Z

Dimitar:

'''Materialism''' is an ontological position which holds, due to an absence of any evidence, that there is no immaterial or spiritual realm. Only things which are detectable in some form by the senses and sense experience- for instance [[fork]]s, [[matter]], [[radiation]], [[heat]], [[neutrinos]], [[mayonnaise]], [[galaxies]], and so forth. It assumed by the position of [[empiricism]], and therefore [[science]], and is contrasted with [[substance dualism]] and [[immaterialism]]. Arguments for materialism commonly employ [[ontological principles]] such as [[Occam's Razor]]- as an immaterial realm is wholly superfluous to our understanding of the world, we have no reason to believe it exists.

[[Category: Philosophy]]

William Dembski

2007-04-15T18:27:26Z

Dimitar:

[[Image:Wm Dembski.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''William Albert Dembski''' (born July 18, 1960), Ph.D., is a mathematician and philosopher.

*William Dembski is a senior fellow with Seattle's Discovery Institute. Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, philosophy, and theology journals and is the author/editor of more than ten books. In The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998), he examines the design argument in a post-Darwinian context and analyzes the connections linking chance, probability, and intelligent causation. His work has been cited in numerous newspaper and magazine articles, including three front page stories in the New York Times. Despite this Dembski has yet to provide any real evidence to support his hypothesis of specified complexity and has consequently found it hard to publish his work in mainstream science journals. He has made frequent television appearances, including The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. [http://www.uncommondescent.com/about]

He wrote:
*[[materialism|Materialistic]] ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological [[origin debate|origins]] so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that [[science]] is being used illegitimately to promote a [[materialistic worldview]], but that this worldview is actively undermining [[scientific inquiry]], leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, [[intelligent design]] (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution -- an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.

== External Link ==
*[http://www.uncommondescent.com/ Uncommon Descent -The Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary and friends]

[[Category: Intelligent design]]
[[Category: philosophers]]

Intelligent design

2007-03-23T23:02:52Z

Dimitar: /* Evidence */

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 proscribed by the [[Theory of evolution]][http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]. Many design theorist leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some admit to believing the intelligent cause is [[God]].

To date there has been one peer-reviewed article supporting Intelligent Design in mainstream science journals, ''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] The former editor of that journal, however, asserts he followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. [http://www.rsternberg.net/]

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]), but it is steadily growing. 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.

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 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]
== 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 alleges in "Darwin's Black Box" [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834936/thetalkorigin-20/] that there are certain ''irreducible complexities'' which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer. Scientists claim that there is little evidence for such structures. [http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/nature.shtml]

== Analogies ==
Many Intelligent Design advocates propose the "watch" analogy.
:Imagine one is walking along a beach and suddenly encounters a wrist-watch. Given its relative sophistication vis-a-vis its environment, and the obvious non-random care with which it was made, does the wrist-watch pre-suppose an Intelligent Designer?
== External Link ==
[http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Main_Page ResearchID.org]

[[Category:Intelligent design| ]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Intelligent design

2007-03-23T23:01:00Z

Dimitar: /* Evidence */

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 proscribed by the [[Theory of evolution]][http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]. Many design theorist leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some admit to believing the intelligent cause is [[God]].

To date there has been one peer-reviewed article supporting Intelligent Design in mainstream science journals, ''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] The former editor of that journal, however, asserts he followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. [http://www.rsternberg.net/]

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]), but it is steadily growing. 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.

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 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]
== 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 alleges in "Darwin's Black Box" [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834936/thetalkorigin-20/] that there are certain ''irreducible complexities'' which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer. The vast majority of scientists who reviewed Behe's book felt that the structures he defined could evolve through the mechanisms of naturalist evolution and that the evidence he provided was without any merit. [http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/nature.shtml]

== Analogies ==
Many Intelligent Design advocates propose the "watch" analogy.
:Imagine one is walking along a beach and suddenly encounters a wrist-watch. Given its relative sophistication vis-a-vis its environment, and the obvious non-random care with which it was made, does the wrist-watch pre-suppose an Intelligent Designer?
== External Link ==
[http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Main_Page ResearchID.org]

[[Category:Intelligent design| ]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Intelligent design

2007-03-23T22:53:52Z

Dimitar: /* Evidence */

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 proscribed by the [[Theory of evolution]][http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]. Many design theorist leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some admit to believing the intelligent cause is [[God]].

