Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Perancangan cerdas" in Indonesian language version.
[M]embers of the national ID movement insist that their attacks on evolution aren't religiously motivated, but, rather, scientific in nature. [...] Yet the express strategic objectives of the Discovery Institute; the writings, careers, and affiliations of ID's leading proponents; and the movement's funding sources all betray a clear moral and religious agenda.
Broom shows conclusively that intelligent design's opposition to Darwinism rests primarily on scientific grounds.
My colleagues and I speak of 'theistic realism'—or sometimes, 'mere creation'—as the defining concept of our [the ID] movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology.
The theory of Intelligent Design holds 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.
[Phillip E. Johnson quoted]: We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise ... We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.
Biologists aren't alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they're alarmed because intelligent design is junk science.
We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. ...It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom."Salinan arsip". Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2017-09-19. Diakses tanggal 2009-12-18.
for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience.
Biologists aren't alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they're alarmed because intelligent design is junk science.
Although science has made great progress by limiting itself to explaining only through natural causes, Johnson would have us allow the occasional supernatural intervention for those phenomena that cause problems for his particular theology.
ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief.
...the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims...
Biologists aren't alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they're alarmed because intelligent design is junk science.
We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. ...It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom."Salinan arsip". Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2017-09-19. Diakses tanggal 2009-12-18.
for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience.
[M]embers of the national ID movement insist that their attacks on evolution aren't religiously motivated, but, rather, scientific in nature. [...] Yet the express strategic objectives of the Discovery Institute; the writings, careers, and affiliations of ID's leading proponents; and the movement's funding sources all betray a clear moral and religious agenda.
The intelligent design movement claims there are aspects of the natural world that are so intricate and fit for purpose that they cannot have evolved but must have been created by an 'intelligent designer'. Furthermore they assert that this claim is scientifically testable and should therefore be taught in science lessons. Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science. Sometimes examples are quoted that are said to require an 'intelligent designer'. However, many of these have subsequently been shown to have a scientific explanation, for example, the immune system and blood clotting mechanisms. Attempts to establish an idea of the 'specified complexity' needed for intelligent design are surrounded by complex mathematics. Despite this, the idea seems to be essentially a modern version of the old idea of the "God-of-the-gaps". Lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation of some phenomena (a 'gap' in scientific knowledge) is claimed to be evidence of an intelligent designer.
F. Hoyle stated in a 1982 speech: '...one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design.'
If I ever became the president of a university (per impossibile), I would dissolve the biology department and divide the faculty with tenure that I couldn't get rid of into two new departments: those who know engineering and how it applies to biological systems would be assigned to the new 'Department of Biological Engineering'; the rest, and that includes the evolutionists, would be consigned to the new 'Department of Nature Appreciation' (didn't Darwin think of himself as a naturalist?)
We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. ...It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom."Salinan arsip". Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2017-09-19. Diakses tanggal 2009-12-18.
for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience.
Broom shows conclusively that intelligent design's opposition to Darwinism rests primarily on scientific grounds.
F. Hoyle stated in a 1982 speech: '...one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design.'
[Phillip E. Johnson quoted]: We are taking an intuition most people have and making it a scientific and academic enterprise ... We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.
Broom shows conclusively that intelligent design's opposition to Darwinism rests primarily on scientific grounds.
