Difference between revisions of "Intelligent design/objections"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(category reorg; intro tweaks & updates)
(→‎Links: "No Intelligence Allowed" film)
Line 9: Line 9:
 
* 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.
 
* 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.
 
==Links==
 
==Links==
 +
* '''2007-09-27''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin]: "But now, [[Richard Dawkins|Dr. Dawkins]] and other scientists who agreed to be interviewed say they are surprised — and in some cases, angered — to find themselves not in “Crossroads” but in a film with a new name and one that makes the case for intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism. The film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” also has a different producer, [[Premise Media]]. .. The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that [[freedom of thought]] and [[freedom of inquiry]] have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” According to its Web site, the film asserts that people in academia who see evidence of a [[intelligent design|supernatural intelligence in biological processes]] have unfairly lost their jobs, been denied tenure or suffered other penalties as part of a scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms."
 +
** What, exactly, is a "scientific conspiracy"? True [[science]] is non-ideological and non-political, so any "conspiracy" intended to favor a particular ideological or political viewpoint regardless of its validity would be, by definition, ''anti''-scientific. If they mean "a conspiracy by scientists", the scientists in question would be violating scientific principles in pursuing such a conspiracy, in which case this situation should be described more as "a conspiracy within the ranks of the scientific establishment". In any case, "scientific conspiracy" is an oxymoron. Talking about a "[[religious]] conspiracy" to smear and devalue science in the eyes of the public, however, is entirely within the realm of reason.
 +
* '''2006-12-15''' [http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19225824.000-intelligent-design-the-god-lab.html Intelligent design: The God Lab] by Celeste Biever
 
* [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://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://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
* '''2006-12-15''' [http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19225824.000-intelligent-design-the-god-lab.html Intelligent design: The God Lab] by Celeste Biever
 

Revision as of 21:43, 1 October 2007

Overview

Intelligent Design (ID), which has never been spelled out in detail beyond the level of an informal theory, is often proposed as a viable alternative to the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection. Mainstream scientists generally agree that ID is completely non-viable as a scientific 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 Pages

Links

  • 2007-09-27 Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin: "But now, Dr. Dawkins and other scientists who agreed to be interviewed say they are surprised — and in some cases, angered — to find themselves not in “Crossroads” but in a film with a new name and one that makes the case for intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism. The film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” also has a different producer, Premise Media. .. The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” According to its Web site, the film asserts that people in academia who see evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes have unfairly lost their jobs, been denied tenure or suffered other penalties as part of a scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms."
    • What, exactly, is a "scientific conspiracy"? True science is non-ideological and non-political, so any "conspiracy" intended to favor a particular ideological or political viewpoint regardless of its validity would be, by definition, anti-scientific. If they mean "a conspiracy by scientists", the scientists in question would be violating scientific principles in pursuing such a conspiracy, in which case this situation should be described more as "a conspiracy within the ranks of the scientific establishment". In any case, "scientific conspiracy" is an oxymoron. Talking about a "religious conspiracy" to smear and devalue science in the eyes of the public, however, is entirely within the realm of reason.
  • 2006-12-15 Intelligent design: The God Lab by Celeste Biever
  • The Other Intelligent Design Theories by David Brin
  • Intelligent Design: An Ambiguous Assault on Evolution at LiveScience