Complexidade irredutíbel (Galician Wikipedia)

De Formatione Foetus=The Construction of the Embryo, chapter 11 en Galen: Selected Works, translated by P. N. Singer, The World's Classics, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0-19-282450-9. Unha referencia do século XVIII a Galeno é [1] Arquivado 22 de novembro de 2005 en Wayback Machine.David Hume Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, 1779, Part 12, § 3, páxina 215. Ver tamén Galen's De Usu Partium=On the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body, translated and edited by Margaret Tallmadge May, Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press, 1968, especially book XVII.

antievolution.org

Keough, Mark J.; Geisler, Norman L. (1982). The Creator in the courtroom "Scopes II": the 1981 Arkansas creation-evolution trial. Milford, Mich: Mott Media. p. 146. ISBN 0-88062-020-X.

archive.org

"True in this latest creationist variant, advocates of so-called intelligent design… use more slick, pseudoscientific language. They talk about things like 'irreducible complexity'" —
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 (Fall 2005). "Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design" (PDF). Harvard Science Review 19 (1). Arquivado dende o orixinal (PDF) o 24 de xullo de 2007. Consultado o 28 de febreiro de 2011.
Perakh M (2005 verán). "Why Intelligent Design Isn't Intelligent — Review of: Unintelligent Design". Cell Biol Educ. 4 (2): 121–2. PMC 1103713. doi:10.1187/cbe.05-02-0071.
Mark D. Decker. College of Biological Sciences, General Biology Program, University of Minnesota Frequently Asked Questions About the Texas Science Textbook Adoption Controversy Arquivado 30 de setembro de 2010 en Wayback Machine. "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."
Andrew Pyle (2006). "Malebranche on Animal Generation: Preexistence and the Microscope". En Smith JH. The problem of animal generation in early modern philosophy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 202–3. ISBN 0-521-84077-5.
Cairns-Smith, A. G. (1986). Seven clues to the origin of life: a scientific detective story. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 39, 58–64. ISBN 0-521-27522-9.
Lumsden RD (1994). "Not So Blind A Watchmaker". Creation Research Society Quarterly 31 (1): 13–22, quotations from 13, 20.
Monod, Jacques (1972). Chance and necessity: an essay on the natural philosophy of modern biology. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 0-394-71825-9.

centerforinquiry.org

Forrest, Barbara: Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals Arquivado 14 de febreiro de 2019 en Wayback Machine.. (Entendendo o Movemento Creacionista do Deseño Intelixente: A Súa Natureza Verdadeira e Obxectivos) A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, maio, 2007.

darwin-online.org.uk

"William Paley: Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. Collected from the Appearances of Nature 12th edition, 1809".

doi.org

dx.doi.org

"True in this latest creationist variant, advocates of so-called intelligent design… use more slick, pseudoscientific language. They talk about things like 'irreducible complexity'" —
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 (Fall 2005). "Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design" (PDF). Harvard Science Review 19 (1). Arquivado dende o orixinal (PDF) o 24 de xullo de 2007. Consultado o 28 de febreiro de 2011.
Perakh M (2005 verán). "Why Intelligent Design Isn't Intelligent — Review of: Unintelligent Design". Cell Biol Educ. 4 (2): 121–2. PMC 1103713. doi:10.1187/cbe.05-02-0071.
Mark D. Decker. College of Biological Sciences, General Biology Program, University of Minnesota Frequently Asked Questions About the Texas Science Textbook Adoption Controversy Arquivado 30 de setembro de 2010 en Wayback Machine. "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."
Scott EC, Matzke NJ (2007). "Biological design in science classrooms". Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 104 Suppl 1: 8669–76, Ver páxina 8672. PMC 1876445. PMID 17494747. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701505104.
Behe MJ (2001). "Reply to My Critics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" (PDF). Biology and Philosophy 16 (5): 685–709. doi:10.1023/A:1012268700496. Arquivado dende o orixinal (PDF) o 11 de xullo de 2011. Consultado o 09 de marzo de 2011.

friends-of-wisdom.com

Behe MJ (2001). "Reply to My Critics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" (PDF). Biology and Philosophy 16 (5): 685–709. doi:10.1023/A:1012268700496. Arquivado dende o orixinal (PDF) o 11 de xullo de 2011. Consultado o 09 de marzo de 2011.

genetics.org

Muller HJ (1918). "Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors". Genetics 3 (5): 422–99. , especialmente páxinas 463–4.

harvard.edu

hcs.harvard.edu

"True in this latest creationist variant, advocates of so-called intelligent design… use more slick, pseudoscientific language. They talk about things like 'irreducible complexity'" —
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 (Fall 2005). "Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design" (PDF). Harvard Science Review 19 (1). Arquivado dende o orixinal (PDF) o 24 de xullo de 2007. Consultado o 28 de febreiro de 2011.
Perakh M (2005 verán). "Why Intelligent Design Isn't Intelligent — Review of: Unintelligent Design". Cell Biol Educ. 4 (2): 121–2. PMC 1103713. doi:10.1187/cbe.05-02-0071.
Mark D. Decker. College of Biological Sciences, General Biology Program, University of Minnesota Frequently Asked Questions About the Texas Science Textbook Adoption Controversy Arquivado 30 de setembro de 2010 en Wayback Machine. "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."

libertyfund.org

oll.libertyfund.org

"On the Nature of the Gods, translated by Francis Brooks, London: Methuen, 1896.". Arquivado dende o orixinal o 06 de xaneiro de 2009.

