Difference between revisions of "Intelligent design/objections"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Related Articles: vs direct creation; criticisms of evolution)
(moved non-ID-specific links over to Evo vs. direct creation)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
==Notes==
 
==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.)
 
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==
 
* Wikipedia: [[wikipedia:Creation-evolution controversy|Creation-evolution controversy]]
 
 
==Related Articles==
 
==Related Articles==
 
* [[Creation]]
 
* [[Creation]]
 
** [[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.
+
* As a dispute over interpretation of available data, [[evolution vs. Intelligent Design]] is essentially the same argument as the ever-popular [[evolution vs. direct creation]], 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]]
 
+
==Links==
==Analyses==
+
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20060519011013/http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n02_other_ID_theories.php The Other Intelligent Design Theories] by [[David Brin]]
* [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://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
* [http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/story.html?id=1142 Creation and Evolution in the Schools] by [[Orson Scott Card]] (2006-01-12)
 
* [http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/ The Creation/Evolution Controversy] by Don Lindsay
 
* [[User:Woozle/Evolution vs. Intelligent Design|a biased analysis]] by Woozle
 
* [http://www.teach-nology.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-372.html some debate] (''mostly'' calm) at Teachnology Teacher Forum
 
 
==News==
 
* '''2006-02-28''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/national/28utah.html Anti-Darwin Bill Fails in Utah] ([http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/28/1829225 slashdot])
 
* '''2006-02-19''' [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-02/asfb-ada021706.php AAAS denounces anti-evolution laws as hundreds of K-12 teachers convene for 'Front Line' event]
 
* '''2006-02-12''' [http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1096932.php/Churches_celebrate_Darwin%60s_birthday 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 [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. [[wikipedia:God of the gaps|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 16:14, 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.)

Related Articles

Links