July 2006

This just in from a trusted colleague: Your “uncommondescent.com” blog is such an important source of useful and thought-provoking information and is so widely read, that it hurts me to see it deteriorate into ad homonem attacks and name-calling, as it has lately. I am quite aware that the other side uses such tactics almost to the exclusion of logic, but I’m convinced that responding in kind is not effective (I certainly understand the temptation, and do it myself frequently), staying on the high road and sticking to the issues, even showing respect for opponents who don’t disserve it, really gets people’s attention, because it is such a rare tactic in today’s world. I have more than once told friends Read More ›

A colleague sent me this. I’d like to ask contributors to this thread to list other books published before the advent of the ID movement that, like this, were (1) non-religiously motivated and (2) regarded conventional evolutionary theory as “a fairy tale for adults.” “A Biologist’s View,” Jean Rostand, Wm. Heinemann Ltd., 1956. French biologist Jean Rostand–“one of the leading European biologists,” according to the jacket of this 1956 book–hardly fits the popular stereotype of an intelligent design activist. He writes, for example: “I am quite incapable of taking seriously a ‘revelation’ supposedly made to our ancestors in the remote past,” and “I believe firmly in the evolution of organic nature,” and again “the only kind of truth I believe Read More ›

We keep getting told that the Dover (Kitzmiller) decison was the end of Intelligent Design. Judge Jones ruled that ID is just creationism in a cheap tuxedo. Yet physicist and regular contributor to Panda’s Thumb, Mark Perakh, is still struggling to dispute Dembski’s design detection math. I don’t get it. Is Mark in the business of arguing with cheap tuxedos or have rumors of ID’s death been highly exaggerated?

Read More ›

Uncommon Descent is part of the relentlessly enthusiastic online ID community that is committed to opening minds to the truth about our origins.

I hope this essay will enlighten readers on the art of seeing through the misrepresentations used against ID proponents and their literature. Combating misrepresentation is vital to defeating the Sith Lords of Darwinism. But the first step in combating misrepresentation is first recognizing it, and recognizing it is a primary skill for one aspiring to become a Jedi Master in the internet ID wars.

I normally don’t respond to any of Ed Brayton’s pap (see here and here) but he’s become apoplectic on this and he’s contradicting his good friend and attorney Tim Sandefur who wrote about a right to a jury in the Dover case. Read More ›