2005

[In July, George Will, a columnist I enjoy and find insightful on so many topics, weighed in on ID — go here. I’ve been meaning to respond to his remarks on ID for some time now.] Read More ›

Duane Smith is another blogger complaining about Kenneth Chang’s NYTimes piece on ID. According to Smith (go here), in admitting that ID raises questions of real scientific merit, Chang’s article redistributes the burden of proof when in fact “the burden of proof is on Intelligent Design creationism and not mainstream science.” Read More ›

The current issue of More, a women’s magazine aimed at women over 40, contains a profile of Eugenie Scott in which she is quoted as saying, “I’ve become an evolution evangelist.” Could someone please explain how evolution constitutes “good news”?

“It’s high time to rescue ‘intelligent design’ from the politics of religion. There are too many riddles not yet answered by either biology or the Bible, and by asking them honestly, without foregone conclusions, science could take a huge leap forward.” MORE

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Intelligent Design in American Classrooms?

Aired August 23, 2005 – 21:00 ET

Read More ›

ID-phobe bloggers are upset with the NYTimes article yesterday by Kenneth Chang (for the article, go here; for a partial list of upset ID-phobe bloggers, go here). Brian Leiter, for instance, commends a letter by Edouard Machery to the New York Times (unpublished as yet), which remarks, “In no other industrialized country is evolution a controversial fact. ” Let me humbly suggest that Machery is merely underscoring the backwardness of these industrialized countries in unmasking the most oversold and undersupported theory in the history of ideas. God Bless America!

Leon Cooper, a Nobel laureate at Brown University, … tells all of today’s red-faced disputants: ”If we could all lighten up a bit perhaps, we could have some fun in the classroom discussing the evidence and the proposed explanations — just as we do at scientific conferences.” — The conclusion of William Safire’s essay Neo-Creo (21Aug05 NYTimes).

August 22, 2005 In Explaining Life’s Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash By KENNETH CHANG http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/national/22design.html?pagewanted=print

Here’s an entry by Philip Quinn from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (1999). Note especially the second paragraph — the problem is not Hume but Darwin: Read More ›

http://theage.com.au/text/articles/2005/08/17/1123958129538.html?oneclick=true

The first of two New York Times articles on ID: go here. This one by Jodi Wilgoren covers the political aspects of the debate. An upcoming one by Kenneth Chang focuses on the science.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9008040

I’ve been assured that the moneys will be deposited in my Cayman account, so I’m back. The first thing I want to direct your attention to is the letter by the Office of Special Counsel to Richard Sternberg: http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm. Compare this with the spin that Nick Matzke and the NCSE are trying to put on this affair: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/sternberg_compl.html. Compare also Mike Gene’s commentary at Telic Thoughts: go here.

The rancor and daily vilification directed at me by the Pandasthumb has finally taken its toll. Never a kind word or a gesture of appreciation for all I’ve done to advance science and enrich our understanding of the world. Just criticism, vituperation, and abuse. I can’t endure it any longer. I’ve therefore decided to leave intelligent design and return to my first love — playing Chicago blues at the keyboard. Is this decision final? Might I make a comeback to intelligent design? Yes, it’s possible. If someone were to deposit $1,000,000 in my bank account (routing and account numbers available on request), I will consider a return. Otherwise, look for me around Halsted and Fullerton. Farewell.