Hubert Yockey, who at the Mere Creation conference in 1996 expressed to me some sympathy for ID and indicated at the time that he was not publicly coming out in favor of ID because he thought he could do the movement more good by working on his own program, has steadily been reversing himself on ID. Note that his love for the other side has not increased either. Here’s his latest. Scientific Reality vs. Intelligent Design’s False Claims—The Problem Is Getting Caught in Behe’s Tar Baby, Not Darwin’s Black Box Nuclear physicist and bioinformatician Dr. Hubert P. Yockey shows why Michael Behe and his ilk are wrong in his books, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life (Cambridge University Read More ›

Paul Kurtz’s skeptic organization has just announced its next cruise, this one to Alaska. Join the Center for Inquiry Explorers Club “with a rich line-up of events and activities, a stellar cast of speakers, entertainment, and breathtaking excursions, all aboard the luxurious Holland America Westerdam.” The top-billed speaker is Barbara Forrest (go here for details).

Fairly balanced reporting of the recent conference Dr. Dembski attended:

On a recent Tuesday evening, Moshe Tendler, an influential Orthodox rabbi and Yeshiva University biology professor, ambled onto the stage at Kovens Conference Center in North Miami. A stately figure with a wispy white beard and heavy glasses, he surveyed the 300-strong crowd of scientists and intellectuals — most clad in yarmulkes and dark suits with tallith tassels dangling about their waists — and urged them to spread the word that Darwin was wrong. “It is our task to inform the world [about intelligent design],” he implored. “Or the child growing up will grow up with unintelligent design…. Unintelligent design is our ignorance, our stupidity.” Read More ›

It appears that Ken Miller is contacting people about how I got the copy of that check for $7000 that Playboy Enterprises made out to Michael Ruse for writing a pro-evolution anti-ID article (go here for an image of the check). He could simply have asked me. Hef is actually a long-time Chicago buddy of mine (he and my Dad were at the UofI in Champaign-Urbana after WWII). Hef showed it to me the last time I was at the Mansion. Read More ›

From yesterday’s state of the commonwealth address by Gov. Ernie Fletcher of Kentucky: Our founding fathers recognized that we were endowed with this right by our creator. So I ask, what is wrong with teaching “intelligent design” in our schools. Under KERA, our school districts have that freedom and I encourage them to do so. This is not a question about faith or religion. It’s about self-evident truth. http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060110/NEWS0104/601100335/1008

People writing things like this are not welcome here. The two-faced Mr. Christopher will fit right in at Panda’s Thumb.

Victoria Clark of the “Epoch Times” published an article today on the battle between Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Although she equates ID with Creationism, she does a nice job of highlighting the religious zeal with which hardline Darwinian fundamentalists hold to their “theory”.

Since the term “science” as we use it today is a 19th century invention, and since the older term is “natural philosophy,” I’m happy for high school courses to teach “Natural Philosophy of Design” courses. The following class, then, is at least a step in the right direction. California high school class discusses intelligent design LEBEC, Calif. A small high school outside of Bakersfield has jumped into the national debate about whether “intelligent design” belongs in the classroom. Officials at Frazier Mountain High School in Lebec contend that the class, called “Philosophy of Design,” is not being offered as science. The teacher of the course is Sharon Lemburg. She says in the course syllabus — quote — “This class is Read More ›

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/audio. Scroll down to the bottom of the page to download this interview/debate.

The Huxley Memorial Debate held at Oxford Union on 2/14/86 pitted two creationists (Edgar Andrews and A.E. Wilder-Smith) against two evolutionists (Richard Dawkins and John Maynard-Smith). They debated whether “the doctrine of creation is more valid than the theory of evolution.” For further information and to order an MP3 CD of the debate (3 hrs. and 49 min.) see http://www.tonguesrevisited.com/oxford_union_debate.htm. See also http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF. I regard this debate as relevant to ID because A.E. Wilder-Smith employed information-theoretic ideas to argue that intelligence is required to originate biological complexity.

This leads to the WordPress dashboard. All registered users here can use it to facilitate tracking new comments. I didn’t know it existed before a few days ago.

I can’t quite decipher what Jeb Bush is really recommending here except that educators should make the ultimate decision. It seems he is greenlighting classroom discussion of ID in we should encourage the vigorous discussion of varying viewpoints in our classrooms but isn’t explicit about it. Clearly though, the topic of ID has risen to where the governor of yet another large state has come out with a statement mentioning it. This is very encouraging. ID isn’t fading away, it’s growing in stature in the public square. PRESS RELEASE December 30, 2005 Russell Schweiss (850) 488-5394 Statement by Governor Jeb Bush Regarding Sunshine State Standards for Science TALLAHASSEE — “A national debate is ensuing about whether evolution or intelligent design Read More ›

Steve Fuller on the Dover Judgement

This applies to everyone writing articles as well as writing comments. Professor Dembski excepted of course. The topic and purpose of this weblog is to instruct and promote the intelligent design work of Bill Dembski in particular and the ID movement in general. We are trying to convince that world that ID is based on math, science, and logic. While the implications tend to attract religious devotees in large number ID is not about religion. I consider atheism to be a contrarian religion and ID offends them as one might expect of anything that pleases the faithful. If you want a soapbox for your favorite religion (including atheism) go somewhere else. I realize that it’s hard to divorce our innermost Read More ›

Adam Wolfson writes a fairly balanced piece on the evolution debate in The Weekly Standard. I take issue with his ending paragraphs saying ID is doomed in public teaching because proponents claim the designer must be God. This conclusion reflects a misunderstanding of ID which is about design detection not designer typecasting and a stereotyping of ID proponents into a mold they all do not fit into. Survival of the Evolution Debate Why Darwin is still a lightning rod. by Adam Wolfson 01/16/2006, Volume 011, Issue 17 WHAT IS IT ABOUT EVEN the slightest dissent from Darwin’s theory of natural selection that drives liberal elites (and even some conservative elites) bonkers? In the 1920s, in the days of the Scopes Read More ›