Design Theory and its Critics

Ratzsch, Del

doi:10.1080/15665399.2002.10819755

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Design In Creation Science1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2007

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some deny this connection (48), but an extensive 1989 survey (50) (54,55). All of these examples of design use some version of Behe's irreducible complexity argument, and even Behe's mousetrap is presaged by numerous articles claiming design for the traps of carnivorous plants (56)(57)(58).…”

Section: Design In Creation Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Biological design in science classrooms

Scott¹,

Matzke²

2007

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although evolutionary biology is replete with explanations for complex biological structures, scientists concerned about evolution education have been forced to confront “intelligent design” (ID), which rejects a natural origin for biological complexity. The content of ID is a subset of the claims made by the older “creation science” movement. Both creationist views contend that highly complex biological adaptations and even organisms categorically cannot result from natural causes but require a supernatural creative agent. Historically, ID arose from efforts to produce a form of creationism that would be less vulnerable to legal challenges and that would not overtly rely upon biblical literalism. Scientists do not use ID to explain nature, but because it has support from outside the scientific community, ID is nonetheless contributing substantially to a long-standing assault on the integrity of science education.

show abstract

Section: Design In Creation Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%