2005

The anti-ID community is congratulating itself for yet another brilliant coup. Case in point, the Spaghetti Monster:

Read More ›

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16417002%255E30417,00.html

Harold Morowitz is the lead author in a disappointing article in the latest Chronicle of Higher Education: go here. I say disappointing because Morowitz spent three days at a seminar on ID that I organized at Calvin College back in summer of 2000. In other words, he should know better. Take the following remark in reference to Mike Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity: “Intelligent-design argument contains a hidden assumption: that all parts of a complex structure must have had the same function throughout the history of the development of the organism.” Behe explicitly repudiates this assumption (see Darwin’s Black Box, p. 96).

Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne today have provided still further lessons in evolutionary logic (for a primer on evolutionary logic, go here). Their article in the Guardian titled “One Side Can Be Wrong” at least gets one thing right (though the irony is lost on them), namely, that their side is indeed wrong. Read More ›

In The Design Revolution, I characterized theory change as follows: Read More ›

Richard Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, Caroline Crocker. Is there a pattern? Go here. Note especially this story about Gonzalez: go here.

John Patterson is one of the Iowa State faculty currently opposing ID and Guillermo Gonzalez (go here). Patterson, an avowed atheist, has a history of censoring ideas inconsistent with his atheism. As one of my colleagues reports: Read More ›

According to the 26Aug2005 issue of THE WEEK (p. 20), “Researchers at Cornell University tested the effect of insecurity on men’s attitudes by giving a survey on gender identity to about 50 men. The men were then told that an analysis of the survey showed that they exhibited ‘weak’ male characteristics — indeed, that their attitudes were effeminate. Read More ›

Lehigh University biologists have, just shy of a consensus, condemned intelligent design (the lone dissenter — surprise, surprise — is Michael Behe). The various anti-ID blogs (go here and here) are crowing about this, as though this vindicates their criticism of ID and, to boot, must somehow be disconcerting to us.

Quite the contrary. Read More ›

Now and again I receive irate emails. The funniest of these come from Peter Pajakowski, who makes me appreciate the Polish jokes I heard growing up in Chicago. For the record, I have no shame, enjoy the attacks of critics, and think I’m completely right. So there.

Enjoy the following two letters: Read More ›

Taking Darwin Down
Emma Schwartz

Legal Times (http://www.legaltimes.com)
08-29-2005

Read More ›

My friend and colleague John Mark Reynolds at Biola University has just published a piece in Touchstone titled “Séances & Science: The Lessons of the Spiritualist Challenge to Darwinism” (go here). The piece is meant as a warning to the ID movement not to repeat mistakes of the past.

If intelligence is a real causal power in the natural world that is not reducible to the law-governed interactions of matter and energy, then how can intelligent design avoid undermining science? This worry can be restated as follows: Read More ›

When it comes to the evolution-ID controversy, Daniel Dennett seems to forget that he is a philosopher, foregoing rigorous argumentation for bold, but unsupported, assertions. Read More ›