Content deleted Content added
Bluelinking 1 books for verifiability.) #IABot (v2.1alpha3 |
m Task 16: replaced (9×) / removed (0×) deprecated |dead-url= and |deadurl= with |url-status=; |
||
Line 26:
|date = June 21, 2006
|accessdate = 2008-10-17
|
|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20070927094546/http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
|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
Line 38 ⟶ 37:
|date=February 16, 2006
|accessdate=2008-10-17
|
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20060221125539/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf
|archivedate=February 21, 2006
}}
*{{Cite press release
Line 136 ⟶ 134:
|issue = 1
|date = May 4, 2007
|
|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20071201001713/http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Discovery%20Institute%20Article.pdf
|archivedate = December 1, 2007
}}
Line 193 ⟶ 190:
|___location=[[Washington, D.C.]]
|accessdate=2007-08-06
|
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110519124655/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf
|archivedate=2011-05-19
}}
</ref>
Line 504 ⟶ 500:
|publisher = [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]
|year = 2001
|
|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20110103072800/http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/per/per26.pdf
|archivedate = 2011-01-03
}}
Line 654 ⟶ 649:
|url=http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/schneider/evolution.htm
|quote=Q: Why couldn't intelligent design also be a scientific theory? A: The idea of intelligent design might or might not be true, but when presented as a scientific hypothesis, it is not useful because it is based on weak assumptions, lacks supporting data and terminates further thought.
|
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20060902030147/http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/schneider/evolution.htm
|archivedate=2006-09-02
}}</ref> is not falsifiable,<ref group="n">The designer is not falsifiable, since its existence is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. The designer being beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can be neither supported nor undermined by observation, making intelligent design and the argument from design analytic ''a posteriori'' arguments. See, e.g., {{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Line 683 ⟶ 677:
|format=PDF
|publisher=The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity
|
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20051007161950/http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf
|archivedate=October 7, 2005
}} The September 2005 statement by 38 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel laureates]] stated that: "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent".</ref><ref group="n">
{{cite news
Line 792 ⟶ 785:
}}</ref>
The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html |title=Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington |accessdate=2014-08-27 |
{{cite journal
|author=Meyer, S.C.
Line 846 ⟶ 839:
|url=http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121602290/HTMLSTART
|archive-url=https://archive.today/20121210120220/http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121602290/HTMLSTART
|
|archive-date=2012-12-10
|accessdate=16 March 2009
| |||