Content deleted Content added
Bluelink 2 books for verifiability.) #IABot (v2.0) (GreenC bot |
Rescuing 5 sources and tagging 1 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0 |
||
Line 310:
|work=Science & Theology News
|publisher=The Free Republic
}}</ref> If the argument to give "equal time for all theories" were actually practiced, there would be no logical limit to the number of mutually incompatible supernatural "theories" regarding the origins and diversity of life to be taught in the public school system, including intelligent design parodies such as the [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]] "theory"; intelligent design does not provide a mechanism for discriminating among them. Philosopher of biology [[Elliott Sober]], for example, states that intelligent design is not falsifiable because "[d]efenders of ID always have a way out".<ref>{{cite journal
|last=Sober
|first=Elliott
Line 325 ⟶ 324:
|doi=10.1086/511656
|pmid=17354991
|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
|url-status=dead
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
Line 383 ⟶ 385:
|date=December 7, 2000
|publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]]
}}</ref> While some in the Roman Catholic Church reject Intelligent design for various philosophical and theological reasons,<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.ncccusa.org/pdfs/evolutionbrochurefinal.pdf
|title=Science, Religion, and the Teaching of Evolution in Public School Science Classes
Line 394 ⟶ 395:
|work=Committee on Public Education and Literacy
|publisher=[[National Council of Churches]]
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070711004309/http://www.ncccusa.org/pdfs/evolutionbrochurefinal.pdf
|archive-date=2007-07-11
|url-status=dead
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite web
Line 413 ⟶ 417:
|date=February 4, 2006
|publisher=[[Answers in Genesis]]
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue10/index.shtml#more_than_id
|title=More Than Intelligent Design
Line 424 ⟶ 427:
|work=Facts for Faith
|publisher=Reasons to Believe
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071011225836/http://reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue10/index.shtml#more_than_id
|archive-date=2007-10-11
|url-status=dead
}}</ref><ref>{{cite press release
|url=http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/intelligent_design.php
Line 430 ⟶ 436:
|year=2007
|publisher=Harun Yahya International
}}{{Dead link|date=January 2020 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> and have pointed to previous failures of the same argument.<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp
Line 798 ⟶ 804:
|url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=549
|accessdate=2007-05-10
}}</ref> The article was a [[literature review]], which means that it did not present any new research, but rather culled quotations and claims from other papers to argue that the [[Cambrian explosion]] could not have happened by natural processes. The choice of venue for this article was also considered problematic, because it was so outside the normal subject matter (see [[Sternberg peer review controversy]]<ref group="n">The [[Sternberg peer review controversy]] and several similar academic disputes are the subject of the 2008 documentary "[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]".</ref>). Dembski has written that "perhaps the best reason [to be skeptical of his ideas] is that intelligent design has yet to establish itself as a thriving scientific research program."<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.designinference.com/documents/2001.03.ID_as_nat_theol.htm
|title=Is Intelligent Design a Form of Natural Theology?
Line 809 ⟶ 813:
|year=2001
|publisher=Design Inference Website
|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120729130930/http://www.designinference.com/documents/2001.03.ID_as_nat_theol.htm
|archive-date=2012-07-29
|url-status=dead
}}</ref>
In a 2001 interview, Dembski said that he stopped submitting to peer-reviewed journals because of their slow time-to-print and that he makes more money from publishing books.<ref>
Line 870 ⟶ 875:
}}</ref> In sworn testimony, however, Behe said: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".<ref>[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', October 19, 2005, AM session [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html Kitzmiller Testimony, Behe]</ref> As summarized by the judge, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his claims of intelligent design or irreducible complexity. In his ruling, the judge wrote: "A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory".<ref name="kitzruling_pg87" />
The Discovery Institute has published lists of articles and books which they say support intelligent design and have been peer-reviewed, including the two articles mentioned above. Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, stating that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Rather, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with peer review that lacks [[impartiality]] and [[rigour|rigor]],<ref group="n">{{cite journal
|last=Brauer
|first=Matthew J.
|author2=Forrest, Barbara
|author3=Gey Steven G. |year=2005
|title=Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution
Line 884 ⟶ 889:
|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
|archive-date=2009-03-26
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters. <ref group="n">
{{cite web
| |||