A third way between evolution and design?

Some, who are aware of the absurdity of Darwinian macroevolution but, in the same time, dislike intelligent design (ID), believe that a third way is possible between the two, a third way able to explain the origin of living beings. Their position can be expressed in many manners, e.g.: (1) “natural substances have built-in capabilities Read More…

ID Foundations, 22: What about evolutionary trees of descent and homologies? (An answer to Jaceli123’s presentation of a typical icon of evolution . . . )

As has been noted, sometimes people come to UD looking for answers to questions about what they have been taught regarding “Evolution”; typically in the context of indoctrination under the Lewontinian ideological a priori materialism that he outlined thusly in his infamous 1997 NYRB article: [T]he problem is to get [the general public] to reject Read More…

Evolution vs. God: A Review

Recently, I had the privilege of viewing Ray Comfort’s new DVD, Evolution vs. God (which can be viewed online here). The movie made for very interesting viewing, as it provided an excellent snapshot of the different worlds that Darwinists and believers in a designed cosmos inhabit. Let me begin by saying that I was greatly Read More…

Four Metaphors for the Cosmos: A Story about a Watch, a Lute, a Recipe and a Symphony

In the past, Intelligent Design has been accused of being tied to a “watchmaker” model of the cosmos. In today’s post, I’m going to look at four different metaphors for the cosmos, all of which are highly relevant for Intelligent Design, and discuss their strengths and limitations. 1. Why Professor Dembski considers Paley’s watch to Read More…

Noor’s non sequitur, or: Did Hitler believe in Intelligent Design?

Dr. Mohamed Noor is the Earl D. McLean Professor and Associate Chair of Biology at Duke University. His specialties include evolution, genetics and genomics. Professor Noor also runs a free online course entitled, “Introduction to Genetics and Evolution” through Coursera, which “gives interested people a very basic overview of the principles behind these very fundamental Read More…

Seven Nobel Laureates in science who either supported Intelligent Design or attacked Darwinian evolution

(Part two of a series of posts in response to Zack Kopplin.) The Seven Sages, depicted in the Nuremberg Chronicle of 1493. Image courtesy of Wikipedia. Zack, in your poker challenge to Congresswoman Michele Bachmann on May 24, 2011, you declared: Congresswoman Bachmann, you claim that Nobel Laureates support creationism. Show me your hand. If Read More…

Answering Petrushka’s assertion (and Dr Rec’s underlying claims): are ID arguments reducible to dubious analogies and after-the-fact painting of targets where arrows happened to hit??

In the Pulsars and Pauses thread, Petrushka raised a rather revealing assertion, to which MH, EA and I answered [U/d and GP just weighed in]: P: >> I find it interesting that when it seems convenient to ID, the code is digital (and subject to being assembled by incremental accumulation). But at other times the analogy Read More…

An argument about ships, oaks, corn and teleology – will Professor Feser finally concede that it is possible for a living thing to be the product of design?

UPDATE: Professor Feser has drawn my attention to a remark he made in a recent post: The dispute between Thomism on the one hand and Paley (and ID theory) on the other is not over whether God is in some sense the “designer” of the universe and of living things – both sides agree that Read More…

From Barren Planet to Civilization in Four Easy Steps

In a recent American Spectator article “Evolution—More Certain than Gravity?” I made the point that to not believe in intelligent design, you have to believe that the four fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone (the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces) could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics on our once-barren planet Read More…