The Intelligent-Design Movement: Science or Ideology?
The past decade has seen the rise of a new wave of criticism of evolutionary biology, led by claims that it should be replaced by a new science of intelligent design. While the general question of inferring design may fairly be considered worthy of attention, claims that intelligent-design theory (I...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Wiley-Blackwell
2002
|
| Dans: |
Zygon
Année: 2002, Volume: 37, Numéro: 1, Pages: 7-23 |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
intelligent-design theory
B William Dembski B Imre Lakatos B Michael Behe B evolutionary theory B Demarcation |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Édition parallèle: | Non-électronique
|
| Résumé: | The past decade has seen the rise of a new wave of criticism of evolutionary biology, led by claims that it should be replaced by a new science of intelligent design. While the general question of inferring design may fairly be considered worthy of attention, claims that intelligent-design theory (IDT) constitutes a biological science are highly problematic. This article briefly summarizes the assertions made about IDT as a biological science and indicates why they do not stand up to analysis. While claiming that IDT is a biological science, its advocates have failed to actually produce a research program that merits serious attention. As such, it is clear that IDT is more driven by ideological considerations than by attention to actual scientific research. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-9744 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Zygon
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/1467-9744.00406 |