Difference between revisions of "Intelligent design"
Harpie snark (talk | contribs) (Reverting deletions and parroting of liberal take on ID. Conservapedia is supposed to present the conservative viewpoint, folks) |
(get thee to the talk page and start talking. That's what it's for.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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] | 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] | ||
| − | + | Advocates claim several 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 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 was John E. Jones III. Conservative Phyllis Schlafly critized the decision 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] | |
| + | |||
| + | In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League, Jones replied 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] | ||
Revision as of 22:00, 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]
Advocates claim several 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 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. [3]. 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 was John E. Jones III. Conservative Phyllis Schlafly critized the decision 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]
In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League, Jones replied 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."[6]