Intelligent Design

Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome
by John Sanford (October 2005)

In retrospect, I realize that I have wasted so much of my life arguing about things that don’t really matter. It is my sincere hope that this book can actually address something that really does matter. The issue of who we are, where we came from, and where we are going seem to me to be of enormous importance. This is the real subject of this book.

Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling “The Primary Axiom”. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted. It is the constantly mouthed mantra, repeated endlessly on every college campus. It is very difficult to find any professor on any college campus who would even consider (or should I say dare) to question the Primary Axiom.

Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable. I began to question the Primary Axiom. I did this with great fear and trepidation. By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most “sacred cow” of modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.
Read More ›

I love animations of cellular and subcellular events. Today, I found a good website with some new animations. It’s at http://www.fivth.com/fiVthSite/web-content/NewFiles/GrahamJcom/web-content/gjPortfolioCBani.html and each of the thumbnails has an animation associated with it.

Go here: http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/~floridi/blog/index.html.

There’s an old Saturday Night Live routine with Anthony Perkins (who played Norman Bates, the crazed motel operator in Hitchcock’s PSYCHO). In it, Perkins, playing Bates, describes his new school of hotel management: Norman Bates: [ to camera ] Are you tired of slaving away in a dull, dead-end job? Fed up with meager paychecks that never stretch quite far enough? Sickened and disgusted by missing out on the good things of life? Hi, I’m Norman Bates for The Norman Bates School of Motel Management, here to explain how you can be your own boss while earning money in this rapidly-expanding field. Best of all, you learn at home, right in the privacy of your own shower. I’ll show you Read More ›

Darwin’s Divisions BY FR. MARTIN HILBERT Philosopher of science and Catholic priest Martin Hilbert explores the church’s role in discussing science and Darwinism using the recent comments of Popes, Cardinal Schönborn of Austria, and the head of the Vatican Observatory, Father George Coyne, S. J. The church would do a great disservice to believers and to humanity as a whole were it to remain silent when science tried to pass off as fact an unsubstantiated theory. To criticize Darwinism, as the three popes and the cardinal have done, is not meddling in a neutral science. It is preserving intact the deposit of faith, which says some very definite things about the origin and fall of man, by rejecting theological claims Read More ›

Intelligent design leads to forsaking atheism
By Jerry Bergman

Why did the court rule against teaching intelligent design in the Dover, Pa., case? Judge Jones’ ruling was summed up by one commentator as follows: Critical analysis of evolutionism leads to intelligent design, which leads to the Creator requirement. The Creator requirement leads to religion, which leads to God. The courts have consistently ruled that the state cannot hinder or aid religion – and that teaching intelligent design aids religion.

Of the many examples I know of people who left atheism and became theists because of intelligent design, I will cite only two.

Antony Flew, professor emeritus at Reading University, was a leading 20th-century intellectual and author of many books including “Atheistic Humanism.” Although as a youth Flew was a devoted Christian, during his teens he rejected Christianity because of his study of Darwinism. He concluded that evolution could fully account for the creation of all life – and that no need existed for a Creator who had been put out of work by science. Flew eventually became a leading defender of atheism for over half a century.

Flew kept reading and thinking about this topic, though, and eventually came back to the theism of his youth. His conversion was primarily because of his study of intelligent design. As he told The Associated Press, his views were now similar to the “American ‘Intelligent Design’ theorists who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe.” Michael Behe’s and William Dembski’s books were especially influential. Flew added that an argument from design, “assures us that there is a God” and that DNA research has provided us with “a new and enormously powerful argument” for design. Flew stresses that the main reason for “believing in a First Cause God is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.” He states that his whole life has been guided by the principle of Socrates, “follow the evidence where it leads” and, in this case, it led him to theism. Read More ›

Pitt anthropologist thinks Darwin’s theory needs to evolve on some points
Monday, May 29, 2006

By Mark Roth
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Source: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06149/694046-85.stm

Darwin was wrong, and his modern-day adherents perpetuate his mistakes.

That sounds like the opening salvo of an advocate for Intelligent Design or some other religiously driven critique of the theory of evolution.

But it actually summarizes the ideas of Jeffrey Schwartz, a noted anthropologist at the University of Pittsburgh and one of a growing group of critics of standard Darwinian theory.

Most of the recent publicity Dr. Schwartz has received has focused on his role in creating life-sized replicas of George Washington for display at Mount Vernon.

Much of his career, though, has been devoted to human evolution and the history of Charles Darwin’s ideas.

In criticizing Darwin, Dr. Schwartz does not dispute his theory that humans, animals and plants evolved from other species. In fact, one of his books, “The Red Ape,” argues that orangutans, not chimpanzees, are the closest evolutionary relatives of human beings.

He does take issue with two key parts of traditional Darwinian thinking, though — gradualism and adaptation.

