Imagine such blogs appearing at one university after another. Now imagine a Darwinist’s worst nightmare. But I repeat myself.
If (as Orr claims) I.D. Ã¢â‚¬Å“looks less and less like the science it claimed to be and more and more like an extended exercise in polemics,Ã¢â‚¬Â isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t it strange that it has recently convinced the foremost secular philosopher in England (Antony Flew) to give up his atheism?
A good Darwinist will imagine 2 or 3 far-fetched intermediate useful stages, and consider the problem solved. I believe you would need to find thousands of intermediate stages before this example of irreducible complexity has been reduced to steps small enough to be bridged by single random mutations
Evolutionary biology is one big group-think in which its practitioners can no longer imagine the need to justify their theory…. Evolution has come this far in spite of the facts.
According to the Prime Minister there are a sufficient number of scientists who have a special interest in this area.
I reflect on the potential applications of the new understanding on Ã¢â‚¬Ëœengineered self-organization of systems too complex to designÃ¢â‚¬â„¢
The Little Engine That Could… Undo Darwinism By Dan Peterson What critics of Intelligent Design theory can’t accept is that its proponents are making scientific, fact-based arguments. The American Spectator, June 2005
the fossils of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Cambrian ExplosionÃ¢â‚¬Â period, near the base of the geological column, include some of the most sophisticated eyes ever known to have existed Ã¢â‚¬â€ the compound eyes of trilobites have double calcite lenses, which defeat any slow evolutionary explanation, and, what is more, they have no precursor in the rocks
Allen Orr’s article against ID is now out in the New Yorker (go here). It’s as bad as I thought it would be. I’m on the road right now but will comment on it later in the week. Note that I remarked last week on this blog that a fact-checker from the New Yorker had […]
The scientific case against Darwinism is largely won.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“intelligent design theoryÃ¢â‚¬Â (ID) … its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed.
Evolutionary logic has a further advantage, namely, the results are not required to be true, thus eliminating a tiresome (and now superfluous) restriction on the growth of evolutionary knowledge.
The New Yorker is doing a major piece on intelligent design next week written by Allen Orr
I gave the entire Washington Post article on Phil Johnson here two days ago (go here). I want to draw your attention to two quotes in that article, one by Stuart Kauffman, the other by Theo Roszak. Kauffman is a well known self-organizational theorist. Roszak was a popular countercultural figure two and three decades ago […]
Over a decade ago, Phillip Johnson, in his public lectures, used to describe his critique of evolutionary naturalism as encapsulated in an analysis of three words: science, evolution, and creation. According to Johnson, by suitably equivocating about the meaning of these words, Darwinists were able to confuse the public and themselves into consenting to a […]