Intelligent design: Difference between revisions
imported>William Hart (promoting an intelligent designer -> promoting intelligent design) |
imported>William Hart (Tried to say how creationism differs and indicate why critics claim it doesn't really & and removed a double appearance of the word publication in the same sentence) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Intelligent design is highly controversial, often explicitly opposing the consensus scientific viewpoint, though it is often itself framed as a scientific hypothesis. Many scientists have vocally dismissed it as unscientific and untestable and it has not achieved widespread academic acceptance. | Intelligent design is highly controversial, often explicitly opposing the consensus scientific viewpoint, though it is often itself framed as a scientific hypothesis. Many scientists have vocally dismissed it as unscientific and untestable and it has not achieved widespread academic acceptance. | ||
Many of the leading proponents of intelligent design are fellows and advisors of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. Many prominent proponents are qualified, practising scientists, though very few ID | Many of the leading proponents of intelligent design are fellows and advisors of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. Many prominent proponents are qualified, practising scientists, though very few ID research papers and monographs have successfully passed peer review and made it to publication, underscoring the contentious nature of the issue amongst mainstream scientists. | ||
Opponents of intelligent design contend that it is a religious or philosophical concept which lies outside of the realm of science. They argue that it does not make testable scientific predictions, cannot be tested within the framework of the scientific method and that it does not generate new hypotheses for testing. | Opponents of intelligent design contend that it is a religious or philosophical concept which lies outside of the realm of science. They argue that it does not make testable scientific predictions, cannot be tested within the framework of the scientific method and that it does not generate new hypotheses for testing. | ||
Although ID does not attempt to identify the intelligent designer, many of its leading proponents have stated that they personally believe the designer is the Christian God. The senior fellows of the Discovery Institute's Centre for Science and Culture include a number of Roman Catholics, a secular (non-religious) Jew, a member of Sun Myung-Moon's Unification Church and numerous protestant Christians. | Although ID does not attempt to identify the intelligent designer, many of its leading proponents have stated that they personally believe the designer is the Christian God. The senior fellows of the Discovery Institute's Centre for Science and Culture include a number of Roman Catholics, a secular (non-religious) Jew, a member of Sun Myung-Moon's Unification Church and numerous protestant Christians. Intelligent design as a hypothesis is concerned with the question of design detection in nature, however, due to the stated religious convictions of most of its leading proponents, many critics of intelligent design have labelled it as thinly disguised creationism. | ||
In ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'' (2005), a [[United States federal courts|United States federal court]] ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the [[Establishment Clause of the First Amendment|Establishment Clause]] of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]]. [[United States district court|United States District Judge]] [[John E. Jones III]] ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.<ref>[[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion|Ruling]], [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]], Case No. 04cv2688. [[December 20]] [[2005]] </ref> | In ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'' (2005), a [[United States federal courts|United States federal court]] ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the [[Establishment Clause of the First Amendment|Establishment Clause]] of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]]. [[United States district court|United States District Judge]] [[John E. Jones III]] ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.<ref>[[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion|Ruling]], [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]], Case No. 04cv2688. [[December 20]] [[2005]] </ref> | ||
Intelligent design is formally distinct from creationism in that the designer is not required to be supernatural. | |||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
[[Category: CZ Live]] | [[Category: CZ Live]] | ||
Revision as of 10:19, 15 February 2007
Intelligent design (ID) is the name given to the contention that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] Intelligent design is also the name given to a movement associated with promoting the concept of intelligent design.
Intelligent design is highly controversial, often explicitly opposing the consensus scientific viewpoint, though it is often itself framed as a scientific hypothesis. Many scientists have vocally dismissed it as unscientific and untestable and it has not achieved widespread academic acceptance.
Many of the leading proponents of intelligent design are fellows and advisors of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank established in 1991. Many prominent proponents are qualified, practising scientists, though very few ID research papers and monographs have successfully passed peer review and made it to publication, underscoring the contentious nature of the issue amongst mainstream scientists.
Opponents of intelligent design contend that it is a religious or philosophical concept which lies outside of the realm of science. They argue that it does not make testable scientific predictions, cannot be tested within the framework of the scientific method and that it does not generate new hypotheses for testing.
Although ID does not attempt to identify the intelligent designer, many of its leading proponents have stated that they personally believe the designer is the Christian God. The senior fellows of the Discovery Institute's Centre for Science and Culture include a number of Roman Catholics, a secular (non-religious) Jew, a member of Sun Myung-Moon's Unification Church and numerous protestant Christians. Intelligent design as a hypothesis is concerned with the question of design detection in nature, however, due to the stated religious convictions of most of its leading proponents, many critics of intelligent design have labelled it as thinly disguised creationism.
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.[3]
Intelligent design is formally distinct from creationism in that the designer is not required to be supernatural.
- ↑ Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA)
- ↑ Intelligent Design Intelligent Design network.
- ↑ Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Case No. 04cv2688. December 20 2005