Over in Spain, ex priest Francisco J. Ayala is spreading his silly and distorted views about ID. “It is not even a matter of conviction. I am certain that the five or seven scientists (mostly social scientists) on the Discovery Institute’s payroll, do not believe what they say. Creationism (which Ayala obviously conflates with ID) is the biggest aberration that can be conceived — not to science — but to faith. It is an atrocity that it attempts to solve the challenge of theodicy; that is how to reconcile the existence of evil in the world with that of God, placing on God the blame for everything that goes wrong. I cannot conceive anything more disastrous to religion than intelligent design. According Read More ›

As many critics have pointed out, evolutionary theory has biased the life sciences with its view of spontaneity. In this universe, things just happen to happen. And that includes the most complicated, least understood thing of all—life. This is the religiously-motivated “just add water” view of biology that makes little scientific sense. Now an evolutionist has appropriately used this very phrase to describe yet another evolutionary take on how life got its start.  Read more

Below is an op-ed by me that appeared yesterday in the Baptist Press. It revisits the persecution by Baylor administrators of Robert Marks and his work on ID (for the history of what happened, go here). Specifically, it addresses the challenge that Marks’ work on ID is likely to pose to incoming Baylor president Ken Starr. Interestingly, today’s New York Times (go here) hints at the same issue:

———————————————
Dr. Sloan [Baylor’s former president] angered faculty with his leadership style, and he hired William A. Dembski, a proponent of intelligent design who found little favor with the school’s science departments (and has since left). Dr. Sloan resigned in 2005. Since then, Baylor has had another president and an interim president.

Asked about Baylor’s tumult, Mr. Starr, who knows from tumult, was circumspect.

“A lesson learned is the need for the conversation in the community to remain very vibrant,” he said, a bit vaguely, when asked about the Sloan years. “I want to be very clear that I am not laying any blame at the feet of any of my predecessors,” he added.
———————————————

Yes, “circumspect” is the right word. In any case, here is my op-ed:

FIRST-PERSON: Vindication for I.D. at Baylor?
William A. Dembski | Posted on May 6, 2010

www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=32885

FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)–Baylor University remains a proving ground for SBC controversies. Former Baylor president Robert Sloan’s “2012 Vision” continues, at least for now. This vision rests on two pillars, seeking to establish Baylor both as a top research university and as a school faithful to its Christian heritage. Secularized faculty, who are in the majority at Baylor and forced Sloan’s removal (he is now president of Houston Baptist University), see Baylor’s Christian heritage as a liability and would like to make the university’s slide into secularization complete.

Ken Starr, who becomes Baylor’s new president June 1, therefore faces a crucial test: Will he continue the full Baylor 2012 Vision, advancing not just Baylor’s academic distinction but also its Christian faithfulness, or will he give up on this second pillar of the vision? Starr’s commitment to academic excellence is not in doubt. During his tenure as dean of Pepperdine Law School, he significantly raised its academic standing. The question is what he will do regarding Baylor’s Christian identity.

Starr, no stranger to controversy, seems poised to do the right thing. But good intentions are one thing, decisions and actions are another. Baylor will be sure to test Starr’s mettle. Indeed, his first test is likely to come from an unexpected source, an online college resource known as College Crunch (www.collegecrunch.org). Organizations like this draw traffic to their website (and thus earn their keep) by posting items of interest to prospective college students. One such item, first appearing on the site in March, lists “The 20 Most Brilliant Christian Professors.” On this list is Baylor professor Robert J. Marks II. Here is College Crunch’s description of him (www.collegecrunch.org/…/the-20-most-brilliant-christian-professors): Read More ›

Go here and click on the green podcast symbol to listen to the rest of the discussion about the origins debate and Darwin’s predictions.

