Witamy w serwisie internetowym Polskiego Towarzystwa Kreacjonistycznego

Freeman Dyson , "The Darwinian Interlude" (2005)

TechnologyReview.com; http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/03/issue/magaphone.asp?trk=nl

Werner Gitt, Pytania stawiane wciąż na nowo (1994)

Christilische Literatur-Verbreitung e.V. Postfach 110135, 33-661 Bielefeld, I wydanie polskie 1994, ss. 158..

M. Heller, M. Kokowski, M. Olejnik, A. Olszewski, W. Wójcik, "Czy darwinizm jest metafizycznym programem badawczym czy teorią naukową?" (1998)

Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce 1998, z. 22, s. 93-113.

Casey Luskin, "Is evolution education important?" (2005)

Response to ACLU ID FAQ: Part 7; http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1294

Casey Luskin, "Is evolution 'just' a theory?" (2005)

Response to ACLU ID FAQ: Part 6; http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1293

Casey Luskin, "Is evolution anti-religious?" (2005)

Response to ACLU ID FAQ: Part 5; http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1292

Problemy techniczne z odbiorem wiadomości

 

Casey Luskin, "Is intelligent design a credible scientific theory?" (2005)

Response to ACLU ID FAQ: Part 4; http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1291

Casey Luskin, "Where did intelligent design come from?" (2005)

Response to ACLU ID FAQ: Part 3; http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1290

"Key to intelligence questioned" (2005)

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4265763.stm

Adrian L. Melott, "Intelligent Design Is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo" (2002)

Physics Today" June 2002; http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-6/p48a.html

Mano Singham, "Philosophy Is Essential to the Intelligent Design Debate" (+ 7 letters) (2002)

PhysicsToday.org; http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-6/p48b.html

Casey Luskin, "How is intelligent design like and unlike traditional creationism?" (2005)

Response to ACLU ID FAQ: Part 2; http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1289

Casey Luskin, "ACLU Intelligent Design FAQ: An Analysis and Response" (2005)

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1280 - Jest to odpowiedź na dostępny na naszej stronie tekst "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board FAQ – Intelligent Design and Evolution" (2004)

"Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board FAQ – Intelligent Design and Evolution" (2004)

American Civil Liberties Union; http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17204&c=139

Donald R. May, "Embryonic stem cell research as an obsession" (2005)

Townhall.com February 14, 2005

Joyce Howard Price, "Researcher claims bias by Smithsonian" (2005)

"The Washington Times" February 13, 2005; http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050213-121441-8610r.htm

Frank J. Sulloway, "Ernst Mayr, 1904-2005" (2005)

E-Skeptic #55 for February 11, 2005. www.skeptic.com

Casey Luskin, ""What is the concept of 'intelligent design'?" (2005)

Response to ACLU ID FAQ: Part 1 http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1288

Eric Anderson, "Irreducible Complexity Reduced: An Integrated Approach to the Complexity Space" (2004)

ABSTRACT William Dembski’s and Michael Behe’s recent article, Irreducible Complexity Revisited, provides an important update on the irreducible complexity argument since the publication some 8 years ago of Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box. Their article, however, exhibits some confusion, or at least a lack of explicit clarification, regarding the interplay among specified complexity, cumulative complexity and irreducible complexity. In the present article, I analyze the relationship of these concepts and show that the argument from irreducible complexity cannot be divorced from the broader argument of specified complexity. While this has been previously acknowledged in a broad sense, I make explicit irreducible complexity’s dependence on specified complexity, including specified complexity as applied to cumulative complexity, and further demonstrate why this dependence causes the irreducible complexity argument to break down in the evolutionist’s mind. Indeed, this dependence is directly responsible for evolutionists’ ability to acknowledge the existence of irreducibly complex biological features while still rejecting the irreducible complexity argument. Finally, the present article demonstrates how the arguments from complexity can be better understood within the context of an integrated approach to the complexity space. With a better understanding of the complexity space, the concepts of irreducible complexity and specified complexity can be fortified and focused in order to bring the full weight of these arguments to bear on evolutionary claims.