Intelligent Design

To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted.”

– Thomas Kuhn pp. 17-18 ( The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 2^nd Edition, Enlarged, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970)

Darwinism was first forced on my notice by the Darwinists’ unseemly habit of persecuting scientists who question it – I mean, really question it, as if it could actually be wrong. Way back in 1996, I noticed that Darwinism seemed to be the only theory you could not safely criticize.

Later, I began to pay attention to a curious pattern in the pop science media’s coverage. Many, many stories heralded new evidence for Darwinism. Virtually none talked about problems with it. The few that did admit to any problems assured the reader that they would soon be solved – as if we are all heavily invested in when or whether they get solved.

For example, in stories on the Cambrian explosion, the point of much coverage is to force a Darwinian interpretation on the picture. Yet, a very minor investment of time in story research will turn up the fact that even Darwin knew that the Cambrian and its subsequent rollout did not really fit his theory.

Somehow one just did not talk about problems with Darwinism unless one had turned up a scrap of evidence that suggested that they might not be problems after all. Read More ›

I was going to post this in Gil’s “Literature Bluffing” thread, but it got too long, so I am putting it in this post.

Let me preface this comment by stating that I have not reviewed the transcript of the Dover trial in detail, and I am basing what I am about to say on the information in the thread to Gil’s post.  The defendants’ lawyers in Dover may indeed have done a poor job overall.  I have no opinion on the matter, but on the specific topic discussed in Gil’s post, I think they are getting a bum rap.

Here is the issue.  Several of the commentators wondered, “Why didn’t the defendants’ lawyers object when the plaintiffs’ lawyers placed a stack of books and articles in front of Behe and asked ‘have you read these articles that refute your testimony about irreducible complexity?’”  In other words, they want to know why the defendants’ lawyers did not object to the literature bluff coming into evidence, and some suggested the lawyers were negligent for failing to make this objection.

  Read More ›

Scientist Exposes Evolution’s Weaknesses in Politically Incorrect Book About Darwinism and Intelligent Design SEATTLE— “This book is going to upset defenders of Darwin’s theory, because it exposes just how weak the evidence for it is and how irrational their criticisms of intelligent design really are,” says biologist Jonathan Wells author of the controversial new book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. The book will be published on August 21st by Regnery as part of their popular series of “Politically Incorrect Guides.” In clear, non-technical language, Wells explains who is fighting whom, the root of the conflict, and the evidence for and against Darwinism and Intelligent Design. He also explains what is ultimately at stake for liberals and Read More ›

Kids growing up watching this video are going to find it harder later in life to swallow Darwinian evolution: http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html

In the Old West, in the days of the Pony Express, information could not be transferred more rapidly than a horse could gallop. Then came the telegraph. Bank robbers could no longer escape to nearby towns without the residents having been informed in advance, at the speed of light in Morse Code.

Then came wireless communication. It was no longer necessary to lay out telegraph or telephone lines. Information could be transferred at the speed of light to Neil Armstrong on the moon.

Then came the blogosphere. At the speed of a URL click, one can check up on references. Literature bluffing is no longer a viable tactic in a debate. Bluffers can no longer escape to a nearby town without being intercepted before they get there.

Michael Behe was instrumental in making the Darwinian literature-bluffing tactic public.
Read More ›

This is a fire rainbow — one of the rarest naturally occurring atmospheric phenomena. The picture was captured this week on the Idaho/Washington border. The event lasted about one hour. Clouds have to be cirrus, at least four miles in the air, with just the right amount of ice crystals; and the sun has to hit the clouds at 58 degrees. It’s the gratuitousness of such beaty that leads me to rebel against materialism.

According to Jeff Jarvis of the Guardian, After Reuters ran a photo last week of black smoke over Beirut, suspicious bloggers noted that smoke isn’t known to rise in incredibly symmetrical bulbous billows. That was clear evidence of Photoshopping, using a tool to “clone” one part of a picture so you can cut-and-paste it over other parts. Someone took this photo, added smoke and made it darker. You can see the before-and-after most clearly here. The sleuth who proved the hoax was Charles Johnson, the man behind the controversial Little Green Footballs blog and the same man who uncovered the faking of the memos used in Dan Rather’s fateful – for Rather, that is – story about George Bush’s military Read More ›

In her last post, Denyse O’Leary commented on how ID has been very, very good to her: Speaking for myself, I was a completely obscure trade mag hack and textbook editor (though a reliable and accurate one) until I began to wonder whether the whole of the history of life can be explained by natural selection acting on random mutations and whether that Brit toff Darwin was really the greatest man in history. Now, all sorts of people have an opinion about me who aren’t even sure of my age, sex, or nationality. She isn’t the only one. While I was still an expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, I attended the deposition of Barbara Forrest, who, after Read More ›

A clear sign that people are losing an argument (at least as they themselves have framed it) is when they do what Darwinist Pigliucci and others are doing, as per Bill’s recent post.

