환원 불가능한 복잡성 (Korean Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "환원 불가능한 복잡성" in Korean language version.

refsWebsite

Global rank Korean rank

6doi.org

2^nd place

3^rd place

4nih.gov

4^th place

3web.archive.org

1^st place

3talkorigins.org

9,502^nd place

5,028^th place

2udel.edu

4,858^th place

3,804^th place

2sciencedirect.com

149^th place

122^nd place

2harvard.edu

18^th place

27^th place

1centerforinquiry.net

low place

1wikisource.org

27^th place

10^th place

1texscience.org

low place

1msn.com

117^th place

181^st place

1jstor.org

26^th place

70^th place

1pnas.org

1,293^rd place

613^th place

1wiley.com

222^nd place

164^th place

1wikipedia.org

low place

1bostonreview.net

low place

1discovery.org

low place

1ncseweb.org

low place

1talkdesign.org

low place

bostonreview.net

new.bostonreview.net

Doolittle, Russell (1997). “A Delicate Balance”. en:Boston Review. 2014년 2월 3일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2015년 6월 11일에 확인함. Contrary to claims about irreducible complexity, the entire ensemble of proteins is not needed. Music and harmony can arise from a smaller orchestra.

centerforinquiry.net

See
- Forrest, Barbara (2007년 5월). 《Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy》 (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc. 2011년 5월 19일에 원본 문서 (PDF)에서 보존된 문서. 2013년 3월 17일에 확인함.

discovery.org

Michael Behe. Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry. 1996.

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. 13쪽. 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 (2005년). “Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design” (PDF). 《Harvard Science Review》 19 (1). 2007년 7월 24일에 원본 문서 (PDF)에서 보존된 문서. 2013년 3월 17일에 확인함.
Perakh M (2005년). “Why Intelligent Design Isn't Intelligent — Review of: Unintelligent Design”. 《Cell Biol Educ.》 4 (2): 121–2. doi:10.1187/cbe.05-02-0071. PMC 1103713.
Mark D. Decker. College of Biological Sciences, General Biology Program, University of Minnesota Frequently Asked Questions About the Texas Science Textbook Adoption Controversy Archived 2010년 9월 30일 - 웨이백 머신 "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."
지적 설계에 대한 반대 의사를 명확히 밝힌 과학 단체 목록 참조
Bridgham JT; Carroll SM; Thornton JW (2006년 4월). “Evolution of hormone-receptor complexity by molecular exploitation”. 《Science》 312 (5770): 97–101. Bibcode:2006Sci...312...97B. doi:10.1126/science.1123348. PMID 16601189.
Shanks, Nial; oplin, Karl H. (1999). “Redundant Complexity: A Critical Analysis of Intelligent Design in Biochemistry”. 《Philosophy of Science》 (The University of Chicago Press) 66 (2, June): 268–282. doi:10.1086/392687. JSTOR 188646.
Gibbons IR (1995). “Dynein family of motor proteins: present status and future questions”. 《Cell Motility and the Cytoskeleton》 32 (2): 136–44. doi:10.1002/cm.970320214. PMID 8681396.
Asai DJ, Koonce MP (May 2001). “The dynein heavy chain: structure, mechanics and evolution”. 《Trends in Cell Biology》 11 (5): 196–202. doi:10.1016/S0962-8924(01)01970-5. PMID 11316608.

doi.org

Schwab (2018). “The evolution of eyes: major steps.”. 《The Keeler lecture 2017: centenary of Keeler Ltd.》 32: 302–313.

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. 13쪽. 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 (2005년). “Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design” (PDF). 《Harvard Science Review》 19 (1). 2007년 7월 24일에 원본 문서 (PDF)에서 보존된 문서. 2013년 3월 17일에 확인함.
Perakh M (2005년). “Why Intelligent Design Isn't Intelligent — Review of: Unintelligent Design”. 《Cell Biol Educ.》 4 (2): 121–2. doi:10.1187/cbe.05-02-0071. PMC 1103713.
Mark D. Decker. College of Biological Sciences, General Biology Program, University of Minnesota Frequently Asked Questions About the Texas Science Textbook Adoption Controversy Archived 2010년 9월 30일 - 웨이백 머신 "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."
지적 설계에 대한 반대 의사를 명확히 밝힌 과학 단체 목록 참조

adsabs.harvard.edu

Bridgham JT; Carroll SM; Thornton JW (2006년 4월). “Evolution of hormone-receptor complexity by molecular exploitation”. 《Science》 312 (5770): 97–101. Bibcode:2006Sci...312...97B. doi:10.1126/science.1123348. PMID 16601189.

jstor.org

Shanks, Nial; oplin, Karl H. (1999). “Redundant Complexity: A Critical Analysis of Intelligent Design in Biochemistry”. 《Philosophy of Science》 (The University of Chicago Press) 66 (2, June): 268–282. doi:10.1086/392687. JSTOR 188646.

msn.com

msnbc.msn.com

Ker Than (2005년 9월 23일). “Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design' - LiveScience”. msnbc.com. 2010년 5월 17일에 확인함.

ncseweb.org

Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch, "Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by Most Scientists, National Center for Science Education website, September 10, 2002.

