Intelligent Design

Ran across this Biola video lecture (in course BB ST 450) on scientism in a thread from a few months back, HT BA77 as usual. I think it is well worth pondering: So, thoughts? END

Creationists are now beginning to embrace the Design argument. If biology is Intelligently Designed, it stands to reason the designs can be used to teach humans how to construct designs. The implications of ID are not purely religious. This fact is often forgotten. The presumption that biology is mostly cobbled together junk is a hindrance to medical and technological advancement. What benefit is there in viewing biology as cobbled together mistakes that happen to be reproductively selected for? None of any consequence. But if biology is truly designed by a mind beyond anything we can comprehend, we can learn engineering from the all-wise creator himself. To that end, here is a book written by creationists describing the discovery of such Read More ›

Jeff Tomkins was a faculty member of Clemson, was reviewer of mainstream biology journals, and ran Clemson’s Genomics Institute. Like biologist Robert Carter, he’s given up a promising career in secular academia and research to devote himself to resisting the falsehoods in evolutionary biology. I wrote about his presentation at ICC 2013: Geneticist Jeff Tomkins vs. Evolutionary biologist who got laughed off stage. His website is: http://designed-dna.org/ He also wrote a pro-ID book for creationists. which normally retails at $32, but which can be purchased at a deep discount here: The Design and Complexity of the Cell The functions within the cells of our bodies are foundational to our existence. Understanding these functions has made the environment and the processes Read More ›

Probably, with possible exception of Mike Gene. My good friend and colleague Casey Luskin writes: ID offers a strong positive argument, based on finding in nature the type of information and complexity that, in our experience, comes from intelligence alone. I will explain this positive argument further in Part B of this article. Those who claim ID is nothing more than a negative argument against evolution are misrepresenting ID. – ID uses a positive argument based upon finding high levels of complex and specified information. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/what_is_the_the075281.html#sthash.D6IZUcb1.dpuf I rarely disagree with Casey Luskin, and Casey echoes the majority view of ID, and I’m clearly in the minority to disagree with him. However, “positive argument of ID” in some people’s view would Read More ›

The City of Boulder is Colorado’s version of Berkeley, a deeply blue bastion in which an attitude of “lefter than thou” dominates all political conversations.  Example: Section 6-8-3 of the Boulder Municipal Code states: “After December 1, 1986, no person shall knowingly produce, store, process, or dispose of a nuclear weapon or component of a nuclear weapon within the city.” Never mind that no one is or plans to produce or possess nuclear weapons there. Never mind that if the federal government decided to do so this ordinance would not have the slightest effect. Moral preening is its own reward. Several years ago I was trying a case in which the city was a party. The city was building a Read More ›

John Farrell, a science and technology blogger who writes for Forbes magazine and who is also the author of The Day Without Yesterday: Lemaître, Einstein, and the Birth of Modern Cosmology, has just written a highly critical review of Stephen Meyer’s latest book, Darwin’s Doubt. No surprise there, for those who are familiar with Mr. Farrell’s views on Intelligent Design. Nor is it particularly surprising that National Review Online should see fit to publish them; after all, it has published articles critical of Intelligent Design (see here) as well as rebuttals by other contributors (see here) since 2005. The terms “conservative” and “pro-ID” are not synonymous. The aim of this post is not to rebut Farrell’s latest review, but to Read More ›

Frequent commenter “Joe” writes: Did someome say POOF? Poof, the magic Mutant (to the tune “Puff the Magic Dragon”) Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be. Little Richard Dawkins, loved that rascal Poof. And wrote him books to appease the kooks, oh what a silly goof! Oh Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be Together they would mutate Poof into a beluga whale Richard kept a spectroscope trained on Poof’s mutating tail. Nobel things and atheists bowed whene’er they came Read More ›

See here. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently released its “ State of the Climate in 2012” report, which states that “worldwide, 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record.” But the report “fails to mention [2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend,” according to an analysis by climate blogger Pierre Gosselin. “To no one’s surprise, the report gives the reader the impression that warming is galloping ahead out of control,” writes Gosselin. “But their data shows just the opposite.” And why is no one surprised that they are still ringing the climate alarm bell in the teeth of their own data? Because everyone knows that they know that tax Read More ›