Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Articles

Vol. 1 No. 2 (2021)

Wielki projekt życia

  • Kazimierz Jodkowski
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21641/demo.v1i2.18
Submitted
17 May 2021
Published
17-05-2021

Abstract

On January 1982, judge William K. Overton, during a famous law case in Arkansas, handed down a decision that creationism is not a scientific theory. One of the arguments for creationism was an argument from design. Later it became a fundamental argument for intelligent design theory which presently, in author’s opinion, is the most important alternative to theory of evolution. Author is critical about intelligent design theory. In his opinion, it is a theory which requires us to pretend we know less than we really do about living organisms, design, engineering, and information theory. It demands us to set aside simple and logical evolutionary explanations of design flaws in living organisms and to accept a vague theory that seemingly explains everything by stating: „that is the way the designer made it”. Thus, it is only an argument from ignorance, whereas modern biology offers new evidence that organisms emerged gradually in the process of evolution.

References

  1. Darwin Korol, O powstawaniu gatunków, PWRiL, Warszawa 1959.
    View in Google Scholar
  2. von Wright G.H. and Anscombe G.E.M. (eds.), Notebooks, 1914-16, Blackwell, Oxford 1961.
    View in Google Scholar
  3. Bork Robert H., Slouching Towards Gomorah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, Regan Books, New York 1996.
    View in Google Scholar
  4. New York Times, 26 października 1996, s. A25.
    View in Google Scholar
  5. New York Times, 25 października 1996 , s. A1.
    View in Google Scholar
  6. Muller H.J., „Reversibility in Evolution Considered from the Standpoint of Genetics”, Biological Reviews 1939, vol. 14, s. 261-280.
    View in Google Scholar
  7. Graur W.-H. LI and D., Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution, Sinauer, Sunderland MA. 1991.
    View in Google Scholar
  8. Coyne J.A., „God in the Details”, Nature 1996, vol. 383, s. 227-228.
    View in Google Scholar
  9. Commentary 1996, wrzesień, s. 22.
    View in Google Scholar

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.