13
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 9:
Line 9: − It is claimed that the ruling was made because science is dependent upon observable, empirical, measurable evidence. If a supreme being was responsible for the creation of life, this can not be scientifically proven. Thus, it has been claimed, Intelligent Design cannot be a scientific theory. However, as noted above, Intelligent Design as a scientific theory does not identify the source of the intelligence responsible for life forms. If a supreme being was not responsible, it is claimed, Intelligent Design is a logical paradox: If intelligence is too complex a quality to have occurred by chance, what created the creating intelligence? However, this may be countered by the argument that the creating intelligence has always existed, and did not have a creator. This, however, presents another problem. It establishes that it is possible for something to have existed eternally. It would then follow logically that the universe may have existed eternally without the need for a creating intelligence. −
removing POV and unsubstantiated claims
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."[http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Politics]]