Witamy w serwisie internetowym Polskiego Towarzystwa Kreacjonistycznego

M.V. Simkin, V.P. Roychowdhury, "Read before you cite!" (2002)

 

Hazel Muir, "Scientists exposed as sloppy reporters" (2002)

"New Scientist" 09:30 14 December 2002; http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3168

Alec Russell, "Darwin's defenders go into battle again" (2005)

"Telegraph" Filed: 31/12/2005; http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/31/wdesign31.xml The print version had the title: "Defenders of Darwin face a new struggle", Daily Telegraph, 31 December 2005, page 12.

Mary Wakefield, "This is a fight the Designers have to lose" (2005)

"Telegraph" Filed: 23/10/2005; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/10/23/do2306.xml

Harry Mount, "Keep the divine out of biology lessons, federal judge rules" (2005)

"Telegraph" Filed: 21/12/2005; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=DEDDV1JGPWM0LQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2005/12/21/wus21.xml

Roger Highfield, "Pandas give thumbs-up to theory of evolution"(2005)

"Telegraph" Filed: 29/12/2005; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/29/npanda29.xml

Francis Galton, "'The part of religion in human evolution" (1894)

"National Review" 1894 vol. 23, s. 755-63; http://galton.org/

Richard Dawkins, "Religion's real child abuse" (2002)

"Free Inquiry" Buffalo: Fall 2002. Vol. 22, Iss. 4, p. 9-12 (2 pp.) --- Abstract (Document Summary) --- Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, Dawkins suspects that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of having been brought up Catholic in the first place. The threat of eternal hell is an extreme example of mental abuse, just as violent sodomy is an extreme example of physical abuse.

Matthew J. Brayer, Barbara Forrest, Steven G. Gey, "Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Designe Creationism and the Constitution" (2005)

"Washington University Law Quarterly" 2005, vol. 83, no. 1, s. 1-149; http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/83-1/p%201%20Brauer%20Forrest%20Gey%20book%20pages.pdf --- Abstract --- On several occasions during the last eighty years, states have attempted to either prohibit the teaching of evolution in public school science classes or counter the teaching of evolution with mandatory references to the religious doctrine of creationism. The Supreme Court struck down examples of the first two generations of these statutes, holding that they violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A third generation of creationist legislation is now being proposed. Under this new generation of creationism legislation, science teachers would present so-called “intelligent design” theory as an alternative to evolution. Intelligent design theory asserts that a supernatural intelligence intervened in the natural world to dictate the nature and ordering of all biological species, which do not evolve from lower-to higher-order beings. This article considers whether these intelligent design creationism proposals can survive constitutional scrutiny. The authors analyze the religious, philosophical, and scientific details of intelligent design theory, and assess these details in light of the constitutional doctrine developed by the Court in its previous creationism decisions. The Article discusses several factors that pose problems for intelligent design theory, including the absence of objective scientific support for intelligent design, evidence of strong links between intelligent design and religious doctrine, the use of intelligent design to limit the dissemination of scientific theories that are perceived as contradicting religious teachings, and the fact that the irreducible core of intelligent design theory is what the Court has called the “manifestly religious” concept of a God or Supreme Being. Based on these details, the authors conclude that intelligent design theory cannot survive scrutiny under the constitutional framework used by the Court to invalidate earlier creationism mandates.

Anne Marie Lofaso, "The Constitutional Debate over Teaching Intelligent Design as Science in Public Schools" (2005) pdf

American Constitution Society for Law and Policy December 2005; http://www.acslaw.org/pdf/Intelligent_Design_White_Paper.pdf --- Abstract --- This essay is a broad review of the evolution vs. creationism controversy, with emphasis on the legal aspects regarding teaching ID in science classes of public schools, but also discussing the question of whether ID is science (in author's view, it is not). It provides a succinct but rather complete review of the USA courts' decisions regarding the inclusion of ID and of older forms of creationism into school curricula.

Charles F. Austerberry, "Designs on science" (2006)

The Dover decision shows that the courtroom is not the place to debate theories of origins, "Science & Theology News" January 2, 2006; http://www.stnews.org/News-2540.htm

Owen Gingerich,"Taking the ID debate out of pundits’ playbooks" (2005)

Owen Gingerich says he believes there is immense incomprehension from both the friends and foes of Intelligent Design, "Science & Theology News" November 8, 2005; http://www.stnews.org/guide-2139.htm

Julia C. Keller, "Judge strikes down ID, denies science-religion rift " (2005)

Judge John Jones ruled that the Dover Area School District violated the separation of church and state, "Science & Theology News" December 21, 2005; http://www.stnews.org/News-2537.htm

William A. Dembski, "Dembski: Life after Dover" (2006)

William Dembski says the Dover verdict is not ID's Waterloo, but merely one battle in a long culture war, "Science & Theology News" January 2, 2006; http://www.stnews.org/News-2539.htm

"Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution" (2004)

CBS News Nov. 22, 2004; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

Artykuły w "The Philadelphia Inquirer" o rozprawie w Dover (2005)

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/more_news.htm?pub_id=420&category_id=1001054&days_range=3000&start_row=1

Amy Worden, "Bad Frog Beer to 'intelligent design'The controversial ex-Pa. liquor board chief is now U.S. judge in the closely watched trial" (2005)

"The Philadelphia Inquirer" Posted on Sun, Oct. 16, 2005; http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/12912029.htm

Martha Raffaele, "Judge rules `intelligent design' can't be taught in schools" (2005)

"The Philadelphia Inquirer" Posted on Tue, Dec. 20, 2005; http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/13446369.htm

Casey Luskin, "Kitzmiller Top Ten" (2005)

Evolution News & Views. Center for Science & Culture, December 21, 2005; http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/judge_jones_hopeless_monster.html

"The evolution of creationism" (2005)

"The Christian Science Monitor" from the October 20, 2005 edition; http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1020/p08s02-comv.html?s=widep