Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Alter: template type. Add: magazine. Removed proxy/dead URL that duplicated identifier. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by BrownHairedGirl | #UCB_webform 2852/3604 |
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Alter: template type. Add: date, isbn, pmid, doi, authors 1-1. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Headbomb | Linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Sandbox2 | #UCB_webform_linked 1144/2778 |
||
Line 481:
The [[United States National Academy of Sciences|U.S. National Academy of Sciences]] has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the [[scientific method|methods of science]]."<ref>
{{cite
|publisher=National Academy of Sciences
|year=1999
|url=http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25
|title=Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences
|doi=10.17226/6024
|pmid=25101403
|isbn=978-0-309-06406-4
|edition=Second
|author1=National Academy of Sciences (US)
}}
Line 787 ⟶ 791:
|publisher=John Hawks Weblog
|authorlink=John D. Hawks
}}</ref> [[Michael Shermer]] has rebutted the claim, noting "Anyone who thinks that scientists do not question Darwinism has never been to an evolutionary conference." He noted that scientists such as [[Joan Roughgarden]] and [[Lynn Margulis]] have challenged certain Darwinist theories and offered explanations of their own and despite this they "have not been persecuted, shunned, fired or even expelled. Why? Because they are doing science, not religion."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html#part1|title=Skeptic » eSkeptic » Thursday, April 17th, 2008|work=Skeptic.com|date=17 April 2008 }}</ref> The issue that supernatural explanations do not conform to the [[scientific method]] became a sticking point for intelligent design proponents in the 1990s, and is addressed in the [[wedge strategy]] as an aspect of science that must be challenged before intelligent design can be accepted by the broader scientific community.
Critics and advocates debate over whether intelligent design produces new research and has legitimately attempted to publish this research. For instance, the [[John Templeton Foundation|Templeton Foundation]], a former funder of the Discovery Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that it asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, but none were ever submitted. Charles L. Harper Jr., foundation vice-president, said: "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review".<ref>
| |||