To date there has been one peer-reviewed article supporting Intelligent Design in mainstream science journals, ''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] The former editor of that journal, however, asserts he followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. [http://www.rsternberg.net/]

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]), but it is steadily growing. 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.

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 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]
== 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 alleges in "Darwin's Black Box" [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834936/thetalkorigin-20/] that there are certain ''irreducible complexities'' which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer. Scientists claim that there is little evidence for such structures.

== Analogies ==
Many Intelligent Design advocates propose the "watch" analogy.
:Imagine one is walking along a beach and suddenly encounters a wrist-watch. Given its relative sophistication vis-a-vis its environment, and the obvious non-random care with which it was made, does the wrist-watch pre-suppose an Intelligent Designer?
== External Link ==
[http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Main_Page ResearchID.org]

[[Category:Intelligent design| ]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Intelligent design

2007-03-23T22:43:07Z

Dimitar: /* Analogies */

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 proscribed by the [[Theory of evolution]][http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]. Many design theorist leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some admit to believing the intelligent cause is [[God]].

To date there has been one peer-reviewed article supporting Intelligent Design in mainstream science journals, ''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] The former editor of that journal, however, asserts he followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. [http://www.rsternberg.net/]

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]), but it is steadily growing. 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.

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 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]
== 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 alleges in "Darwin's Black Box" [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834936/thetalkorigin-20/] that there are certain ''irreducible complexities'' which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer.

== Analogies ==
Many Intelligent Design advocates propose the "watch" analogy. Imagine one is walking along a beach and suddenly encounters a wrist-watch. Given its relative sophistication vis-a-vis its environment, and the obvious non-random care with which it was made, does the wrist-watch pre-suppose an Intelligent Designer? Scientists claim they have evidence that suggests such complexity does not require a deity.

== External Link ==
[http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Main_Page ResearchID.org]

[[Category:Intelligent design| ]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Intelligent design

2007-03-23T22:40:35Z

Dimitar: /* Evidence */

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 proscribed by the [[Theory of evolution]][http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]. Many design theorist leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some admit to believing the intelligent cause is [[God]].

To date there has been one peer-reviewed article supporting Intelligent Design in mainstream science journals, ''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] The former editor of that journal, however, asserts he followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. [http://www.rsternberg.net/]

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]), but it is steadily growing. 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.

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 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]
== 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 alleges in "Darwin's Black Box" [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834936/thetalkorigin-20/] that there are certain ''irreducible complexities'' which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer. There is no evidence as yet to suggest such systems exist.

== Analogies ==
Many Intelligent Design advocates propose the "watch" analogy. Imagine one is walking along a beach and suddenly encounters a wrist-watch. Given its relative sophistication vis-a-vis its environment, and the obvious non-random care with which it was made, does the wrist-watch pre-suppose an Intelligent Designer? Scientists have evidence that random mutations and selection can account for even the greatest complexity, whereas intelligent design proponents and creation scientists assume that given the deliberate nature of the watch, it must have had external design.

== External Link ==
[http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Main_Page ResearchID.org]

[[Category:Intelligent design| ]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Intelligent design

2007-03-23T22:40:12Z

Dimitar: /* Evidence */

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 proscribed by the [[Theory of evolution]][http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]. Many design theorist leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some admit to believing the intelligent cause is [[God]].

To date there has been one peer-reviewed article supporting Intelligent Design in mainstream science journals, ''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] The former editor of that journal, however, asserts he followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. [http://www.rsternberg.net/]

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]), but it is steadily growing. 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.

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 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]
== 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 alleges in "Darwin's Black Box" [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834936/thetalkorigin-20/] that there are certain ''irreducible complexities'' which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer. There is no evidence as yet to suggest such systens exist.

== Analogies ==
Many Intelligent Design advocates propose the "watch" analogy. Imagine one is walking along a beach and suddenly encounters a wrist-watch. Given its relative sophistication vis-a-vis its environment, and the obvious non-random care with which it was made, does the wrist-watch pre-suppose an Intelligent Designer? Scientists have evidence that random mutations and selection can account for even the greatest complexity, whereas intelligent design proponents and creation scientists assume that given the deliberate nature of the watch, it must have had external design.

