While this subject is in the publicÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s eye, no Wedge member should be able to speak in public without a strong challenge to their claim that Intelligent Design creationism is scientific and not religiously motivated. –S.T.Smith
In a previous post, I remarked that John Paul II “seemed to sign off on conventional evolutionary theory save for the divine infusion of souls at the origin of humanity.” This is not quite accurate. As a friend and colleague who knows the Catholic world much better than I do noted to me by email:
The National Center for Selling Evolution (NCSE) has a widely publicized, in their words, “tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of Ã¢â‚¬Ëœscientists who doubt evolution’ or Ã¢â‚¬Ëœscientists who dissent from Darwinism’.” They call it “Project Steve.” (Go here for a description of the project and here for the list; go here […]
Here are three letters from the New Scientist, the first and the last tacitly supporting ID. The last letter raises the interesting question to what degree throwing time at a problem can make up for deficiencies in intelligence. There is a research question here that needs cashing out.
Prediction: Bush and Benedict XVI will do to evolution what Reagan and John Paul II did to communism
I started blogging end of March 2005, beginning at www.idthefuture.com and now with my blog, Uncommon Descent (I intend to do a lot of cross-posting). Since I’d like Uncommon Descent to provide a complete record of my blogging activity, I include here my prior posts at IDthefuture that have thus far not been cited here:
It’s always amazed me that people are so willing to abandon the hard work and intuition that leads to intelligence, upon which rests the entire edifice of science, and resort to little more than gambling in an attempt to create innovation. I have another word for it–laziness.
In a previous post I indicated that the American Society of Agronomy, at the behest of its president James G. Coors, conducted an online poll regarding the teaching of alternatives to evolution in grades K-12 and then, presumably at his behest as well, removed the poll once it became clear that the poll did not […]
The cardinal rule: I make up the rules as I go along.
I made three posts at IDthefuture concerning Robert Laughlin, the Nobel laureate physicists who in his most recent book had some unkind words about evolution by natural selection: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Much of present-day biological knowledge is ideological. A key symptom of ideological thinking is the explanation that has no implications and cannot be tested. I call such […]
Denunciations of Intelligent Design by professional societies are now common coin: the American Association for the Advancement of Science (see here), the American Institute of Physics (see here and here), and the Society for Neuroscience (see here) are cases in point. But what happens when a professional society gears up to denounce ID and its […]
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Please leave debating ID advocates to the professionals. Or if you are determined to do so anyway, ask for assistance before the debate.Ã¢â‚¬Â … Ã¢â‚¬Å“With friends like Dr. Silver, I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t need enemies.Ã¢â‚¬Â
Mike Gene is the pseudonym of one of the most insightful individuals in the ID/evolution debate. He remains critical of various aspects of ID, but he is far more critical of conventional evolutionary theory. For his views, have a look at his website. To get a flavor of his thinking, here is a recent post […]