Content deleted Content added
Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5 |
fix note ref 2 & m-61 Plus 5 cite court It's |vol= ! - |
||
Line 74:
|title=''Truth Sheet # 09-05 Does intelligent design postulate a "supernatural creator?''
|publisher=Discovery Institute
|
}}
▲}} ''"...the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion.... This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact".'' [http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/le_wedge.htm The Wedge]
</ref> However, among a significant proportion of the general public in the United States the major concern is whether conventional evolutionary biology is compatible with belief in God and in the Bible, and how this issue is taught in schools.<ref name="Time-15-Aug-2005"/> The public controversy was given widespread media coverage in the United States, particularly during the ''Kitzmiller v. Dover'' trial in late 2005 and after President [[George W. Bush]] expressed support for the idea of teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in August 2005. In response to Bush's statement and the pending federal trial, ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' magazine ran an eight-page cover story on the Evolution Wars in which they examined the issue of teaching intelligent design in the classroom.<ref name="TIME">
*{{cite web
Line 90 ⟶ 83:
|publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]]
|date=August 11, 2005
|
}}
*{{cite journal
Line 644 ⟶ 637:
}} Discusses the scientific method, including the principles of falsifiability, testability, progressive development of theory, dynamic self-correcting of hypotheses, and parsimony, or "Occam's razor".</ref><ref name="kitzruling_pg64" group="n">{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
Line 690 ⟶ 683:
}}</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
|
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
Line 696 ⟶ 689:
}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 22 of 139|Ruling, p. 22]] and [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 77 of 139|p. 77]].</ref> is not empirically testable,<ref group="n">That intelligent design is not empirically testable stems from the fact that it violates a basic premise of science, naturalism. See, e.g., {{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
Line 794 ⟶ 787:
The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design being accepted as valid science. The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article supporting ID in a scientific journal, and has failed to publish peer-reviewed research or data supporting ID.<ref name="kitzruling_pg87">{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
Line 823 ⟶ 816:
}}</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 |
{{cite journal
|author=Meyer, S.C.
Line 970 ⟶ 963:
Critics say that the design detection methods proposed by intelligent design proponents are radically different from conventional design detection, undermining the key elements that make it possible as legitimate science. Intelligent design proponents, they say, are proposing both searching for a designer without knowing anything about that designer's abilities, parameters, or intentions (which scientists do know when searching for the results of human intelligence), as well as denying the very distinction between natural/artificial design that allows scientists to compare complex designed artifacts against the background of the sorts of complexity found in nature.<ref group="n">"For human artifacts, we know the designer's identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer's abilities, needs, and desires. With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer's identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies".—{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
| |||