Difference between revisions of "Intelligent design"

Revision as of 19:59, March 15, 2007

more liek "untelligent shit" amirite?

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Intelligent Design is the hypothesis that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than natural processes, such as [[evolution]][http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]. The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be [[God]].
+more liek "untelligent shit" amirite?
-To date there have been over forty peer-reviewed articles supporting Intelligent Design in such 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 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 is largely due to much new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics and biology.  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".
-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]
-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.
-[[Category:Biology]]
-[[Category:Religion]]
-[[Category:Politics]]

Difference between revisions of "Intelligent design"

Revision as of 19:59, March 15, 2007

Navigation menu

Search