Here are a few moves that guarantee a loss of public support, and the Darwinists seem to be doing them all:

– attribute enormous power and influence to those who doubt. (Speaking for myself, I was a completely obscure trade mag hack and textbook editor (though a reliable and accurate one) until I began to wonder whether the whole of the history of life can be explained by natural selection acting on random mutations and whether that Brit toff Darwin was really the greatest man in history. Now, all sorts of people have an opinion about me who aren’t even sure of my age, sex, or nationality.

Nice going, eh? Except, in all honesty, I didn’t really do anything except start asking of Darwinism the type of questions I used to ask about automotive airbags or social service programs.

– squawk that it is all a big conspiracy (oh, you know, the Wedge and Wedge II and – my favourite – Wedge the Edge!, after which, I guess, the sky falls, or something – I’d have to go look up which part of the Apocalypse happens after that).

As any journalist knows, most people can’t keep a secret for five minutes if they can gain temporary social importance by communicating it. We j’s depend on that. It’s called gossip, right? Gossip has the same effect on conspiracies as soap has on bacteria.

So any time someone tries to tell me that a broad social change or pattern is the result of a conspiracy, I know I am dealing with either a desperately naive individual or a less than firmly rational one. Or else a person who manipulates these types for his or her own ends.

What is happening to Darwinism today is the same thing that happens to failing enterprises throughout history.  Read More ›

Shades of the ridiculous adulation of Darwin, here’s some ridiculous adulation of Dawkins, the current ultra-Darwinist in chief, as the “prophet of the selfish gene”: Andrew Read opens the volume with an account of how his view of life was changed after reading The Selfish Gene on a lonely mountaintop in New Zealand. My own first reading had less of Mt. Sinai in it but was still special. I was in the flats of Michigan in my first year of grad school, and Richard Alexander and John Maynard Smith were already laying waste to the false idol of uncritical group selection. Alerted by Maynard Smith to the imminent appearance of The Selfish Gene, I watched for it, snapped it up Read More ›

Dear Members of SSE [Society for the Study of Evolution], The Joint Council of SSE, ASN and SSB has recently appointed a committee to deal with the issues of creationism and intelligent design to the teaching and funding of evolutionary biology in the U.S. The goals of the committee are spelled out in a document available at http://www.evolutionsociety.org/download/anti-wedge.pdf, and this message is to let the membership know of the existence of the committee, as well as to ask for suggestions and help from the membership. The committee will work together with the education section of SSE, which is already working in this area, as well as with the nonprofit National Center for Science Education (http://www.ncseweb.org/default.asp) which promotes education about evolution Read More ›

The Anti-Wedge Document This document, loosely modeled after the antievolutionary Wedge Strategy produced by the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture… defines a series of goals, and a preliminary set of suggestions on how to achieve them, which we hope will be adopted – with suitable modifications – by the three major US based societies of evolutionary biologists. (HT: Paul Nelson at ID The Future )

Here’s an invitation I just received. I wish I could go. Onward and upward!

The following is a short article I ran into at DesignParadigm.blogsome.com. We are continually asked: “Who is this Designer?” I suggest reading the article carefully and critically, having this question in mind. A conclusion that I draw from my reading is this: if biological life developed via evolutionary algorithms, then we shouldn’t be able to figure it out. Conversely, then, if we can figure it out (which we are doing more and more of each day), then we’re looking at something that was designed. In other words, if you want ‘alien’ code, then simply ‘evolve’ a computer program using evolutionary algorithms.

Many of the most interesting problems in computer science, nano-technology, and synthetic biology require the construction of complex systems. But how would we build a really complex system — such as a general artificial intelligence (AI) that exceeded human intelligence?

Read More ›

David Klinghoffer reviews Francis Collins’s new book The Language of God: . . . Collins’s book rejects Intelligent Design as an “argument from personal incredulity.” That argument, in his telling, would go this way: We don’t understand exactly how the Darwinian mechanism could have produced certain aspects of biological information; therefore, a Designer must have done it. I believe Collins misrepresents Intelligent Design, and it appears that he hasn’t followed the latest rounds in the scientific debate. But never mind. Let’s assume he’s right and ask: If Darwinism is the true resolution of the “mystery of mysteries,” where does that leave God? . . . Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/012/542pbkmy.asp Incredulity suggests disbelief in the face of overwhelming evidence. But if there is Read More ›