I’ve been in trial the last couple of weeks, and I am just now coming up for air.  I see the debate has continued in my absence.  Alas, yet another confirmation (as if another were needed) that I am not indispensible.  Thank you to all of our posters, commenters and lurkers, who continue to make this site one of the most robust stops on the internet vis-à-vis the intelligent design debate.

 We live in a post-modern world, and the defense position at trial last week brought that dreary fact forcefully to mind.  Read More ›

Here is an interesting podcast I was interviewed for last year. Go here and click on the green podcast symbol to listen to a discussion about the origins debate and Darwin’s predictions.

.

I have just been reading two articles on Intelligent Design which appeared in The Guardian recently: Science in God’s image (May 3, 2010) and
Intelligent design is an oxymoron (May 5, 2010). After reading the articles, I decided to write a detailed commentary on them both.

The first article is by Professor Steve Fuller and represents his personal view. Although his personal “take” on intelligent design is a controversial one in ID circles, Professor Fuller certainly has a clear grasp of what ID is and where it is heading.

The second article is by Professor Michael Ruse. Professor Ruse has previously debated ID proponents, including Professor William Dembski, so one might reasonably expect him to write a well-informed critique. However, after reading his latest article, I regret to say that Professor Ruse never seems to have understood the nature of the Intelligent Design project in the first place.
Read More ›

Over this past week I’ve been engaged in some blogging at the website of the Guardian, the UK’s traditional left-of-centre paper in connection with a new book of mine that defends the pursuit of science as an ‘art of living’ on theological grounds – ones not so different from the ‘Scotist’ ones pursued by Vincent Torley here recently. In response to my piece, which was set up with my defending ID from charges of ‘bad theology’, Michael Ruse has now entered the fray, producing one of the most bigoted anti-ID statements I’ve seen in a long time. I know that many regard Ruse as some kind of moderate in these debates but …. you can judge for yourself.

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. 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. She writes:  Read more

A new measure of information has been invented – the Zettabyte = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes, or 10^21 bytes.
Zettabytes overtake petabytes as largest unit of digital measurement Heidi Blake, 4 May 2010, The Telegraph UK “The size of the “digital universe” will swell so rapidly this year that a new unit – the zettabyte – has been invented to measure it.”

Humanity’s total digital output currently stands at 8,000,000 petabytes – which each represent a million gigabytes – but is expected to pass 1.2 zettabytes this year. Read More ›

Cornelius Hunter’s post includes quotes from Niles Eldridge, George Gaylord Simpson, Joseph Le Conte and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin saying that “evolution” is a firmly established fact. The inclusion of these names caught my attention, because all have made rather clear and dramatic statements to the effect that the fossil record does not support the idea of gradual change; the first three are quoted in my new book In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design . These, plus a similar quotation from Teilhard de Chardin, are reproduced here, for those of you who do not want to buy the book. Since nearly everyone agrees that “Nature does not make jumps,” I see only two possibilities: 1) When these Read More ›

Evolutionists disagree amongst themselves about the theory of evolution but they agree about the fact of evolution. If there is one point of agreement within evolution-dom, it is that evolution is a scientific fact. A few years after Darwin died Joseph Le Conte explained that evolution is a law, not a theory, and it is a law to which every department of natural studies must adhere. It is not merely as certain as gravity, “Nay, it is far more certain.” Similarly, Teilhard de Chardin maintained that “evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow—this is what evolution is.”  Read more

Enjoy!

My newest book, Intelligent Design Uncensored, co-authored with Jonathan Witt, is now available. You can purchase it here at Amazon.com. It provides a nice overview of the scientific issues at stake but then also deals with the cultural spillover as it relates to both the theistic and atheistic evolutionists.

The theory of evolution states that biological change occurs by the natural selection of otherwise unintelligent biological variation. Organisms just happen to vary in their designs, and those that work better are better represented in later generations. But recent research shows change occurring far more rapidly than such a blind process could generate. The results not only are yet another falsification of an evolutionary prediction, they also demonstrate the limited usefulness of the theory.  Read more