Difference between revisions of "Intelligent design"
m (Reverted edits by Tsumetai (Talk); changed back to last version by Harpie snark) |
Conservative (Talk | contribs) (I am a creationist and even I will recognize that ID does not have broad support in the scientific community) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
To date there have been over 40 peer reviewed articles supporting Intelligent Design in such notable publications as the ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' and internationally respected scientific journals such as ''Rivista di Biologia.'' [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640] | To date there have been over 40 peer reviewed articles supporting Intelligent Design in such notable publications as the ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'' and internationally respected scientific journals such as ''Rivista di Biologia.'' [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640] | ||
| − | Design Theory enjoys | + | Design Theory enjoys some support within the scientific community which is steadily growing. From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable 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 is largely due to much new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology that has caused scientists to question the claim of a largely atheistic 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. |
Though a recent trail in Dover, PA ruled that Intelligent Design was not valid science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents" this was the product of an activist judge, John E. Jones III, whose ruling has been described by influential opinion-makers as "biased and religiously bigoted." [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2006/01/02/false_judge_makes_mockery_of_case_for_intelligent_design] In addition, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "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.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] | Though a recent trail in Dover, PA ruled that Intelligent Design was not valid science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents" this was the product of an activist judge, John E. Jones III, whose ruling has been described by influential opinion-makers as "biased and religiously bigoted." [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2006/01/02/false_judge_makes_mockery_of_case_for_intelligent_design] In addition, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "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.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330] | ||
Revision as of 23:54, March 6, 2007
Intelligent Design is the theory that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause (God), rather than natural processes, such as evolution. [1]
To date there have been over 40 peer reviewed articles supporting Intelligent Design in such notable publications as the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and internationally respected scientific journals such as Rivista di Biologia. [2]
Design Theory enjoys some support within the scientific community which is steadily growing. From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists had signed the pro-Intelligent Design manifesto A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism published by the leaders of the design movement, the Discovery Institute. [3] This is largely due to much new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology that has caused scientists to question the claim of a largely atheistic 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.
Though a recent trail in Dover, PA ruled that Intelligent Design was not valid science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents" this was the product of an activist judge, John E. Jones III, whose ruling has been described by influential opinion-makers as "biased and religiously bigoted." [4] In addition, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "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." [5]
