Could anyone provide me with what you feel is the strongest literature in support of intelligent design? If you would like to state what you believe are the strongest individual arguments, that would also be very helpful.
Please note that this thread is not intended to instigate a debate. I'm simply trying to acquire sources with which I'm unfamiliar. Thanks in advance for the help.
Creationists started calling creationism ID to help hide the fact they were trying to sneak religion into science class. Eventually it was exposed when a lot of their material used creationism and ID interchaneably
Bcingu there's a really good free PBS documentary on creationism on PBSs website. I think it's. called intelligent design on trial. It covers the 2004 Kitzmiller vs Dover trial. Google it, it should come up.
Also the other main creationism website is the discovery institutes site.
Uh huh...they are still not the same thing. I could see where Creationist would/could push ID or someone who believes ID could be a creationist, but not everyone who believes ID is a creationist...they are not the same rose different name.
ID look to see if the design of the world is genuinely designed (an intelligent being designed the world in general or particular things such as humans), a creationist tries to reconcile science to, usually literalist, interpretation of scripture.
I sit next to one of the heads of the science department and he believes ID to be true, but often makes fun of creationists. Again, there is a distinction. Kind of like elephants are gray, but not all things that are gray are elephants.
"Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition 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." IT IS A FORM oF CREATIONISM and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea"."
down the page
"Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design IS A FORM oF CREATIONISM, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."
I think he is referring to an evolutionary biologist at Arizona State University. He is known to teach some parts of "ID" in his classes. He is actually pretty intellectually honest in presenting his views. He even openly criticized "Of Uncommon Dissent," a pro ID work.
I figured so. The American football player didn't make sense. I remember his first name, Paul. Not sure his last name.
I'll have to make clear, I don't much understand in any real depth the following: creationism or ID or evolution. I understand evolution the best out of the three but my science lays in the mathematical rather than the biological. I just haven't had the time to go about it. But, I wanted to point out that bit about the distinction.
I'm not a creationist to be clear...unless I talk to a creationist then I'm a St. Augustine Creationist (about as extreme as you can get).
Am I correct in assuming that you are not a scientist? First, I will start by saying that just because something is "debunked" does not mean it is not useful and should not be taught. For example, I can "debunk" a lot of what Newton and his contemporaries came up with in regards to mechanics. Does that mean we no longer teach classical mechanics? No, because classical mechanics is still useful to engineers and as a starting point for physics students to begin studying more complex topics like quantum mechanics. Yes, ID is not a true scientific discipline and most (not all) of ID is not based on science, but some (not much) of it is and deserves to be taught in courses that that information is relevant to. It does not, however, deserve the same time and attention that theories with the kind of evidence that evolution has does. Even that notwithstanding, much of the reason evolution has so much evidence to support it is due to the criticism of the religious conservatives, including creationism and ID. For instance, when the idea of irreducible complexity was first introduced by ID proponents, several problems were pointed out with the evolutionary process that had no real answers. What happened? Biologists worked feverishly to find actual answers to these problems using real scientific methods. Thanks in part to ID proponents, we now have a better understanding of the chemical processes involved in blood clotting, as well as an "evolutionary map" that can be used to help trace the evolution of blood clotting mechanisms. ID is not science for the most part, I agree with that, but I do teach it to my students to illustrate some major points that are good for all scientists to know. The first is that we should always be questioning and reevaluating even the most established scientific knowledge in order to try to improve on our knowledge. The second is how not to present data and ideas. Many, not all, proponents of ID are intellectually dishonest and falsify data in order to further their cause and it has ruined the credibility of anyone who subscribes to ID, even those who have never compromised their scientific integrity. It is a good example to my students of how not to pretend to be an expert in a field you are not. We scientists do not take kindly to that, and those who do tend to not last long in the scientific community. There are two reasons right there where ID has a place being taught in a science class.