Difference between revisions of "Intelligent design/objections"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Analyses: teachnology debate)
(→‎Related Articles: vs direct creation; criticisms of evolution)
Line 9: Line 9:
 
** [[Evolution]]
 
** [[Evolution]]
 
** [[Intelligent Design]]
 
** [[Intelligent Design]]
 +
* As a dispute over interpretation of available data, [[evolution vs. direct creation]] is essentially the same argument as [[evolution vs. Intelligent Design]], and they both are basically [[criticisms of evolution]] with [[interventionist models of creation]] offered as much more sensible and reasonable explanations by comparison.
 
* [[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, with [http://dotclue.org/murfle/gleep?entry_id=2366 comments]
 
* [http://dotclue.org/archives/002366.html "Intelligent Design" vs. science]: a brief but very illuminating metaphor by J Greely, with [http://dotclue.org/murfle/gleep?entry_id=2366 comments]

Revision as of 02:04, 14 December 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."