ncseweb.org

The New Pandas: Has Creationist Scholarship Improved? Comments on 1993 Revisions by Frank J. Sonleitner (1994)
Introduction: Of Pandas and People, the foundational work of the 'Intelligent Design' movement by Nick Matzke 2004,
Design on Trial in Dover, Pennsylvania by Nicholas J Matzke, NCSE Public Information Project Specialist

nih.gov

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"True in this latest creationist variant, advocates of so-called intelligent design… use more slick, pseudoscientific language. They talk about things like 'irreducible complexity'" —
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 (Fall 2005). "Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design" (PDF). Harvard Science Review 19 (1). Arquivado dende o orixinal (PDF) o 24 de xullo de 2007. Consultado o 28 de febreiro de 2011.
Perakh M (2005 verán). "Why Intelligent Design Isn't Intelligent — Review of: Unintelligent Design". Cell Biol Educ. 4 (2): 121–2. PMC 1103713. doi:10.1187/cbe.05-02-0071.
Mark D. Decker. College of Biological Sciences, General Biology Program, University of Minnesota Frequently Asked Questions About the Texas Science Textbook Adoption Controversy Arquivado 30 de setembro de 2010 en Wayback Machine. "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."
Scott EC, Matzke NJ (2007). "Biological design in science classrooms". Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 104 Suppl 1: 8669–76, Ver páxina 8672. PMC 1876445. PMID 17494747. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701505104.

sacred-texts.com

"The Sacred Theory of the Earth, 2nd edition, London: Walter Kettilby, 1691. Book I Chapter IV page 43".

skeptic.com

Mark Perakh (2008). "Bacteria Flagella Look Like Man-made Machines" 14 (3). Skeptic (U.S. magazine). Consultado o 2008-12-06.

talkorigins.org

Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover

talkreason.org

"The Chicken or the Egg".
"The Chicken or the Egg".
Barbara Forrest, The Wedge at Work. Talk Reason.
Forrest B (2001). "1: The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism is Wedging its way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream". En Pennock RT. Intelligent design creationism and its critics: philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. pp. 5–54. ISBN 0-262-66124-1.

texscience.org

"True in this latest creationist variant, advocates of so-called intelligent design… use more slick, pseudoscientific language. They talk about things like 'irreducible complexity'" —
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 (Fall 2005). "Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design" (PDF). Harvard Science Review 19 (1). Arquivado dende o orixinal (PDF) o 24 de xullo de 2007. Consultado o 28 de febreiro de 2011.
Perakh M (2005 verán). "Why Intelligent Design Isn't Intelligent — Review of: Unintelligent Design". Cell Biol Educ. 4 (2): 121–2. PMC 1103713. doi:10.1187/cbe.05-02-0071.
Mark D. Decker. College of Biological Sciences, General Biology Program, University of Minnesota Frequently Asked Questions About the Texas Science Textbook Adoption Controversy Arquivado 30 de setembro de 2010 en Wayback Machine. "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."

toarchive.org

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Michael Behe, 1996, citado en Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe Arquivado 16 de marzo de 2009 en Wayback Machine. (retrieved 8 January 2006).

udel.edu

A reducibly complex mousetrap (graphics-intensive, requires JavaScript)

ufp.pt

www2.ufp.pt

"UFP: A lógica do Ciclo de Krebs". Arquivado dende o orixinal o 14 de maio de 2011. Consultado o 11 de marzo de 2011.

web.archive.org

Forrest, Barbara: Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals Arquivado 14 de febreiro de 2019 en Wayback Machine.. (Entendendo o Movemento Creacionista do Deseño Intelixente: A Súa Natureza Verdadeira e Obxectivos) A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, maio, 2007.
"True in this latest creationist variant, advocates of so-called intelligent design… use more slick, pseudoscientific language. They talk about things like 'irreducible complexity'" —
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 (Fall 2005). "Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design" (PDF). Harvard Science Review 19 (1). Arquivado dende o orixinal (PDF) o 24 de xullo de 2007. Consultado o 28 de febreiro de 2011.
Perakh M (2005 verán). "Why Intelligent Design Isn't Intelligent — Review of: Unintelligent Design". Cell Biol Educ. 4 (2): 121–2. PMC 1103713. doi:10.1187/cbe.05-02-0071.
Mark D. Decker. College of Biological Sciences, General Biology Program, University of Minnesota Frequently Asked Questions About the Texas Science Textbook Adoption Controversy Arquivado 30 de setembro de 2010 en Wayback Machine. "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."
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Michael Behe, 1996, citado en Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe Arquivado 16 de marzo de 2009 en Wayback Machine. (retrieved 8 January 2006).
"On the Nature of the Gods, translated by Francis Brooks, London: Methuen, 1896.". Arquivado dende o orixinal o 06 de xaneiro de 2009.
De Formatione Foetus=The Construction of the Embryo, chapter 11 en Galen: Selected Works, translated by P. N. Singer, The World's Classics, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997 ISBN 978-0-19-282450-9. Unha referencia do século XVIII a Galeno é [1] Arquivado 22 de novembro de 2005 en Wayback Machine.David Hume Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, 1779, Part 12, § 3, páxina 215. Ver tamén Galen's De Usu Partium=On the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body, translated and edited by Margaret Tallmadge May, Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press, 1968, especially book XVII.
Behe MJ (2001). "Reply to My Critics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" (PDF). Biology and Philosophy 16 (5): 685–709. doi:10.1023/A:1012268700496. Arquivado dende o orixinal (PDF) o 11 de xullo de 2011. Consultado o 09 de marzo de 2011.
"UFP: A lógica do Ciclo de Krebs". Arquivado dende o orixinal o 14 de maio de 2011. Consultado o 11 de marzo de 2011.

wikisource.org

gl.wikisource.org

"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." Ruling, Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 64
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 6: Conclusion, section H

en.wikisource.org

Behe, Michael 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science (p. 88)