== External Link ==
[http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Main_Page ResearchID.org]

[[Category:Intelligent design| ]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Intelligent design

2007-03-23T22:39:18Z

Dimitar: /* Analogies */

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 proscribed by the [[Theory of evolution]][http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]. Many design theorist leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some admit to believing the intelligent cause is [[God]].

To date there has been one peer-reviewed article supporting Intelligent Design in mainstream science journals, ''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] The former editor of that journal, however, asserts he followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. [http://www.rsternberg.net/]

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]), but it is steadily growing. 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.

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 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]
== 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 alleges in "Darwin's Black Box" [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834936/thetalkorigin-20/] that there are certain ''irreducible complexities'' which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer.
== Analogies ==
Many Intelligent Design advocates propose the "watch" analogy. Imagine one is walking along a beach and suddenly encounters a wrist-watch. Given its relative sophistication vis-a-vis its environment, and the obvious non-random care with which it was made, does the wrist-watch pre-suppose an Intelligent Designer? Scientists have evidence that random mutations and selection can account for even the greatest complexity, whereas intelligent design proponents and creation scientists assume that given the deliberate nature of the watch, it must have had external design.

== External Link ==
[http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Main_Page ResearchID.org]

[[Category:Intelligent design| ]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Intelligent design

2007-03-23T22:32:14Z

Dimitar: /* Evidence */

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 proscribed by the [[Theory of evolution]][http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]. Many design theorist leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some admit to believing the intelligent cause is [[God]].

To date there has been one peer-reviewed article supporting Intelligent Design in mainstream science journals, ''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] The former editor of that journal, however, asserts he followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. [http://www.rsternberg.net/]

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]), but it is steadily growing. 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.

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 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]
== 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 alleges in "Darwin's Black Box" [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834936/thetalkorigin-20/] that there are certain ''irreducible complexities'' which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer. Scientists contest that there is no evidence yet for such systems.

== Analogies ==
Many Intelligent Design advocates propose the "watch" analogy. Imagine one is walking along a beach and suddenly encounters a wrist-watch. Given its relative sophistication vis-a-vis its environment, and the obvious non-random care with which it was made, does the wrist-watch pre-suppose an Intelligent Designer? Scientists have evidence suggesting that random mutations coupled with natural and sexual selection can account for even the greatest complexity, whereas intelligent design proponents and creation scientists assume that given the deliberate nature of the watch, it must have had external design. Critics of Intelligent Design contend that this is a 'god of the gaps' theory that offers no new avenues of enquiry, and is consequently useless as a scientific hypothesis.

== External Link ==
[http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Main_Page ResearchID.org]

[[Category:Intelligent design| ]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Intelligent design

2007-03-23T22:30:50Z

Dimitar: /* Analogies */

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 proscribed by the [[Theory of evolution]][http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]. Many design theorist leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some admit to believing the intelligent cause is [[God]].

To date there has been one peer-reviewed article supporting Intelligent Design in mainstream science journals, ''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] The former editor of that journal, however, asserts he followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. [http://www.rsternberg.net/]

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]), but it is steadily growing. 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.

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 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]
== 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 alleges in "Darwin's Black Box" [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684834936/thetalkorigin-20/] that there are certain ''irreducible complexities'' which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer.
== Analogies ==
Many Intelligent Design advocates propose the "watch" analogy. Imagine one is walking along a beach and suddenly encounters a wrist-watch. Given its relative sophistication vis-a-vis its environment, and the obvious non-random care with which it was made, does the wrist-watch pre-suppose an Intelligent Designer? Scientists have evidence suggesting that random mutations coupled with natural and sexual selection can account for even the greatest complexity, whereas intelligent design proponents and creation scientists assume that given the deliberate nature of the watch, it must have had external design. Critics of Intelligent Design contend that this is a 'god of the gaps' theory that offers no new avenues of enquiry, and is consequently useless as a scientific hypothesis.

== External Link ==
[http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Main_Page ResearchID.org]

[[Category:Intelligent design| ]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Politics]]