207:: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do.
31:
227:
thing you understand is that the
Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"…"I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves.
57:
263:"embers of the national ID movement insist that their attacks on evolution aren't religiously motivated, but, rather, scientific in nature." … "Yet the express strategic objectives of the Discovery Institute; the writings, careers, and affiliations of ID's leading proponents; and the movement’s funding sources all betray a clear moral and religious agenda."
136:, statements of ID's main proponents, the nature of ID itself, and the history of the movement, it becomes apparent—Discovery Institute's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding—that ID is a form of creationism, modified to appear more secular than it really is. This is in line with the Discovery Institute's stated strategy in the
76:
policy. The NPOV policy does not require all points of view to be represented as equally valid, but it does require us to represent them. The policy requires that we present the theory of evolution from the point of view of disinterested philosophers, biologists and other scientists, and that we also
155:
hearing, and is a position supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Scientists say that ID cannot be regarded as scientific theory because it is untestable even in principle. A scientific theory predicts the outcome of experiments. If the predicted outcome is not observed,
226:
I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."…"Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first
110:, in that it does not depend on distortion of the evidence, or on the assumption that it is immune to empirical evidence. It depends only on the idea that the hypothesis of a designer makes sense and that it is not assigned a vanishingly small probability (see
156:
the theory is false. There is no experiment which can be constructed which can disprove intelligent design. Unlike a true scientific theory, it has absolutely no predictive capability. It doesn't run the risk of being disproved by objective experiment.
77:
include the views of evolution proponents and opponents. We should not present minority views as though they are majority ones, but we should also make sure the minority views are correctly described and not just criticized.
88:: ID is a form of creationism, and many sources argue that it is identical. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and
284:"ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief."
347:
179:
Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of
Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.
319:
45:. They address concerns, questions, and misconceptions which have repeatedly arisen on the talk page. Please feel free to change this material in light of new discussion.
111:
17:
42:
333:
305:
291:
152:
133:
151:: The majority of scientists state ID should not be characterized as science. This was the finding of Judge Jones during the
121:
Although intelligent design proponents do not name the designer, they make it clear that the designer is the
Christian god.
130:, almost all derivations of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were replaced with the words "intelligent design".
264:
72:: There have been arguments over the years about the article's neutrality and concerns that it violates Knowledge's
366:
245:"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,"
93:
203:
So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the
212:
191:
This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy.
184:
285:
232:
126:
8:
89:
247:
107:
61:
To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.
258:
288:
204:
137:
73:
196:
360:
103:
339:
311:
97:
268:
82:
Q2: Should
Intelligent Design (ID) be equated with creationism?
56:
343:
315:
272:
66:
Q1: Is this article unfairly biased in favor of evolution?
248:
Touchstone
Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999
38:
231:
Johnson 1999. Reclaiming
America for Christ Conference.
102:
Not everyone agrees with this. For example, philosopher
96:, stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast
213:
Berkeley's
Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson
106:
argues that intelligent design is very different from
52:
These questions arise frequently on this talk page.
124:In drafts of the 1989 high-school level textbook
358:
18:Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups
325:
237:
145:Q3: Should ID be characterized as science?
43:Rejection of evolution by religious groups
112:"Public Education and Intelligent Design"
334:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
306:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
292:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
171:
169:
14:
359:
297:
267:Chris Mooney. The American Prospect,
252:
166:
25:
233:How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won
211:Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine.
23:
217:
24:
378:
185:Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin
55:
29:
348:4. Whether ID is Science, p. 87
183:Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca.
278:
195:Johnson 1996. World Magazine.
13:
1:
197:Witnesses For The Prosecution
116:Philosophy and Public Affairs
92:, one of the founders of the
41:about the corresponding page
7:
10:
383:
261:Discovery Institute, 1999.
39:frequently asked questions
118:, Vol. 36, no. 2, 2008).
100:as a scientific concept.
367:Knowledge article FAQs
286:Expert Witness Report
74:neutral point of view
37:Below are answers to
161:Notes and references
132:Taken together, the
127:Of Pandas and People
90:Phillip E. Johnson
175:Phillip Johnson:
134:Kitzmiller ruling
50:
49:
374:
350:
337:
329:
323:
309:
301:
295:
282:
276:
256:
250:
246:
241:
235:
230:
221:
215:
210:
205:"wedge" strategy
194:
182:
173:
108:creation science
59:
33:
32:
26:
382:
381:
377:
376:
375:
373:
372:
371:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
331:
330:
326:
303:
302:
298:
294:, April, 2005.
289:Barbara Forrest
283:
279:
265:Inferior Design
257:
253:
244:
242:
238:
223:
222:
218:
200:
188:
176:
174:
167:
162:
158:
157:
146:
142:
141:
83:
79:
78:
67:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
380:
370:
369:
352:
351:
338:, 04 cv 2688 (
324:
310:, 04 cv 2688 (
296:
277:
262:
259:Wedge Document
251:
236:
216:
164:
163:
160:
159:
147:
144:
143:
138:Wedge Document
84:
81:
80:
68:
65:
64:
48:
47:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
379:
368:
365:
364:
362:
349:
345:
341:
336:
335:
328:
321:
317:
313:
308:
307:
300:
293:
290:
287:
281:
274:
270:
266:
260:
255:
249:
240:
234:
228:
220:
214:
208:
206:
198:
192:
186:
180:
172:
170:
165:
154:
150:
139:
135:
131:
129:
128:
122:
119:
117:
113:
109:
105:
99:
95:
91:
87:
75:
71:
63:
62:
58:
53:
46:
44:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
332:
327:
304:
299:
280:
254:
239:
225:
219:
202:
190:
178:
148:
125:
123:
120:
115:
104:Thomas Nagel
101:
85:
69:
60:
54:
51:
36:
340:December 20
320:pp. 31 – 33
312:December 20
98:creationism
94:ID movement
153:Kitzmiller
269:August 10
243:Dembski:
361:Category
16:<
346:).,
344:2005
318:).,
316:2005
273:2005
187:.
363::
342:,
314:,
271:,
199:.
168:^
149:A3
114:,
86:A2
70:A1
322:.
275:.
229:"
224:"
209:"
201:"
193:"
189:"
181:"
177:"
140:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
