Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,427
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 40:
Line 40: + + + + + +
→Support
==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. <ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640</ref>
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>
In addition William Dembski wrote the following in a essay:
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
In a 1996 review of Michael Behe’s book Darwin's Black Box, James Shapiro, a molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, wrote: "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject -- evolution -- with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity" (National Review, 16 September 1996). Five years later cell biologist Franklin Harold wrote a book for Oxford University Press titled The Way of the Cell. In virtually identical language, he notes: "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
</blockquote>
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 <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp </ref>). 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]]. <ref>http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/</ref> 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 <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp </ref>). 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]]. <ref>http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/</ref> 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.