Witamy w serwisie internetowym Polskiego Towarzystwa Kreacjonistycznego

Jonah Avriel Cohen, "Why intelligent design theory ought to be taught" (2005)

"The American Thinker" August 25th, 2005; http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4761

Danny Westneat, "Evolving opinion of one man " (2005)

"The Seattle Times" August 24, 2005; http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2002450329_danny24.html

Tony Snow, "Why can't we have a rational debate" (2005)

townhall.com August 12, 2005; http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tonysnow/printTS20050812.shtml

Pam Sheppard, "The Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy" (2005)

"Answers in Genesis" August 22, 2005; http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0822sternberg.asp

Harold Evans, "The Struggle over Science. A Point of View" (2005)

"BBC News" Tuesday, 23 August 2005, 08:46 GMT 09:46 UK; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4172504.stm

"Intelligent Design is Falsifiable" (2005)

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2812&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage oraz http://tinyurl.com/dyl2l

Daniel C. Dennett, "Show Me the Science" (2005)

"The New York Times" August 28, 2005; http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?th&emc=th

Tony Watkins, "10 Things You Need to Know about the Evolution Debate. [Part II]" (2005)

"Christianity" September 2005; http://www.christianitymagazine.co.uk/engine.cfm?i=92&id=377&arch=f

Harriet Brown, "The Other Brain Also Deals With Many Woes" (2005)

"The New York Times" August 23, 2005; http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/health/23gut.html

Michael McGough, "Bad Science, Bad Theology" (2005)

eSkeptic: the email newsletter of the Skeptics Society, Friday, August 26th, 2005. Opinion Editorial on intelligent design by Michael McGough, originally published in the "Los Angeles Times", August 15th, 2005.

"Dr. Frist Prescribes ID" (2005)

"Science" 26 August 2005, Volume 309, Number 5739, s. 1322.

MANFRED D. LAUBICHLER, GERD B. MÜLLER, WALTER FONTANA, GÜNTER P.WAGNER, "Sacrificing Dialogue for Politics?" (2005)

"Science" 26 August 2005, Volume 309, Number 5739, s. 1324.

"Top Questions" [on Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, etc.]

Discovery Institute; http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

Margaret Wente, "Intelligent design and other weirdo beliefs" (2005)

"The Globe and Mail" August 23, 2005; http://globeandmail.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/qprinter/20050823/COWENT23

CNN Larry King Live: Latest on Investigation Into Olivia Newton-John's Boyfriend's Disappearance; Intelligent Design in American Classrooms?" (2005)

Aired August 23, 2005 - 21:00 ET. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED; http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/23/lkl.01.html

Cornelia Dean, "Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science" (2005)

"The New York Times" August 23, 2005; http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html

Kenneth Chang, "In Explaining Life's Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash" (2005)

"The New York Times" August 22, 2005; http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/national/22design.html

Paul S. Agutter and Denys N. Wheatley, "Foundationf of Biology: On the Problem of “Purpose” in Biology in Relation to Our Acceptance of the Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection" (1999)

"Foundations of Science" 1999, vol. 4, pp. 3–23. --- Abstract: For many years, biology was largely descriptive (“natural history”), but with its emergence as a scientific discipline in its own right, a reductionist approach began, which has failed to be matched by adequate understanding of function of cells, organisms and species as whole entities. Every effort was made to “explain” biological phenomena in physico-chemical terms. It is argued that there is and always has been a clear distinction between life sciences and physical sciences, explicit in the use of the word biology. If this distinction is real, it implies that biological phenomena can never be entirely satisfactorily explained in terms of extant physicochemical laws. One notable manifestation of this is that living organisms appear to – actually do – behave in purposeful ways, and the inanimate universe does not. While this fundamental difference continues to be suppressed, the “purposiveness” (or teleology) which pervades biology remains anathema to almost all scientists (including most biologists) even to the present day. We argue here that it can, however, become a perfectly tenable position when the Theory of Natural Selection is accepted as the main foundation, the essential tenet, of biology that distinguishes it from the realm of physical sciences. In accepting this position, it remains quite legitimate to expect that in many but not all circumstances, extant physical laws (and presumably others still to be discovered) are in no way breached by biological systems, which cannot be otherwise since all organisms are composed of physical material. --- KEY WORDS: teleology, purpose, function, cause-effect, natural selection, biology

Mark Perakh, "The Dream World of William Dembski's Creationism" (2005)

"Talk Reason" http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Skeptic_paper.cfm

Mike Gene, "All that matters" (2005)

http://telicthoughts.com/?p=226