Cargando…

Intelligent Design versus Evolution

Intelligent Design (ID) burst onto the scene in 1996, with the publication of Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe. Since then, there has been a plethora of articles written about ID, both pro and con. However, most of the articles critical of ID deal with peripheral issues, such as whether ID is just...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Aviezer, Nathan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Rambam Health Care Campus 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3721655/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23908779
http://dx.doi.org/10.5041/RMMJ.10007
_version_ 1782278079433932800
author Aviezer, Nathan
author_facet Aviezer, Nathan
author_sort Aviezer, Nathan
collection PubMed
description Intelligent Design (ID) burst onto the scene in 1996, with the publication of Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe. Since then, there has been a plethora of articles written about ID, both pro and con. However, most of the articles critical of ID deal with peripheral issues, such as whether ID is just another form of creationism or whether ID qualifies as science or whether ID should be taught in public schools. It is our view that the central issue is whether the basic claim of ID is correct. Our goal is fourfold: (I) to show that most of the proposed refutations of ID are unconvincing and/or incorrect, (II) to describe the single fundamental error of ID, (III) to discuss the historic tradition surrounding the ID controversy, showing that ID is an example of a “god-of-the-gaps” argument, and (IV) to place the ID controversy in the larger context of proposed proofs for the existence of God, with the emphasis on Jewish tradition.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3721655
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Rambam Health Care Campus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37216552013-08-01 Intelligent Design versus Evolution Aviezer, Nathan Rambam Maimonides Med J Rambam Forum Intelligent Design (ID) burst onto the scene in 1996, with the publication of Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe. Since then, there has been a plethora of articles written about ID, both pro and con. However, most of the articles critical of ID deal with peripheral issues, such as whether ID is just another form of creationism or whether ID qualifies as science or whether ID should be taught in public schools. It is our view that the central issue is whether the basic claim of ID is correct. Our goal is fourfold: (I) to show that most of the proposed refutations of ID are unconvincing and/or incorrect, (II) to describe the single fundamental error of ID, (III) to discuss the historic tradition surrounding the ID controversy, showing that ID is an example of a “god-of-the-gaps” argument, and (IV) to place the ID controversy in the larger context of proposed proofs for the existence of God, with the emphasis on Jewish tradition. Rambam Health Care Campus 2010-07-02 /pmc/articles/PMC3721655/ /pubmed/23908779 http://dx.doi.org/10.5041/RMMJ.10007 Text en Copyright: © 2010 Nathan Aviezer. This is an open-access article. All its content, except where otherwise noted, is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Rambam Forum
Aviezer, Nathan
Intelligent Design versus Evolution
title Intelligent Design versus Evolution
title_full Intelligent Design versus Evolution
title_fullStr Intelligent Design versus Evolution
title_full_unstemmed Intelligent Design versus Evolution
title_short Intelligent Design versus Evolution
title_sort intelligent design versus evolution
topic Rambam Forum
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3721655/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23908779
http://dx.doi.org/10.5041/RMMJ.10007
work_keys_str_mv AT aviezernathan intelligentdesignversusevolution