Content deleted Content added
Davide King (talk | contribs) m ce |
Rescuing 8 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.3 |
||
Line 29:
|archivedate = September 27, 2007
}} Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the [[United Kingdom]]'s [[Royal Society]].</ref><ref>From the world's largest general scientific society:
*{{Cite press release
|url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf
|publisher=[[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]
Line 38:
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20060221125539/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf
|archivedate=February 21, 2006
}}
*{{Cite press release
|url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml
|publisher=[[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]
Line 46:
|date=February 19, 2006
|accessdate=2008-10-17
|archive-date=2013-10-19
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131019171834/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml
</ref><ref>{{Cite book | last = Dixon | first = Thomas | title = Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction | url = https://archive.org/details/sciencereligionv00dixo_676 | url-access = limited | publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 2008 | ___location = Oxford | page = [https://archive.org/details/sciencereligionv00dixo_676/page/n118 102] | isbn = 978-0-19-929551-7}}</ref> Intelligent design is widely viewed as a [[stalking horse]] for its proponents' campaign against what they say is the [[Materialism|materialist]] foundation of science, which they argue leaves no room for the possibility of God.<ref>{{cite news |date=November 27, 2005▼
|url-status=dead
▲ }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book | last = Dixon | first = Thomas | title = Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction | url = https://archive.org/details/sciencereligionv00dixo_676 | url-access = limited | publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 2008 | ___location = Oxford | page = [https://archive.org/details/sciencereligionv00dixo_676/page/n118 102] | isbn = 978-0-19-929551-7}}</ref> Intelligent design is widely viewed as a [[stalking horse]] for its proponents' campaign against what they say is the [[Materialism|materialist]] foundation of science, which they argue leaves no room for the possibility of God.<ref>{{cite news |date=November 27, 2005
|first=Mark
|last=Coultan
Line 53 ⟶ 55:
|work=[[Sydney Morning Herald]]
|accessdate=2007-07-29
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.au.org/church-state/february-2005-church-state/featured/intelligent-design-creationism%E2%80%99s-trojan-horse-a
|title=Intelligent Design: Creationism's Trojan Horse
Line 60 ⟶ 61:
|publisher=Americans United for the Separation of Church and State
|accessdate=2011-10-28
|archive-date=2017-09-01
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170901114207/https://www.au.org/church-state/february-2005-church-state/featured/intelligent-design-creationism%E2%80%99s-trojan-horse-a
|url-status=dead
}}</ref>
Line 239 ⟶ 243:
|publisher=University of Texas, Austin
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080114094157/http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Vuletic.html
|archivedate=2008-01-14}}</ref> Intelligent design proponents argue that naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena and that supernatural explanations provide a very simple and intuitive explanation for the origins of life and the universe.<ref name="Watanabe" group="n">{{cite web
|first=Teresa
|last=Watanabe
Line 249 ⟶ 252:
|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]
|quote=<nowiki>[Phillip E. Johnson quoted]:</nowiki> We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise.... We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.
|archive-date=2007-09-30
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930015101/http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?programs=CSCstories&command=view&id=613
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> Proponents say evidence exists in the forms of [[irreducible complexity]] and [[specified complexity]] that cannot be explained by natural processes.<ref name=DI-topquestions>
{{cite web
Line 354 ⟶ 360:
|archive-date=2008-12-17
|url-status=dead
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/NRCSEPosReID.html
|title=What is the position of the NRCSE on the teaching of intelligent design <nowiki>[ID]</nowiki> as an alternative to neo-Darwinian evolution in Nebraska schools?
