Joined: Oct. 2005
Well, let's Fisk this Wikipedia article and see if we can figure out exactly what the DI can legitimately object to:
|Intelligent design (ID) is the concept 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."|
Well, that's pretty much a direct quote from the DI, so I don't think they're objecting to that.
|Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.|
I can't imagine there's a problem there. I suppose one could quibble with the statement that all of ID's leading proponents are afffiliated with the DI, but I'd say at least a solid majority of them are.
|An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific, as pseudoscience or as junk science.|
Obviously the DI doesn't like this, but is it inaccurate in any way? Do even solid proponents of ID dispute that something like 99% of actual credentialled scientists think ID is a joke? The truth hurts, baby.
| The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.|
Again, I'm sure the DI hates this, but is it untrue? Does the DI claim that the National Academy of Sciences does not think that ID is without merit? Or, can the DI point to any other reputable scientific society (i.e., someone a bit more credible than say AiG or the ICR) that thinks ID is legitimate science? If so, perhaps they could inform the editors at Wikipedia.
|In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.|
You know, I've read the Kitzmiller decision, and I'm pretty positive that's exactly what it said. So what, again, is the DI's beef with this statement?
|United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.|
Yep, that's pretty much what Judge Jones said, at least if the Court's decision isn't a hoax or a forgery. Does the DI dispute that that's what the Judge said?
So that's every sentence in the Wikipedia entry for Intelligent Design. As far as I can tell, every single word of it is factually accurate. Is the DI taking a page from Stephen Colbert and claiming that the facts have a "Darwinist bias"?
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity
"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams