Smithsonian Distances Itself From Controversial Film http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/01/AR2005060101986.html By Tommy Nguyen Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, June 2, 2005; Page C01 The controversy over the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History’s decision to allow a documentary based on “intelligent design” — the theory that life is so meticulously complex that a divine intelligence must have designed it […]
Proteins change single mutation by single mutation, amino acid by amino acid, so thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the level of explanation that is needed. What part of Ã¢â‚¬Å“numerous, successive, slightÃ¢â‚¬Â is so hard to understand?
If (as Orr claims) I.D. Ã¢â‚¬Å“looks less and less like the science it claimed to be and more and more like an extended exercise in polemics,Ã¢â‚¬Â isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t it strange that it has recently convinced the foremost secular philosopher in England (Antony Flew) to give up his atheism?
A good Darwinist will imagine 2 or 3 far-fetched intermediate useful stages, and consider the problem solved. I believe you would need to find thousands of intermediate stages before this example of irreducible complexity has been reduced to steps small enough to be bridged by single random mutations
Here is an email from one of my ID colleagues in the defense industry. Imagine this scenario, but with me instead of Bolton going not to the UN but to the NSF to head a new initiative on ID with lots and lots of tax dollars to back it up. Could this happen? Who would […]
Baylor’s eclectic approach to gathering faith-and-learning resources meant they sometimes failed to screen out the culturally militant elements of evangelicalism. In a head-shaking blunder, Sloan’s team put William DembskiÃ¢â‚¬â€point man for the Intelligent Design movementÃ¢â‚¬â€in charge of a new science-and-religion center. It’s hard to imagine any step that would have been more effective in convincing skeptical faculty that Sloan was turning Baylor over to the fundamentalists.
Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution By JOHN SCHWARTZ, as reported in the NYTimes Published: May 28, 2005 The Discovery Institute, a group in Seattle that supports an alternative theory, “intelligent design,” is announcing on its Web site that it and the director of the [Smithsonian] museum “are happy to […]
Evolutionary biology is one big group-think in which its practitioners can no longer imagine the need to justify their theory…. Evolution has come this far in spite of the facts.
According to the Prime Minister there are a sufficient number of scientists who have a special interest in this area.
I reflect on the potential applications of the new understanding on Ã¢â‚¬Ëœengineered self-organization of systems too complex to designÃ¢â‚¬â„¢
The Little Engine That Could… Undo Darwinism By Dan Peterson What critics of Intelligent Design theory can’t accept is that its proponents are making scientific, fact-based arguments. The American Spectator, June 2005
The son, by contrast, has turned repudiating his father’s legacy into a full-time occupation.
The following report by Science & Theology News discusses blogging for ID: http://www.stnews.org/articles.php?article_id=549&category=news.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“intelligent design,Ã¢â‚¬Â a stalking horse for creationism
Advocates of ID pretend to use scientific methods to support their religious preconceptions.