Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Intelligent design

2007-03-05T23:11:37Z

John Galt: Remove some bigoted creationist rubbish

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]]. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]

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 minor amounts of support within the scientific community. From 2001 to 2007 over 700 scientists, from many scientific disciplines, had signed the manifesto ''A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism'' published by the leaders of the design movement, the Discovery Institute. [http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/]. Critics have pointed out that the document does not explicitly claim support for Intelligent Design, nor does it explicitly claim that evolution is wrong. At least one of the signatories, such as Robert C. Davidson. a retired nephrology professor, have recanted, claiming that he was shocked when he found out the document was used to attack evolution itself, rather than to highlight problems with the theory. As a humorous response to ''A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism'', the the National Center for Science Education produced Project Steve listing scientists with doctorates who had signed a pro-evolution statement, the catch being that all had to have names with variations on "Steve" as does only about 1% of the U.S. population. The list, as at March 3rd 2007, has 791 Steves, compared to the 5 in the Discovery Institute list.

A recent trial in Dover, PA ruled that Intelligent Design was not valid science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". The judge John E. Jones III, was then the subject of hysterical attacks by creationists, ID supporters and their fellow travellers, such as Phyllis Schlafly - "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]

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-03-05T22:52:47Z

John Galt:

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Michael Moore

2007-03-05T22:49:55Z

John Galt: Create page

Michael Moore (born April 23, 1954) is an academy award winning filmmaker and bestselling author who presents left wing views in a polemical way.

Some of his work includes the documentary films ''Farenheit 9/11'', ''Roger and Me'', and ''Bowling for Columbine'', and the books ''Dude, Where's my Country'', ''Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American''. and ''Stupid White Men''.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

2007-03-05T22:44:22Z

John Galt: Replace incorrect facts (those refer to his father) with correct ones.

Reza Shah Pahlavi lived from October 16, 1919 to July 27, 1980. He was the [[shah]] of [[Iran]], after the Soviet Union (who had invaded Iran in World War 2) pressured his father to abdicate in 1941. After the overthrow of the elected government in 1953, Pahlavi ruled Iran as a secret police dictatorship until 1979, when the people of Iran overthrew him and replaced the government with an Islamic republic.

Intelligent design

2007-02-22T20:07:04Z

John Galt: Expand the theory a bit

Intelligent Design is the theory that all biological complexity must derive from a non-human designer (such as [[God]]), rather than the chance processes of [[evolution]] and [[natural selection]]. It is often seen by it's critics as a form of Creationism-lite, in that it is a means of arguing against the Theory of Evolution without adopting any particular religious doctrine.

Proponents of Intelligent Design generally adopt the 'argument from incredulity'. They argue, essentially, that the complexity of living organisms is such that it could only come from an intelligent 'designer', without much justification other than their own inability to understand how evolution could create the same complexity.

The other major argument in the Intelligent Design arsenal is a variation of the incredulity argument, in that supporters frequently mischaracterise evolution as being a wholly random process, and that random processes. Intelligent Design proponents misunderstand, or at least seem to misunderstand, the effects of the iteration of natural selection in a particular environment over hundreds or thousands of generations.

The theory of Intelligent Design has little or no support outside the [[United States]], which is in the grip of a currently in the grip of an irrational religious-backed campaign to reject the teachings of the Theory of Evolution.