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. 13쪽. 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 (2005년). “Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design” (PDF). 《Harvard Science Review》 19 (1). 2007년 7월 24일에 원본 문서 (PDF)에서 보존된 문서. 2013년 3월 17일에 확인함.
Perakh M (2005년). “Why Intelligent Design Isn't Intelligent — Review of: Unintelligent Design”. 《Cell Biol Educ.》 4 (2): 121–2. doi:10.1187/cbe.05-02-0071. PMC 1103713.
Mark D. Decker. College of Biological Sciences, General Biology Program, University of Minnesota Frequently Asked Questions About the Texas Science Textbook Adoption Controversy Archived 2010년 9월 30일 - 웨이백 머신 "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."
지적 설계에 대한 반대 의사를 명확히 밝힌 과학 단체 목록 참조
Bridgham JT; Carroll SM; Thornton JW (2006년 4월). “Evolution of hormone-receptor complexity by molecular exploitation”. 《Science》 312 (5770): 97–101. Bibcode:2006Sci...312...97B. doi:10.1126/science.1123348. PMID 16601189.
Gibbons IR (1995). “Dynein family of motor proteins: present status and future questions”. 《Cell Motility and the Cytoskeleton》 32 (2): 136–44. doi:10.1002/cm.970320214. PMID 8681396.
Asai DJ, Koonce MP (May 2001). “The dynein heavy chain: structure, mechanics and evolution”. 《Trends in Cell Biology》 11 (5): 196–202. doi:10.1016/S0962-8924(01)01970-5. PMID 11316608.

pnas.org

Renyi Liu and Howard Ochman, Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system, http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116.full

sciencedirect.com

Evolution of bacterial type III protein secretion systems,http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966842X04000174
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867485800465

talkdesign.org

IC and Evolution makes the point that: if "irreducible complexity" is tautologically redefined to allow a valid argument that intelligent design is the correct explanation for life then there is no such thing as "irreducible complexity" in the mechanisms of life; while, if we use the unmodified original definition then "irreducible complexity" has nothing whatever to do with evolution.

talkorigins.org

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Michael Behe, 1996, quoted in Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe (retrieved 8 January 2006)
Index to Creationist Claims. Mark Isaak. The Talk.Origins Archive. "Irreducible complexity and complex specified information are special cases of the "complexity indicates design" claim; they are also arguments from incredulity." [1] "The argument from incredulity creates a god of the gaps." [2]
Laurence A. Moran "Behe's Criticism of Evolution in Biochemistry Textbooks"

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. 13쪽. 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 (2005년). “Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design” (PDF). 《Harvard Science Review》 19 (1). 2007년 7월 24일에 원본 문서 (PDF)에서 보존된 문서. 2013년 3월 17일에 확인함.
Perakh M (2005년). “Why Intelligent Design Isn't Intelligent — Review of: Unintelligent Design”. 《Cell Biol Educ.》 4 (2): 121–2. doi:10.1187/cbe.05-02-0071. PMC 1103713.
Mark D. Decker. College of Biological Sciences, General Biology Program, University of Minnesota Frequently Asked Questions About the Texas Science Textbook Adoption Controversy Archived 2010년 9월 30일 - 웨이백 머신 "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."
지적 설계에 대한 반대 의사를 명확히 밝힌 과학 단체 목록 참조

udel.edu

web.archive.org

See
- Forrest, Barbara (2007년 5월). 《Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy》 (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc. 2011년 5월 19일에 원본 문서 (PDF)에서 보존된 문서. 2013년 3월 17일에 확인함.
- "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. 13쪽. 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 (2005년). “Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design” (PDF). 《Harvard Science Review》 19 (1). 2007년 7월 24일에 원본 문서 (PDF)에서 보존된 문서. 2013년 3월 17일에 확인함.
  Perakh M (2005년). “Why Intelligent Design Isn't Intelligent — Review of: Unintelligent Design”. 《Cell Biol Educ.》 4 (2): 121–2. doi:10.1187/cbe.05-02-0071. PMC 1103713.
  Mark D. Decker. College of Biological Sciences, General Biology Program, University of Minnesota Frequently Asked Questions About the Texas Science Textbook Adoption Controversy Archived 2010년 9월 30일 - 웨이백 머신 "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."
  지적 설계에 대한 반대 의사를 명확히 밝힌 과학 단체 목록 참조
- Doolittle, Russell (1997). “A Delicate Balance”. en:Boston Review. 2014년 2월 3일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2015년 6월 11일에 확인함. Contrary to claims about irreducible complexity, the entire ensemble of proteins is not needed. Music and harmony can arise from a smaller orchestra.

wikipedia.org

en.wikipedia.org

Doolittle, Russell (1997). “A Delicate Balance”. en:Boston Review. 2014년 2월 3일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2015년 6월 11일에 확인함. Contrary to claims about irreducible complexity, the entire ensemble of proteins is not needed. Music and harmony can arise from a smaller orchestra.

wikisource.org

ko.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

wiley.com

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2141.2005.05381.x/pdf