Line 363 ⟶ 368:
|authorlink=William A. Dembski
|publisher=Creighton University
|archive-date=2016-04-11
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160411004102/http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/NRCSEPosReID.html
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable, observable or falsifiable, and it violates the principle of [[Occam's razor|parsimony]]. From a strictly [[empiricism|empirical]] standpoint, one may list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques, but one must admit ignorance about exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids. <!--paraphrasing http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/22/mooney-c.html: "intelligent design advocates don't always articulate precisely what sort of intelligence they think is the designer, but God—defined in a very nebulous way—generally out-polls ''extraterrestrials'' as the leading candidate".-->
Line 399 ⟶ 407:
|archive-date=2007-07-11
|url-status=dead
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/IDTHG.html
|title=Intelligent Design as a Theological Problem
Line 409 ⟶ 416:
|publisher=Creighton University
|format=Reprint
|archive-date=2016-04-11
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160411004103/http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/IDTHG.html
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> others, such as [[Christoph Schönborn]], [[Archbishop of Vienna]], have shown support for it.<ref name="Matt Young, Taner Edis">{{cite book |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=hYLKdtlVeQgC&q=archbishop+of+Vienna+intelligent+design&pg=PR7 |first1=Matt|last1=Young|first2=Taner|last2=Edis|authorlink2=Taner Edis |title=Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism |publisher=Rutgers, The State University |quote=An influential Roman Catholic cardinal, Cristoph Schonborn, the archbishop of Vienna, appeared to retreat from John Paul II's support for evolution and wrote in ''The New York Times'' that descent with modification is a fact, but evolution in the sense of "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" is false. Many of Schonborn's complaints about Darwinian evolution echoed pronouncements originating from the Discovery Institute, the right-wing American think tank that plays a central role in the ID movement (and whose public relations firm submitted Schonborn's article to the Times). |accessdate=2010-12-02 |isbn = 978-0-8135-3872-3 |date = 2006 |orig-year=2003}}</ref><ref name="Ronald L. Numbers">{{cite book |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=GQ3TI5njXfIC&q=archbishop+of+Vienna+intelligent+design&pg=PA395 |first=Ronald L. |last=Numbers |title=The creationists: from scientific creationism to intelligent design |publisher=[[Random House]] |quote=Miffed by Krauss's comments, officers at the Discovery Institute arranged for the cardinal archbishop of Vienna, Cristoph Sconborn (b. 1945), to write an op-ed piece for the Times dismissing the late pope's statement as "rather vague and unimportant" and denying the truth of "evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense-an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." The cardinal, it seems, had received the backing of the new pope, Benedict XVI, the former Joseph Ratzinger (b. 1927), who in the mid-1980s, while serving as prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, successor to the notorious Inquisition, had written a defense of the doctrine of creation against Catholics who stressed the sufficiency of "selection and mutation." Humans, he insisted, are "not the products of chance and error," and "the universe is not the product of darkness and unreason. It comes from intelligence, freedom, and from the beauty that is identical with love." Recent discoveries in microbiology and biochemistry, he was happy to say, had revealed "reasonable design." |accessdate=2010-12-02 |isbn = 978-0-674-02339-0 |year = 2006}}</ref><ref name="Parliamentary Assembly">{{cite book |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=imUrkSP_5sUC&q=archbishop+of+Vienna+intelligent+design&pg=PA66 |title=Parliamentary Assembly, Working Papers: 2007 Ordinary Session |publisher=Council of Europe Publishing |quote=Christoph Schonborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, published an article in ''The New York Times'' stating that the declarations made by Pope John Paul II could not be interpreted as recognising evolution. At the same time, he repeated arguments put forward by the supporters of the intelligent design ideas. |accessdate=2010-12-02 |isbn = 978-92-871-6368-4 |date = 2008-04-25}}</ref> The arguments of intelligent design have been directly challenged by the over 10,000 [[clergy]] who signed the [[Clergy Letter Project]]. Prominent scientists who strongly express religious faith, such as the astronomer [[George Coyne]] and the biologist [[Kenneth R. Miller|Ken Miller]], have been at the forefront of opposition to intelligent design. While creationist organizations have welcomed intelligent design's support against [[naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]], they have also been critical of its refusal to identify the designer,<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/is-idm-christian
Line 493 ⟶ 503:
</ref>
The U.S. [[National Science Teachers Association]] and the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] have termed it [[pseudoscience]].<ref group="n">National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators {{cite press release
|quote=We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science....It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom.
