1,019
edits
Changes
rm unsupported claim
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/]
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.
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.
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. [http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/casey_luskinnot.html]