Intelligent Design

You know the drill, scientific findings refute evolution’s everything-is-just-a-fluke expectations, evolutionists are flabbergasted, evolutionists re-engineer their theory for the (n+1)th time, evolutionists sing the praise of Darwin, saying their theory explains the evidence so well, and the findings become yet another proof text for our creation myth. This time the finding is that DNA does more than sit at the center of everything like Jabba the Hutt. Evolution’s geno-centric, DNA-is-king myth expects DNA—which is supposed to hold the keys to the phenotype (remember how DNA mutations were supposed to create the dinosaurs, and everything else?)—to receive care and feeding from its various cyto-servants. Remember selfish and greedy DNA?  Read more

Funny thing about scientific evidence, it doesn’t go away. After a century of playing whack-a-mole with Lamarckians, the evolutionist’s worst nightmare keeps reoccurring. Like Bill Murray forever waking up to I Got You Babe by Sonny and Cher, evolutionists are continually reminded that the science isn’t going anywhere soon.  Read more

At age 90 as of 2011, my father is one of the few living scientists who developed the atomic bomb during WWII. He named me after the great physical chemist Gilbert Newton Lewis, under whom my dad earned his Ph.D. in his early 20s while working on the Manhattan Project. When I was a child in the 1950s rumors spread that the communist Chinese were developing an atomic bomb. I asked my dad, “Why don’t we just keep it a secret from them?” My dad replied, and I’ll never forget it, “Gilbert, the secret is in nature, and it’s there to be found by anyone who looks hard enough.” Of course, my dad was talking about the nature of the Read More ›

From time to time, some of the more thoughtful skeptics who contribute to Uncommon Descent have asked what assumptions the fine-tuning argument makes about the nature, mind and objectives of the Intelligent Designer of the universe. In this post, I have endeavored to answer their questions to the best of my ability. The views expressed below are my own. As far as I can make out, the fine-tuning argument makes five assumptions about the Designer and about the universe He designed. Here they are. (Note: Although I frequently use the term “He” to refer to the Designer, no inference should be drawn that the Designer belongs to the male sex or the masculine gender. And although I regularly refer to Read More ›

When Darwin’s Dilemma, a film that examines evolution in light of the scientific evidence, was booked at the California Science Center’s IMAX theater two years ago, evolutionists from around the country were furious. They made sure the booking was cancelled. So while the CSC censored the film, their censorship was by no means an independent action. The CSC was at the tip of the spear, but evolutionists near and far drove that spear home. And those evolutionists were by no means limited to life scientists. For evolutionary thought is about much more than merely the origin of species. Consider, for example, Hilary Schor, Professor of English, Comparative Literature, Gender Studies and Law at the University of Southern California.  Read more

Two years ago a group booked the California Science Center’s IMAX theater, in downtown Los Angeles, for a screening of Darwin’s Dilemma, a film that questions evolutionary theory. Furious evolutionists quickly censored the showing and canceled the event.  Read more

After a fruitful discussion with StephenB, I have updated my recent post —What was the alleged “Dominionist” theologian, Francis Schaeffer, doing back in the 1950′s – 80′s?  — especially in light of evidence he has brought to bear from Aquinas’ corpus.

Note especially how I have adjusted Sawyer’s summary to highlight the points of correction, and how I have added a diagram that adjusts Schaeffer’s famous Line of Despair Diagram in a way that illustrates, extends and adjusts Schaeffer’s vision of the key worldview shaping trends that have framed our civilisation over the past millennium. Read More ›

In this essay Denyse comments: Intelligent design will prevail when engineers rule. A woman after my own heart. Engineers know design when they see it. Darwinists can’t see design when it flashes a strobe light in their eyes at increasingly close range (only because they desire not to see it — they hate the light — certain people on this forum will know where that phrase comes from). Since I am a software/aerodynamics/mechanical/artificial-intelligence/information-processing/integrating-all-of-these-engineering-disciplines engineer, I realize that I have a prejudice. But I also have impeccable credentials concerning discerning design in software, aerodynamics, functionally integrated mechanical systems, AI information-processing systems… Hey, guess what? All that stuff describes living systems. But what do I know? I’m just an IDiot. Darwinists are Read More ›