Intelligent Design

Why intelligent design theory ought to be taught By Jonah Avriel Cohen Of the many reasons why intelligent design – an argument I reject – ought to be taught alongside evolution in our public schools, perhaps none is more compelling than the ignorance and demagoguery which is evident in our current national debate over the issue. Below are four myths you frequently come across while reading the political literature on the subject, followed by the facts. MORE: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4761

Lehigh prof draws fire over intelligent design
By Christina Gostomski

The Allentown Morning Call, Pennsylvania
August 22, 2005 Monday

As a newly minted Ph.D., Michael Behe, like many young biochemists, dreamed of one day joining the distinguished and highly coveted ranks of the National Academy of Scientists. Read More ›

http://www.wolfmanproductions.com/iddebate.html

Richard Sternberg interviewed by Bill O’Reilly on August 24, 2005: for transcript, go here.

[In July, George Will, a columnist I enjoy and find insightful on so many topics, weighed in on ID — go here. I’ve been meaning to respond to his remarks on ID for some time now.] Read More ›

Duane Smith is another blogger complaining about Kenneth Chang’s NYTimes piece on ID. According to Smith (go here), in admitting that ID raises questions of real scientific merit, Chang’s article redistributes the burden of proof when in fact “the burden of proof is on Intelligent Design creationism and not mainstream science.” Read More ›

“It’s high time to rescue ‘intelligent design’ from the politics of religion. There are too many riddles not yet answered by either biology or the Bible, and by asking them honestly, without foregone conclusions, science could take a huge leap forward.” MORE

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Intelligent Design in American Classrooms?

Aired August 23, 2005 – 21:00 ET Read More ›

ID-phobe bloggers are upset with the NYTimes article yesterday by Kenneth Chang (for the article, go here; for a partial list of upset ID-phobe bloggers, go here). Brian Leiter, for instance, commends a letter by Edouard Machery to the New York Times (unpublished as yet), which remarks, “In no other industrialized country is evolution a controversial fact. ” Let me humbly suggest that Machery is merely underscoring the backwardness of these industrialized countries in unmasking the most oversold and undersupported theory in the history of ideas. God Bless America!

Leon Cooper, a Nobel laureate at Brown University, … tells all of today’s red-faced disputants: ”If we could all lighten up a bit perhaps, we could have some fun in the classroom discussing the evidence and the proposed explanations — just as we do at scientific conferences.” — The conclusion of William Safire’s essay Neo-Creo (21Aug05 NYTimes).

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