Intelligent design and science: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:14, 8 May 2021

Revision as of 22:06, 11 May 2021

Line 21:

{{cite web

|url = http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf

|format = PDF

|title = IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

|publisher = The Interacademy Panel on International Issues

Line 32 ⟶ 31:

*{{Cite press release

|url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf

|format=PDF

|publisher=[[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]

|title=Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

Line 101 ⟶ 99:

|pages=49–61

|doi=10.1207/s15328415jmr0501_3

|s2cid=143790478

}}

*{{cite journal

Line 110 ⟶ 109:

|journal=Public Understanding of Science

|volume=15

|issue=2

|pages=131–152

|doi=10.1177/0963662506060588

|s2cid=145375229

|url=https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00571087/file/PEER_stage2_10.1177%252F0963662506060588.pdf

}}

Line 126 ⟶ 127:

{{cite journal

|url = http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Discovery%20Institute%20Article.pdf

|format = PDF

|title = Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover

|author = DeWolf, David K

|author2 = West, Johng G |author3=Luskin, Casey

|journal = [[University of Montana]] Law Review

|volume = 68

|issue = 1

Line 156:

|authorlink=Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

|title=The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design

|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=H8yn0iaRRfoC&pg=PA1&vq=evolution+wars&dqq=politically+incorrect+guide+to+intelligent+design&pg=PA1

|year=2006 |publisher=Regnery Publishing

|isbn=1-59698-013-3

Line 167:

|editor=Robert B. Stewart

|title=Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue

|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MjKkFG8qVjcC&pg=PA44&vq=evolution+wars&dqq=intelligent+design+michael+ruse+william+dembski+2007&pg=PA44 |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-8006-6218-09

|pppages=44–57

|chapter=The Evolution Wars: Who Is Fighting with Whom about What?

|publisher=Fortress Press

Line 181:

{{cite web

|url=http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf

|format=PDF

|title=Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals.

|first=Barbara

Line 284 ⟶ 283:

{{cite web

|url=http://ebd10.ebd.csic.es/pdfs/DarwSciOrPhil.pdf

|format=PDF

|title=Darwinism: Science or Philosophy

|accessdate=2007-07-23

Line 321 ⟶ 319:

|url=http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/what's%20wrong%20with%20id%20qrb%202007.pdf

|accessdate=2007-07-23

|format=PDF

|doi=10.1086/511656

|pmid=17354991

|s2cid=44420203

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070724203356/http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/what's%20wrong%20with%20id%20qrb%202007.pdf

|archive-date=2007-07-24

Line 349 ⟶ 347:

|first=Michael J.

|date=

|format=PDF

|publisher=Franklin & Marshall College

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081217011413/http://edisk.fandm.edu/michael.murray/Providence.pdf

Line 394 ⟶ 391:

|first=Jan (Chair)

|date=March 2006

|format=PDF

|work=Committee on Public Education and Literacy

|publisher=[[National Council of Churches]]

Line 410 ⟶ 406:

|publisher=Creighton University

|format=Reprint

}}</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&pg=PR7&dqq=archbishop+of+Vienna+intelligent+design#v=onepage&qpg=archbishop%20of%20Vienna%20intelligent%20design&f=falsePR7 |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&pg=PA395&dqq=archbishop+of+Vienna+intelligent+design#v=onepage&qpg=archbishop%20of%20Vienna%20intelligent%20design&f=falsePA395 |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&pg=PA66&dqq=archbishop+of+Vienna+intelligent+design#v=onepage&qpg=archbishop%20of%20Vienna%20intelligent%20design&f=falsePA66 |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

|title=Intelligent design: is it intelligent; is it Christian?

Line 502 ⟶ 498:

|quote=For most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a [[creationist]] [[pseudoscience]]".

|url=http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/wp-content/themes/hsr/pdf/fall2005/mu.pdf

|format=PDF

|title=Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design

|first=David |last=Mu

Line 513 ⟶ 508:

|quote = Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory.

|url = http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/per/per26.pdf

|format = PDF

|title = Professional Ethics Report

|publisher = [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]

Line 537 ⟶ 531:

|pmid=11907537

|issue=6878

|bibcode= 2002Natur.416..250G

|doi-access= free

}}

Line 590 ⟶ 585:

</ref><ref>

{{cite book

|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kHeQhdNQvrUC&pg=PA210&lpg=PA210&dqq=intelligent+design+junk-science&pg=PA210

|first=Dan

|last=Agin

Line 692 ⟶ 687:

|accessdate=2007-07-19

|date=September 9, 2005

|format=PDF

|publisher=The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity

|url-status=dead

Line 721 ⟶ 715:

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

Line 768 ⟶ 762:

}}

</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&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:9027715335&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Demise&f=false}}</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==

Line 856 ⟶ 850:

|url-status=dead

|archive-date=2012-12-10

|accessdate=16 March 2009

|doi=10.1110/ps.04802904

|pmid=15340163

Line 895 ⟶ 888:

|url=http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/83-1/p%201%20Brauer%20Forrest%20Gey%20book%20pages.pdf

|accessdate=2007-07-18

|format=PDF

|quote=ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly "peer-reviewed" journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of "peer review" that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows.

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090326080549/http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/83-1/p%201%20Brauer%20Forrest%20Gey%20book%20pages.pdf