Professor Peter Harrison, the Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford, has some very useful research on the history of science and religion that may be of interest to intelligent design researchers. Both books reveal important information about the religious foundations of modern science in terms of the desire of members of the Royal Society to recover pre-Fall Edenic knowledge, and how a literal reading of the Bible then enabled a literal reading of nature as opposed to the pre-modern symbolic reading. The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science (2007) http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521875592 The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (1998) http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521000963

Did you know evolution is a religious theory? If this seems strange then read on. In this post I will explain one way that evolution is contingent on religious reasoning. Such reasoning is a constant thread running through the evolution genre, but it can be subtle. If you are familiar with the evolution literature you may have noticed this underlying theme, but exactly how does it work? Enter evolutionist and philosopher Elliott Sober. In his new paper, Sober continues his work in analyzing the arguments for evolution. He has done much work which is particularly helpful in showing (i) the premises built into the arguments and (ii) the relative strengths of the different arguments evolutionists use. And strong arguments are Read More ›

Having trouble talking about ID with your wife or girlfriend?  Well, here is a perfect way to start them off.  This story about love, betrayal, and death will surely get them interested.  Here is an excerpt: “Well,” began David, “I’ve been doing a lot of reading on intelligent design theory.  Have you heard or read about this theory?” “I can’t say I have,” replied Tommy.  He picked up the pitcher and poured himself some pomegranate juice with sparkling water mix; he had a feeling his throat was going to need plenty of hydration.  “Fill me in,” he said, making a legitimate effort at open-mindedness and attentiveness. David cleared his throat in order not to sound too eager.  “Let’s see,” he Read More ›

The question is here. It looks at “Does Dark Energy Really Exist? Or does Earth occupy a very unusual place in the universe?” by physicist Timothy Clifton and astrophysicist Pedro G. Ferreira, who argue just that: If we give up the Copernican principle, we do not need dark energy to explain the composition of the universe.(Scientific American, March 23, 2009)

The winning entry is by KeithDP:

I liked it because he made a number of pertinent points that less often raised than they should be: Read More ›

John Lynch whines that “noted historians”* weren’t properly informed that a documentary for which they were interviewed (The Voyage That Shook the World) would take an anti-Darwinist line. Lynch is outraged: the documentary makers are guilty of “lies” and “deception.” Would a charge of fraud hold up in court? I suspect the documentary makers simply withheld information. Is that wrong? The BBC, for instance, didn’t inform me that a documentary they were making about ID was to be called “A War on Science,” and that I would be portrayed as one of the “bad people” trying to “destroy science.” I was, to be sure, displeased with this outcome, but I recognize that this is the way the game is played. Read More ›

Commentator Tony Blankley attempts to link financial regulation with intelligent design (bad) and non-regulation with “an evolutionary process” (good). The whole tangled metaphor reads like the guy doesn’t get it. Whether one regulates or doesn’t regulate is intelligent design – because intelligent agents make the choice either way. And regulation has its own evolutionary process – often, alas, it is the law of unintended consequences = the system evolves without guidance to produce unintended outcomes. Some people should read up on ID and Darwinism before they use them as metaphors. See also Quote mining: Old media vs. new media

In “Actually, the goal posts were just pulled up. Too much trouble to move…”, I linked to Jonathan Well’s comment on subtle attempts to change just what Darwinian evolution means, to avoid disconfirmation of any particular model. You know, first it’s natural selection only, then, lo and behold, group selection is allowed, then Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired characteristics), then gene swapping …

First junk DNA proved Darwin was right, then when it turned out not to be junk, you can be pretty sure, it will still prove Darwin was right. Darwinism has become a catch-all for a tired, worn-out theory, hysterically popular in the academic culture, with no real definition or foundation for why.

Anyway, Mike Flannery, author of Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution, comments on my notes on the obviously unsupportable claim that artificial selection (= animal breeding) supports Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation): Read More ›

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer will be appearing on the Laura Ingraham show this coming Tuesday, June 23rd, at 11:00 a.m., EST. They will be discussing Dr. Meyer’s new book Signature in the Cell, DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. For information on the new book please visit www.signatureinthecell.com. They will be joined by Francis Collins, author of The Language of God.  You won’t want to miss this discussion.

In my previous post I posed two questions for Judge Jones. The answers to the second question are A, B and C. That is, (A) Evolutionary theory incorporates religious premises, (B) Proponents of evolutionary theory are religious people and (C) Evolutionary theory mandates certain types of solutions. Continue reading here.

Why does the universe seem so fine-tuned for the emergence of life – including intelligent life capable of asking that “why” question? Paul Davies of Arizona State University in his new book “Cosmic Jackpot” argues that the cosmos has made itself the way it is, stretching backward in time to the very beginning to focus in on “bio-friendliness.” When asked by Alan Boyle why the universe is bio-friendly? Is it intelligent design, or blind chance, or none of the above? Davies replies: “There are three popular responses; the intelligent-design argument; the idea that if we had a final theory of physics, then all of the undetermined parameters in the laws would be fixed by that theory; and the third is Read More ›

Here are two multiple choice questions, but you must not look at the second question before answering the first. 1. What makes a theory a religious theory? A. The theory incorporates religious premises. B. Proponents of the theory are religious people. C. The theory mandates certain types of solutions. D. The theory allows for all types of solution. Continue reading here.

Some have claimed that swine flu is evidence of evolution. If so, it is not evidence of Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation produces intricate structures), which is the money shot in the current government funded system. Flu viruses swap genes, which is easy for them because it’s not even clear that they are life forms (because they don’t do anything other than hijack cells in order to reproduce). Nor do they usually become much different as a result of swapping genes. They are just the viruses they have always been.

Anyway, here is my most recent MercatorNet column on swine flu:

Now that the World Health Organization has declared swine flu (virus H1N1) a pandemic, their first since 1968’s Hong Kong flu, we might consider how it emerged.

But first — Panic Alert: [nonsense avoidance]: People who are not already frail will probably be sick for about 48 hours if they get swine flu. They will not likely die. Symptoms are typical flu symptoms. When visiting anyone in frail health, please observe all sanitary precautions that medical authorities advise, especially if the frail person is in a hospital already. Shouldn’t that tell us something about their state of health?

So let’s not panic. The main message is, in a global society, we cannot have completely different health standards on the same continent. Now let’s talk about two cities — Mexico City and Winnipeg, Canada, where the virus was first identified. Read More ›

This book is based on THE NATURE OF NATURE conference that Bruce Gordon and I put together at Baylor back in 2000 (for the conference and the Polanyi Center that hosted it, go here). The book is now listed at Amazon. Note that it will be out February 2010 (not 2009 as listed) and will be over 1,000 pages (not 900 as listed). Product Description: The world’s leading authorities in the sciences and humanities—dozens of top scholars, including three Nobel laureates—join a cultural and intellectual battle that leaves no human life untouched. Is the universe self-existent, self-sufficient, and self-organizing, or is it grounded instead in a reality that transcends space, time, matter, and energy? Book Description: The cultural battles now Read More ›

In her recent paper, The Non-epistemology of Intelligent Design: Its Implications for Public Policy, evolutionary philosopher Barbara Forrest states that science must be restricted to natural phenomena. In its investigations, science must restrict itself to a naturalistic methodology, where explanations must be strictly naturalistic, dealing with phenomena that are strictly natural. Aside from rare exceptions this is the consensus position of evolutionists. And in typical fashion, Forrest uses this criteria to exclude origins explanations that allow for the supernatural. Only evolutionary explanations, in one form or another, are allowed. Continue reading here.