Page not foundThe requested URL: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh could not be found. Use the search below if you are looking for something in particular. The following 6 items may contain what you are looking for:Inaccurate Discussion: A Response to Scott LaFee's "Intelligent Discussion" (Union Tribune, June 8, 2005) [Short Version]Resources Introduction
On June 8, 2005, prolific writer Scott LaFee wrote an article (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20050608-9999-lz1c08intel.html) in the San Diego Union Tribune on a truly interesting topic: Intelligent Design (ID). As the title of the article implies, LaFee interviewed mA Review and Evaluation of Mark Perakh's “Unintelligent Design”Resources
Introduction
To some degree it’s understandable why Dr. Mark Perakh, in his book Unintelligent Design, uses words like “arrogant”, ”ignoramus”, “rude” and “ludicrous” to describe the statements of those he opposes. There are for example, any number of places that one can hear legalists, punditsSome Questions and Answers in Response to Nick Matzke and "Steve U." [Updated]Resources
Intro: Recently some comments were made by Nick Matzke and someone named "Steve U." at Pandasthumb. These are some responses to their comments about me.
Question 1: Why do I choose not to participate at Pandasthumb?
I started the IDEA Club at UCSD with the desire to build bridges betweWas Fox News (and Eugenie Scott) Wrong?Resources On November 27, 2004, Dr. Eugenie Scott (National Center for Science Education) and Dr. John West (Discovery Institute) faced off on Fox News discussing whether or not intelligent design should be taught in Dover, Pennsylvania. The IDEA Center is pleased to see Fox News covering this issue. AnyoneA Response to Newsweek's "Doubting Darwin"Resources
Newsweek recently wrote an article (also reprinted on the Discovery Institute's website) on Intelligent Design. There are two responses below, one a very short response, while the other is a rather detailed response.
SHORT VERSION:
Dear Editor:
In the article entitled Doubting Darwin (The Facts about Intelligent Design: A Response to the National Academy of Sciences’ Science, Evolution, and CreationismResources Version 1.0. Copyright © 2008. All Rights Reserved. Permission Granted to Reproduce Freely for Educational Purposes.
Introduction
A 1982 poll found that only 9% of Americans believed that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes. Two years later, the U.S. National Academy |
