Difference between revisions of "Intelligent design/objections"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Analyses: talkorigins) |
m (→Links: Kitzmiller vs. Dover) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
==Links== | ==Links== | ||
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/ Talk.Origins newsgroup archive]: mostly "exploring the creation/evolution controversy" | * [http://www.talkorigins.org/ Talk.Origins newsgroup archive]: mostly "exploring the creation/evolution controversy" | ||
| + | ** [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html Kitzmiller vs. Dover]: transcription of the much-discussed "Pennsylvania Intelligent Design Case" | ||
Revision as of 18:32, 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, but it remains to be seen whether it will be accepted by the vast majority of those supporting ID.
Related Articles
Analyses
- a biased analysis by Woozle
- Creation and Evolution in the Schools by Orson Scott Card (2006-01-12)
Links
- Talk.Origins newsgroup archive: mostly "exploring the creation/evolution controversy"
- Kitzmiller vs. Dover: transcription of the much-discussed "Pennsylvania Intelligent Design Case"