|url=http://old.nsta.org/about/pressroom.aspx?id=50794
Line 501 ⟶ 509:
|publisher=National Science Teachers Association
|date=August 3, 2005
|access-date=September 8, 2021
|archive-date=September 8, 2021
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210908170615/https://old.nsta.org/about/pressroom.aspx?id=50794
|url-status=dead
}}</ref><ref name=harvard>
{{cite journal
Line 543 ⟶ 555:
</ref>
and some have called it [[junk science]].<ref group="n">{{cite journal
|url= |title=Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action
|journal=Journal of Clinical Investigation
Line 574 ⟶ 584:
*{{cite magazine
|quote=Biologists aren't alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they're alarmed because intelligent design is junk science.
|first=H. Allen
|last=Orr |magazine=The New Yorker
|date=May 2005
Line 584 ⟶ 595:
|url=http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11553
|title=Junk science
|first=Mark
|last=Bergin |work=[[World (magazine)|World]]
|volume=21
|issue=8
|date=February 25, 2006
|access-date=February 3, 2012
|archive-date=January 7, 2012
</ref><ref>▼
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120107132058/http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11553
|url-status=dead
▲}}</ref><ref>
{{cite book
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kHeQhdNQvrUC&q=intelligent+design+junk-science&pg=PA210
Line 722 ⟶ 737:
In ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', using these criteria and others mentioned above, Judge Jones [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion|ruled that]] "... we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
At the Kitzmiller trial, philosopher [[Robert T. Pennock]] described a common approach to distinguishing science from non-science as examining a theory's compliance with [[methodological naturalism]], the basic method in science of seeking natural explanations without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Pennock | first1 = Robert T | year = 2007 | title = Can't philosophers tell the difference between science and religion?: Demarcation revisited | journal = Synthese | volume = 178 | issue = 2| pages = 177–206 | doi=10.1007/s11229-009-9547-3| s2cid = 31006688 }}</ref> Intelligent design proponents criticize this method and argue that science, if its goal is to discover truth, must be able to accept evidentially supported, supernatural explanations.<ref name="discovery">{{cite web
|first1=Stephen C.
|last1=Meyer
|date=May 1, 1996
|url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1685
Line 732 ⟶ 747:
}}
*{{cite web
|first=Phillip E.
|last=Johnson |date=August 31, 1996
|url=http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/ratzsch.htm
Line 741 ⟶ 757:
}}
*{{cite web
|first=Stephen C.
|last=Meyer |date=December 1, 2002
|publisher=Ignatius Press
Line 767 ⟶ 784:
|date=February 13, 2007
|accessdate=2007-05-20
|archive-date=2016-03-04
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304120124/http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=389188
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> Additionally, philosopher of science [[Larry Laudan]] and [[cosmologist]] [[Sean M. Carroll|Sean Carroll]] argue against any ''a priori'' criteria for distinguishing science from pseudoscience.<ref>{{Cite book |last= Laudan |first= Larry |authorlink= Larry Laudan |editor1-last= Cohen |editor1-first= R.S. |editor2-last= Laudan |editor2-first= L. |title= Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis: Essays in Honor of Adolf Grünbaum |series= Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science |volume= 76 |year=1983 | publisher=D. Reidel |___location=Dordrecht |isbn=90-277-1533-5 |pages=111–127 |chapter=The Demise of the Demarcation Problem |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AEvprSJzv2MC&q=Demise}}</ref><ref>Carroll, Sean. "What Questions Can Science Answer?". 2009. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/07/15/what-questions-can-science-answer</ref> Laudan, as well as philosopher Barbara Forrest, state that the content of the hypothesis must first be examined to determine its ability to solve empirical problems.<ref name="laudan">{{cite journal | last1 = Laudan | first1 = Larry | year = 1990 | title = Normative Naturalism | journal = Philosophy of Science | volume = 57 | issue = 1| pages = 44–59 | jstor=187620 | doi=10.1086/289530| s2cid = 224840606 }}</ref><ref name="forrest">Forrest, Barbara. "Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection." ''Philo'', Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall-Winter 2000), pp. 7–29 http://www2.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/bforrest/ForrestPhilo.pdf</ref> Methodological naturalism is therefore an ''a posteriori'' criterion due to its ability to yield consistent results.<ref name="laudan"/><ref name="forrest"/>
==Peer review==
| |||