Difference between revisions of "Intelligent design/objections"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Links: panda's thumb) |
m (→Notes: link to talk page) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Issues]][[Intelligent Design]] (ID) is often proposed as a viable alternative to the theory of [[Evolution]]. Mainstream scientists generally agree that ID is not a viable theory, but the challenges continue – and many of the arguments advanced by the ID camp are appealing and quite difficult to refute. | [[Category:Issues]][[Intelligent Design]] (ID) is often proposed as a viable alternative to the theory of [[Evolution]]. Mainstream scientists generally agree that ID is not a viable theory, but the challenges continue – and many of the arguments advanced by the ID camp are appealing and quite difficult to refute. | ||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
| − | The OSC analysis linked below seems a pretty reasonable treatment of a solution, but it remains to be seen whether it will be accepted by the vast majority of those supporting ID. | + | The OSC analysis linked below seems a pretty reasonable treatment of a solution (Intelligent Design may be in agreement with his beliefs, but it is based on religion rather than science, and schools have no business teaching religion), but it remains to be seen whether it will be accepted by the vast majority of those supporting ID. (See the {{talk page}} for further discussion.) |
| + | |||
==Related Articles== | ==Related Articles== | ||
* [[Creation]] | * [[Creation]] | ||
| Line 9: | Line 10: | ||
* [[User:Woozle/Evolution vs. Intelligent Design|a biased analysis]] by Woozle | * [[User:Woozle/Evolution vs. Intelligent Design|a biased analysis]] by Woozle | ||
* [http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/story.html?id=1142 Creation and Evolution in the Schools] by [[Orson Scott Card]] (2006-01-12) | * [http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/story.html?id=1142 Creation and Evolution in the Schools] by [[Orson Scott Card]] (2006-01-12) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 19:40, 23 January 2006
Intelligent Design (ID) is often proposed as a viable alternative to the theory of Evolution. Mainstream scientists generally agree that ID is not a viable theory, but the challenges continue – and many of the arguments advanced by the ID camp are appealing and quite difficult to refute.
Notes
The OSC analysis linked below seems a pretty reasonable treatment of a solution (Intelligent Design may be in agreement with his beliefs, but it is based on religion rather than science, and schools have no business teaching religion), but it remains to be seen whether it will be accepted by the vast majority of those supporting ID. (See the talk page for further discussion.)
Related Articles
Analyses
- a biased analysis by Woozle
- Creation and Evolution in the Schools by Orson Scott Card (2006-01-12)