Intelligent Design

http://people.howstuffworks.com/intelligent-design.htm/printable

The Nobel Prize in medicine this year is for the discovery of H. pylori‘s role in ulcers. The scientific community’s reception of this discovery should give us pause about the continuing controversy over ID. When Robin Warren and Barry Marshall first claimed that the bacterium Helicobacter pylori plays a key role in the development of both stomach and intestinal ulcers, they were roundly ridiculed. So much so that Marshall actually infected himself to prove the point: Dr Marshall proved that H. pylori caused gastic inflammation by deliberately infecting himself with the bacterium. The Nobel citation praises the doctors for their tenacity, and willingness to challenge prevailing dogmas. . . . [At the time] stress and lifestyle were considered the major Read More ›

Attacking ID has become an academic growth industry. See, for instance, here. Where would Rob Pennock’s career be without ID?

Every now and again we need to be reminded of past events:

. . . The letter accuses Beckwith of holding church-state positions contrary to the strong stand for separation advocated by J.M. Dawson. Therefore, he should not be a leader of the Dawson Institute, it notes.

“We are troubled because Dr. Beckwith is a fellow of the Discovery Institute. Read More ›

U of I president: teach only evolution in science classes

By JOHN MILLER, Associated Press Writer, The Associated Press October 05, 2005

University of Idaho President Tim White has entered the debate pitting Charles Darwin’s theories of life against religious-based alternatives by forbidding anything other than evolution from being taught in the Moscow school’s life, earth and physical science classes.

White’s edict came as a U of I biologist, Scott Minnich, a supporter of the “intelligent design” theory, was set to testify in a Pennsylvania lawsuit Read More ›

There an interesting piece in The American Scientist by Pat Shipman on how best to swat down ID. It’s interesting not because its arguments against ID or on behalf of evolution are strong, but because of the psychology it portrays: panic, damage control, and denial (the denial being that there might be anything fundamentally amiss with conventional evolutionary theory). As you read it, think of the cigarette companies 50 years ago attempting to swat down claims that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health. Shipman is a company man to the core, representing vested interests that have everything to lose. Read More ›

The following story, based largely on my interview with the local reporter on the Dover case (Lauri Lebo), doesn’t get an A for coherence or nuance, but I’m glad she got this point right: Dembski wrote, “In the words of Vladimir Lenin, What is to be done? Design theorists aren’t at all bashful about answering this question: The ground rules of science have to be changed.” Dembski said the remarks should be taken in historical context. “Science does not spring from Zeus’ head like Athena,” he said. He defends the movement to change the definition of science because the scientific method, which limits research to the natural world, has evolved in the past and will likely change in the future. Read More ›

The October issue of the WEB-ZINE “Anti TRIZ-journal” has been posted at http://www3.sympatico.ca/karasik. The issue is mostly devoted to the patterns of technological evolution as well as to Mr. Dembski’s challenge. Actually, you’ll do better to see my challenge met by looking at the comments/contest entries under https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/341.

Go to http://idea.berkeley.edu for the new website for UC Berkeley’s IDEA Club (IDEA = Intelligent Design & Evolution Awareness): For too long the students have been dogmatically told that ID is just pseudo-scientific religious dogma. This website will offer Berkeley students accurate information on what ID is and is not. When students realize that ID does have scientific content behind the unfortunate politics, they will realize that the critics of ID on this campus are just arguing against themselves based on strawmen arguments. Their characterization of ID as “creationism in a cheap tuxedo” will only work if the students don’t read the ID material for themselves. It seems that incredulously asserting that ID theorists are bad scientists also works well Read More ›

To Debate or Not to Debate Intelligent Design?
By Gerald Graff

When I heard that advocates of “Intelligent Design” were urging schools to “teach the controversy” between their view and Darwinian evolution, I was dismayed.

About 20 years ago, I coined the phrase “teach the controversy” when I argued that schools and colleges should respond to the then-emerging culture wars over education by bringing their disputes into academic courses themselves. . . . Read More ›

… I leaned across to the head of the laboratory of development[al] neurobiology at one of the important American universities, and said: “Quite a line-up of scientists supporting ID, isn’t there?”

The reply was furious, and the conclusion came out with venom: anyone who considers ID “is not a scientist.” Read More ›

Dave Jarvis offers an interesting variant of the suboptimality anti-design argument at http://joot.com/dave/writings/articles/design.shtml. His variant is based on the recent finding that mammals under certain conditions can regenerate organs previously thought unregenerable. I responded to this line of objection in The Design Revolution, chapter 6 (“Optimal Design”). Here is a relevant portion of that chapter: Read More ›

For anti-ID paraphernalia (including buttons, T-shirts, coffee mugs and more), go here.

Before the Dover trial concludes, I want to offer some remarks about what I take will be its long-term significance. I want to do this now so that critics won’t be in a position to accuse me of spinning or rationalizing the outcome of the trial once it is reached (of course, they’ll still find fault, but that’s par for the course). Read More ›

Last spring The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) hired me as an expert witness in the Dover area school district case regarding ID (Kitzmiller v. Dover). That case went to trial this week (26Sep05). Because the focus of that case and trial is a book titled Of Pandas and People and because I am the academic editor for the publisher of that book (i.e., The Foundation for Thought and Ethics [FTE]), when FTE tried to intervene in the case, TMLC decided to drop me as an expert witness, citing a conflict of interest. In any event, I did a lot of work on the case, including an expert witness report as well as a rebuttal of the opposing expert witness Read More ›