Difference between revisions of "Intelligent design/objections"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (→‎Quotes: link to godofthegaps)
(→‎Analyses: dotclue metaphor)
Line 11: Line 11:
 
* [[Evolution vs. Intelligent Design]] is an example of [[religion vs. science]]
 
* [[Evolution vs. Intelligent Design]] is an example of [[religion vs. science]]
 
==Analyses==
 
==Analyses==
 +
* [http://dotclue.org/archives/002366.html "Intelligent Design" vs. science]: a brief but very illuminating metaphor by J Greely
 
* [http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n02_other_ID_theories.php The Other Intelligent Design Theories] by [[David Brin]]
 
* [http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n02_other_ID_theories.php The Other Intelligent Design Theories] by [[David Brin]]
 
* [http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050922_ID_main.html Intelligent Design: An Ambiguous Assault on Evolution] at LiveScience
 
* [http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050922_ID_main.html Intelligent Design: An Ambiguous Assault on Evolution] at LiveScience

Revision as of 20:48, 7 September 2006

Overview

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.)

Reference

Related Articles

Analyses

News

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."