Difference between revisions of "Intelligent design/objections"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→News: quotes: lee strobel) |
m (→Quotes: oh, yeah, and the commentary) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
==Quotes== | ==Quotes== | ||
* From [http://www.startribune.com/614/story/442850.html StarTribune.com interview] with [[wikipedia:Lee Strobel|Lee Strobel]]: "Evolution is defined as a random, undirected process. But even scientists say the universe had to begin somewhere. Then you look at genetics, cosmology, physics and other fields. From there we can extrapolate that there had to be an immaterial, powerful, intelligent cause to the universe coming into being. The evidence defies a coincidental explanation. And random, undirected evolution precludes a creator calling the shots, so there's an intellectual disconnect for me. Also, Darwinism offers no explanation for human consciousness. The gaps in science point to a creator." | * From [http://www.startribune.com/614/story/442850.html StarTribune.com interview] with [[wikipedia:Lee Strobel|Lee Strobel]]: "Evolution is defined as a random, undirected process. But even scientists say the universe had to begin somewhere. Then you look at genetics, cosmology, physics and other fields. From there we can extrapolate that there had to be an immaterial, powerful, intelligent cause to the universe coming into being. The evidence defies a coincidental explanation. And random, undirected evolution precludes a creator calling the shots, so there's an intellectual disconnect for me. Also, Darwinism offers no explanation for human consciousness. The gaps in science point to a creator." | ||
| + | ** Some [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/05/strobel_gag.php commentary] by PZ Myers at Pharyngula | ||
Revision as of 16:51, 21 May 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
- The Other Intelligent Design Theories by David Brin
- Intelligent Design: An Ambiguous Assault on Evolution at LiveScience
- Creation and Evolution in the Schools by Orson Scott Card (2006-01-12)
- a biased analysis by Woozle
News
- 2006-02-28 Anti-Darwin Bill Fails in Utah (slashdot)
- 2006-02-19 AAAS denounces anti-evolution laws as hundreds of K-12 teachers convene for 'Front Line' event
- 2006-02-12 Churches celebrate Darwin's birthday Nearly 450 Christian churches "say Darwin`s theory of biological evolution is compatible with faith and that Christians have no need to choose between religion and science"
Quotes
- From StarTribune.com interview with Lee Strobel: "Evolution is defined as a random, undirected process. But even scientists say the universe had to begin somewhere. Then you look at genetics, cosmology, physics and other fields. From there we can extrapolate that there had to be an immaterial, powerful, intelligent cause to the universe coming into being. The evidence defies a coincidental explanation. And random, undirected evolution precludes a creator calling the shots, so there's an intellectual disconnect for me. Also, Darwinism offers no explanation for human consciousness. The gaps in science point to a creator."
- Some commentary by PZ Myers at Pharyngula