Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "الخلقية الجديدة" in Arabic language version.
Lawyer Wendell Bird [...] proposed a new 'scientific alternative' to evolution [...]. His view, which he dubbed 'Abrupt Appearance Theory,' was, however, indistinguishable in content from Creation Science. [...] The phrase 'abrupt appearance' was part of the definition of Creation Science in literature presented by the creationist side in the Edwards v. Aguillard case. Bird reworked his brief for the Edwards case into The Origin of Species Revisited, published in 1987. [...] Although mammoth in its scope [...], The Origin of Species Revisited is rarely cited today in creationist literature. it was, and remains, ignored in the scientific literature, and after the mid-1990s virtually disappeared from the political realm as well. it has been supplanted by another 'alternative to evolution' that was evolving parallel to it.
{{استشهاد بكتاب}}: |الأول= باسم عام (مساعدة){{استشهاد بمنشورات مؤتمر}}: الوسيط |عنوان المؤتمر= و|عنوان الكتاب= تكرر أكثر من مرة (مساعدة)Phrases like "intelligent design theory," "abrupt appearance theory," "evidence against evolution," and the like, have sprung up, although the content of many of the arguments is familiar. This view can be called "neocreationism." ... Neocreationists are by no means identical to their predecessors, however.... Neither biblical creationists nor theistic evolutionists.... Most of them are "progressive creationists."
{{استشهاد بكتاب}}: |الأول= باسم عام (مساعدة){{استشهاد بمنشورات مؤتمر}}: الوسيط |عنوان المؤتمر= و|عنوان الكتاب= تكرر أكثر من مرة (مساعدة){{استشهاد بكتاب}}: |الأول= باسم عام (مساعدة){{استشهاد بكتاب}}: |الأول= باسم عام (مساعدة){{استشهاد بمنشورات مؤتمر}}: الوسيط |عنوان المؤتمر= و|عنوان الكتاب= تكرر أكثر من مرة (مساعدة){{استشهاد ويب}}: روابط خارجية في |موقع={{استشهاد ويب}}: روابط خارجية في |موقع=Phrases like "intelligent design theory," "abrupt appearance theory," "evidence against evolution," and the like, have sprung up, although the content of many of the arguments is familiar. This view can be called "neocreationism." ... Neocreationists are by no means identical to their predecessors, however.... Neither biblical creationists nor theistic evolutionists.... Most of them are "progressive creationists."
{{استشهاد بكتاب}}: |الأول= باسم عام (مساعدة)A coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers has called on all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory.
{{استشهاد بمنشورات مؤتمر}}: الوسيط |عنوان المؤتمر= و|عنوان الكتاب= تكرر أكثر من مرة (مساعدة)Lawyer Wendell Bird [...] proposed a new 'scientific alternative' to evolution [...]. His view, which he dubbed 'Abrupt Appearance Theory,' was, however, indistinguishable in content from Creation Science. [...] The phrase 'abrupt appearance' was part of the definition of Creation Science in literature presented by the creationist side in the Edwards v. Aguillard case. Bird reworked his brief for the Edwards case into The Origin of Species Revisited, published in 1987. [...] Although mammoth in its scope [...], The Origin of Species Revisited is rarely cited today in creationist literature. it was, and remains, ignored in the scientific literature, and after the mid-1990s virtually disappeared from the political realm as well. it has been supplanted by another 'alternative to evolution' that was evolving parallel to it.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: روابط خارجية في |موقع={{استشهاد بكتاب}}: |الأول= باسم عام (مساعدة)A coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers has called on all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: روابط خارجية في |موقع=Phrases like "intelligent design theory," "abrupt appearance theory," "evidence against evolution," and the like, have sprung up, although the content of many of the arguments is familiar. This view can be called "neocreationism." ... Neocreationists are by no means identical to their predecessors, however.... Neither biblical creationists nor theistic evolutionists.... Most of them are "progressive creationists."
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.[Text in wikisource]
Johnson has concluded that science must be redefined to include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing. (11:8–15 (Forrest); P-429). Additionally, Dembski agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper. (Trial Tr. vol. 5, Pennock Test., 32–34, Sept. 28, 2005).[Text in wikisource]
.[Text in wikisource]
{{استشهاد بكتاب}}: |الأول= باسم عام (مساعدة)