Monthly Archives: May 2005
Behe Responds to Bottaro
| May 31, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Evolution, Intelligent Design |
Proteins change single mutation by single mutation, amino acid by amino acid, so that’s the level of explanation that is needed. What part of “numerous, successive, slight†is so hard to understand?
JW Montgomery weighs in against Orr
| May 30, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design |
If (as Orr claims) I.D. “looks less and less like the science it claimed to be and more and more like an extended exercise in polemics,†isn’t it strange that it has recently convinced the foremost secular philosopher in England (Antony Flew) to give up his atheism?
ID in a Wiley Math Textbook
| May 30, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design |
A good Darwinist will imagine 2 or 3 far-fetched intermediate useful stages, and consider the problem solved. I believe you would need to find thousands of intermediate stages before this example of irreducible complexity has been reduced to steps small enough to be bridged by single random mutations
As Doubts Keep Accumulating — The Case of Richard Smalley
| May 30, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Evolution |
What’s going to happen as scholars and scientists of the highest caliber — like Antony Flew and Richard Smalley — keep dumping evolution? Perhaps evolution really is a theory in crisis.
Imagine with me for a moment …
| May 29, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design |
Here is an email from one of my ID colleagues in the defense industry. Imagine this scenario, but with me instead of Bolton going not to the UN but to the NSF to head a new initiative on ID with lots and lots of tax dollars to back it up. Could this happen? Who would […]
ID and the Charge of Fundamentalism
| May 29, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Education, Intelligent Design, Religion, Science |
Baylor’s eclectic approach to gathering faith-and-learning resources meant they sometimes failed to screen out the culturally militant elements of evangelicalism. In a head-shaking blunder, Sloan’s team put William Dembskiâ€â€point man for the Intelligent Design movementâ€â€in charge of a new science-and-religion center. It’s hard to imagine any step that would have been more effective in convincing skeptical faculty that Sloan was turning Baylor over to the fundamentalists.
“Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution”
| May 29, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Evolution, Intelligent Design |
Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution By JOHN SCHWARTZ, as reported in the NYTimes Published: May 28, 2005 The Discovery Institute, a group in Seattle that supports an alternative theory, “intelligent design,” is announcing on its Web site that it and the director of the [Smithsonian] museum “are happy to […]
Allen Orr in the New Yorker — A Response
| May 28, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design |
Evolutionary biology is one big group-think in which its practitioners can no longer imagine the need to justify their theory…. Evolution has come this far in spite of the facts.
Dutch Cabinet Supports Discussion of ID
| May 27, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Darwinism, Education, Intelligent Design |
According to the Prime Minister there are a sufficient number of scientists who have a special interest in this area.
Eshel Ben-Jacob — Someone You Should Know
| May 27, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design |
I reflect on the potential applications of the new understanding on ‘engineered self-organization of systems too complex to design’
American Spectator Defends ID
| May 27, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design |
The Little Engine That Could… Undo Darwinism By Dan Peterson What critics of Intelligent Design theory can’t accept is that its proponents are making scientific, fact-based arguments. The American Spectator, June 2005
Frank Schaeffer — Nowhere Near His Father’s Footsteps
| May 27, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Evolution, Intelligent Design, Religion |
The son, by contrast, has turned repudiating his father’s legacy into a full-time occupation.
“Design proponents take movement to Web”
| May 27, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design |
The following report by Science & Theology News discusses blogging for ID: http://www.stnews.org/articles.php?article_id=549&category=news.
Ken Keller contra ID
| May 27, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design |
“intelligent design,†a stalking horse for creationism
“Students who cannot handle scientific challenges to their faith should seek guidance from a theologian, not a scientist.”
| May 26, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design |
Advocates of ID pretend to use scientific methods to support their religious preconceptions.
“Having Fun with Intelligent Design”
| May 26, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design |
Here’s a novel, if perverse, take on why the teaching of ID should be encouraged: http://www.alternet.org/story/22039.
Powers of Ten
| May 26, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Education, Science |
Have a look at the video at the following site: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/index.html. Is there any design-theoretic significance that on a logarithmic size-scale, we’re close to the middle of the known physical universe? Regardless of the answer to this question or whether there even is an answer, you’re in for a treat if you haven’t seen such […]
Two Gifts for Richard Dawkins
| May 26, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design |
the fossils of the “Cambrian Explosion†period, near the base of the geological column, include some of the most sophisticated eyes ever known to have existed  the compound eyes of trilobites have double calcite lenses, which defeat any slow evolutionary explanation, and, what is more, they have no precursor in the rocks
Allen Orr’s Piece in the New Yorker
| May 24, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design |
Allen Orr’s article against ID is now out in the New Yorker (go here). It’s as bad as I thought it would be. I’m on the road right now but will comment on it later in the week. Note that I remarked last week on this blog that a fact-checker from the New Yorker had […]
“The Scientific Case Against Darwinism Is Largely Won”
| May 24, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Darwinism, Evolution |
The scientific case against Darwinism is largely won.