Gradualism holds that new species evolve from their ancestors through tiny, incremental changes. Adaptation says those changes come in response to shifting conditions in the environment. [This is all the opening ID needs. –WmAD] Read More ›

On another blog, the following quotes from Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement are listed approvingly: “Evolutionary biology certainly hasn’t explained everything that perplexes biologists, but intelligent design hasn’t yet tried to explain anything at all.” –Daniel C. Dennett, Philosopher “Not only is ID markedly inferior to Darwinism at explaining and understanding nature but in many ways it does not even fulfill the requirements of a scientific theory.” –Jerry A. Coyne, evolutionary biologist “The geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously declared, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” One might add that nothing in biology makes sense in the light of intelligent design.” –Jerry A. Coyne, evolutionary biologist “The supernatural explanation fails to explain because it Read More ›

[Excerpts from a lecture by Daniel Dennett in March this year:] The late Steve Gould was really right when he called Richard and me Darwinian fundamentalists. And I want to say what a Darwinian fundamentalist is. A Darwinian fundamentalist is one who recognizes that either you shun Darwinian evolution altogether, or you turn the traditional universe upside down and you accept that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the cause but the fairly recent effects of the mechanistic mill of Darwinian algorithms. It is the unexceptioned view that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the original driving engines, but recent effects that marks, I think, the true Darwinian fundamentalist. How can such heartless culling produce the magnificent designs that we Read More ›

It appears that the first usage of this term traces to the Christian philosopher Paul de Vries. He used the term orally at a conference in 1983. A few years later it appeared in print in the paper “Naturalism in the Natural Sciences,” Christian Scholar’s Review 15 (1986), 388-96. For de Vries, methodological naturalism says nothing about the existence of God, contrasted with metaphysical naturalism, which actively denies God’s existence. This bit of sleuthing is the work of Ron Numers.

Extracts from the introduction to Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement, edited by John Brockman, Vintage Books (go here for an earlier report about this book on this blog): Religious fundamentalism is on the rise under the rubric of “intelligent design.” ID imperils American global dominance in science and presents the gravest of threats to the American economy. This book is a thoughtful response to the bizarre claims made by the ID movement’s advocates. In actuality there is no debate, no controversy. What there is, quite simply, is a duplicitous public-relations campaign funded by Christian fundamentalist interests. The intelligent-design movement has made collective fools of large segments of the American public. Educated Americans are dumbstruck by the attempt Read More ›

FOR RELEASE MAY 25, 2006 Discovery Institute Applauds Federal U.S. Appeals Court Decision To Throw Out Judge’s Ruling Against Evolution Disclaimers on Textbooks Atlanta – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has thrown out the trial court decision ruling that evolution disclaimers on science textbooks were unconstitutional. In a unanimous decision the federal three-judge panel –including both Democratic and Republican appointees — stopped short of deciding the constitutionality of the stickers, and instead sent the case back to the trial court judge with instructions to hold more evidentiary hearings on the issue. “This decision is a victory as it throws out the problematic ruling from the trial court,” said Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Discovery Institute. Read More ›

The opinion has been issued (it’s been described as a “mess” — a remand for fact-finding). Go here: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/todaysops.php.

Ultimate Questions

“Scientific knowledge is a malleable body of information that changes over time, as new tools are applied and new facts are integrated,” says Bryce Paschal, an associate professor of biochemistry and molecular genetics at U.Va. “Good science identifies weak links in what is known. Science should acknowledge the shortcomings in evolutionary science, especially as regards what is known about transition species.”

An expert on nuclear transport and cell signaling, Paschal might seem an unlikely candidate to serve as faculty adviser for the IDEA Club….

“Regardless of the number of simple organisms on this earth, and regardless of how many simple molecules are found on other planets, the notion that we evolved by random mutation from a pool of amino acids requires more ‘faith’ than I am capable of mustering,” he says.

Much to the IDEA club’s relief, Bryce Paschal was tenured a few months before becoming the IDEA faculty adviser. I can tell you from first hand knowledge that some individuals who would otherwise be willing to be IDEA advisers declined to do so because of job risk. I’m very grateful for Dr. Paschal’s willingness to be an IDEA adviser.

(thanks to Russ for alerting me to the article)

Read More ›

In an earlier post (go here), I remarked: Have a listen to the following segment from Dawkins’s documentary against religion (“The Root of All Evil?”): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUy-Uq3WuhA Who is the rapper that did this rendition of the Lord’s Prayer? The first comment on this previous post implicated Al Nezy, “Da PreachaMan,” as the rapper responsible for it. I’ve now been in touch with the producer, and that’s not the case. For Al Nezy’s version of “Our Father,” posted with permission from his producer, go here: https://uncommondescent.com/audios/OurFather.mp3. So the question remains, who did the version of the Lord’s Prayer in Dawkins’s documentary?