Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Complejidad irreducible" in Spanish language version.
True in this latest creationist variant, advocates of so-called intelligent design [...] use more slick, pseudoscientific language. They talk about things like “irreducible complexity”.Seth Shulman
Shulman, Seth (2006). Undermining science: suppression and distortion in the Bush Administration. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 13. ISBN 0-520-24702-7.
For most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience.David Mu
David Mu (Fall 2005). «Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design». Harvard Science Review 19 (1). Archivado desde el original el 4 de diciembre de 2010.
The Discovery Institute and ID proponents have a number of goals that they hope to achieve using disingenuous and mendacious methods of marketing, publicity, and political persuasion. They do not practice real science because that takes too long, but mainly because this method requires that one have actual evidence and logical reasons for one's conclusions, and the ID proponents just don't have those. If they had such resources, they would use them, and not the disreputable methods they actually use.
Véase también el artículo en la Wikipedia en inglés «List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design» (‘lista de grupos científicos que han rechazado explícitamente el diseño inteligente’)
True in this latest creationist variant, advocates of so-called intelligent design [...] use more slick, pseudoscientific language. They talk about things like “irreducible complexity”.Seth Shulman
Shulman, Seth (2006). Undermining science: suppression and distortion in the Bush Administration. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 13. ISBN 0-520-24702-7.
For most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience.David Mu
David Mu (Fall 2005). «Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design». Harvard Science Review 19 (1). Archivado desde el original el 4 de diciembre de 2010.
The Discovery Institute and ID proponents have a number of goals that they hope to achieve using disingenuous and mendacious methods of marketing, publicity, and political persuasion. They do not practice real science because that takes too long, but mainly because this method requires that one have actual evidence and logical reasons for one's conclusions, and the ID proponents just don't have those. If they had such resources, they would use them, and not the disreputable methods they actually use.
Véase también el artículo en la Wikipedia en inglés «List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design» (‘lista de grupos científicos que han rechazado explícitamente el diseño inteligente’)
True in this latest creationist variant, advocates of so-called intelligent design [...] use more slick, pseudoscientific language. They talk about things like “irreducible complexity”.Seth Shulman
Shulman, Seth (2006). Undermining science: suppression and distortion in the Bush Administration. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 13. ISBN 0-520-24702-7.
For most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience.David Mu
David Mu (Fall 2005). «Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design». Harvard Science Review 19 (1). Archivado desde el original el 4 de diciembre de 2010.
The Discovery Institute and ID proponents have a number of goals that they hope to achieve using disingenuous and mendacious methods of marketing, publicity, and political persuasion. They do not practice real science because that takes too long, but mainly because this method requires that one have actual evidence and logical reasons for one's conclusions, and the ID proponents just don't have those. If they had such resources, they would use them, and not the disreputable methods they actually use.
Véase también el artículo en la Wikipedia en inglés «List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design» (‘lista de grupos científicos que han rechazado explícitamente el diseño inteligente’)
True in this latest creationist variant, advocates of so-called intelligent design [...] use more slick, pseudoscientific language. They talk about things like “irreducible complexity”.Seth Shulman
Shulman, Seth (2006). Undermining science: suppression and distortion in the Bush Administration. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 13. ISBN 0-520-24702-7.
For most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience.David Mu
David Mu (Fall 2005). «Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design». Harvard Science Review 19 (1). Archivado desde el original el 4 de diciembre de 2010.
The Discovery Institute and ID proponents have a number of goals that they hope to achieve using disingenuous and mendacious methods of marketing, publicity, and political persuasion. They do not practice real science because that takes too long, but mainly because this method requires that one have actual evidence and logical reasons for one's conclusions, and the ID proponents just don't have those. If they had such resources, they would use them, and not the disreputable methods they actually use.
Véase también el artículo en la Wikipedia en inglés «List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design» (‘lista de grupos científicos que han rechazado explícitamente el diseño inteligente’)
True in this latest creationist variant, advocates of so-called intelligent design [...] use more slick, pseudoscientific language. They talk about things like “irreducible complexity”.Seth Shulman
Shulman, Seth (2006). Undermining science: suppression and distortion in the Bush Administration. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 13. ISBN 0-520-24702-7.
For most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience.David Mu
David Mu (Fall 2005). «Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design». Harvard Science Review 19 (1). Archivado desde el original el 4 de diciembre de 2010.
The Discovery Institute and ID proponents have a number of goals that they hope to achieve using disingenuous and mendacious methods of marketing, publicity, and political persuasion. They do not practice real science because that takes too long, but mainly because this method requires that one have actual evidence and logical reasons for one's conclusions, and the ID proponents just don't have those. If they had such resources, they would use them, and not the disreputable methods they actually use.
Véase también el artículo en la Wikipedia en inglés «List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design» (‘lista de grupos científicos que han rechazado explícitamente el diseño inteligente’)
True in this latest creationist variant, advocates of so-called intelligent design [...] use more slick, pseudoscientific language. They talk about things like “irreducible complexity”.Seth Shulman
Shulman, Seth (2006). Undermining science: suppression and distortion in the Bush Administration. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 13. ISBN 0-520-24702-7.
For most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience.David Mu
David Mu (Fall 2005). «Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design». Harvard Science Review 19 (1). Archivado desde el original el 4 de diciembre de 2010.
The Discovery Institute and ID proponents have a number of goals that they hope to achieve using disingenuous and mendacious methods of marketing, publicity, and political persuasion. They do not practice real science because that takes too long, but mainly because this method requires that one have actual evidence and logical reasons for one's conclusions, and the ID proponents just don't have those. If they had such resources, they would use them, and not the disreputable methods they actually use.
Véase también el artículo en la Wikipedia en inglés «List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design» (‘lista de grupos científicos que han rechazado explícitamente el diseño inteligente’)
We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.
