William Dembski

August 22, 2005 In Explaining Life’s Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash By KENNETH CHANG http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/national/22design.html?pagewanted=print

Here’s an entry by Philip Quinn from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (1999). Note especially the second paragraph — the problem is not Hume but Darwin: Read More ›

http://theage.com.au/text/articles/2005/08/17/1123958129538.html?oneclick=true

The first of two New York Times articles on ID: go here. This one by Jodi Wilgoren covers the political aspects of the debate. An upcoming one by Kenneth Chang focuses on the science.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9008040

I’ve been assured that the moneys will be deposited in my Cayman account, so I’m back. The first thing I want to direct your attention to is the letter by the Office of Special Counsel to Richard Sternberg: http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm. Compare this with the spin that Nick Matzke and the NCSE are trying to put on this affair: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/sternberg_compl.html. Compare also Mike Gene’s commentary at Telic Thoughts: go here.

The rancor and daily vilification directed at me by the Pandasthumb has finally taken its toll. Never a kind word or a gesture of appreciation for all I’ve done to advance science and enrich our understanding of the world. Just criticism, vituperation, and abuse. I can’t endure it any longer. I’ve therefore decided to leave intelligent design and return to my first love — playing Chicago blues at the keyboard. Is this decision final? Might I make a comeback to intelligent design? Yes, it’s possible. If someone were to deposit $1,000,000 in my bank account (routing and account numbers available on request), I will consider a return. Otherwise, look for me around Halsted and Fullerton. Farewell.

Why ‘Theology Is a Simple Muddle’ By Lee Harris Published 08/19/2005 As one of my colleagues put it: “Twenty thousand words! And so far as I can tell, he has never read *anything* by comtemporary design theorists. Yet he proposes a way to reconcile ID to Neo-Darwinism. Maybe he should find out what he’s trying to reconcile first. ”

Evolutionists in a panic
Aug 17, 2005
By R. Albert Mohler Jr.
Baptist Press

Read More ›

Editor Explains Reasons for ‘Intelligent Design’ Article By Michael Powell Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, August 19, 2005; Page A19 Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg made a fateful decision a year ago. As editor of the hitherto obscure Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for “intelligent design,” a controversial theory that holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand — subtle or not — of an intelligent creator. MORE

Michael Shermer had an op-ed in the LA Times a week and a half ago. I’m reprinting a fuller version of it here with his permission and including some commentary in italics. Thanks, Michael. Read More ›

Amazon reviews of ID books tend to be either very positive or very negative. I was just looking to see how Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing was doing, and saw that every single review was either 5 stars (the highest rating) or 1 star (the lowest rating). The 1-star reviews are illuminating for their depth and insight. I include them here for your edification: Read More ›

Here’s an exchange with an Australian reporter who asked some perceptive questions about ID (my answers are interspersed in italics): Read More ›

Mark Perakh has weighed in with yet another screed against my work (go here). He seems out of his element. I’m still awaiting his detailed critique of “Searching Large Spaces” — does he even understand the relevant math?