Intelligent Design

A couple of weeks ago, over on Biologos, Dr. Ted Davis, a fine historian of science (and one of the few TEs who does not misrepresent the ID position) ran an interesting column.  He invited all readers of Biologos to submit their “top five” books in the area of “science and religion,” i.e., the five books about the relation between science and religion which had most helped Biologos readers to come to terms with the subject.  He asked the readers to indicate very briefly the contents of their top five books and why they found those books significant. Ted’s column set me to wondering whether or not some of the differences between ID and TE people spring from what they Read More ›

In the latest issue of Nature, a definitive role for pseudogenes is established. In the last sentence of the Abstract the authors conclude: These findings attribute a novel biological role to expressed pseudogenes, as they can regulate coding gene expression, and reveal a non-coding function for mRNAs. Haven’t read the full article* (no time at present), but there’s a related link at PhysOrg.com that gives an overview. Yes, “junk” DNA now “communicates” with itself. A new “language”, an RNA language, is discovered. Another 30,000 pieces of functional information (over and above proteins) are part of cell architecture. And even more for Darwinists to explain per RM+NS. And the old standard explanation, of gene duplication and pseudogenes ‘evolving’ new function, takes Read More ›

In my column of May 18, I sharply criticized Dr. Karl Giberson for an earlier column on Biologos, which in my view argued for a dangerous subservience to scientific consensus.

Dr. Giberson’s article generated quite a lot of controversy on the Biologos site, where two posters named “Rich” and “gingoro” argued firmly (but politely) that Dr. Giberson was being one-sided and one-dimensional in this thinking about scientific consensus and specialist insight.

Now, over at Biologos again, Dr. Giberson has written a rejoinder of sorts.

I say “of sorts,” because it answers virtually none of the questions, and responds to virtually none of the criticisms, posed by myself or the two Biologos commenters.   He responds to no points from the Biologos critics, and to almost none of my arguments; his most substantive comment is a side-argument responding to a statement by William Dembski.

Beyond his reply to Dembski, his article consists of a more intransigent restatement of his original “blank check” endorsement of scientific consensus, coupled with multiple, motive-mongering digs against ID.  The digs against ID are irrelevant because, except for some framing comments at the beginning and end of my article which were not part of my argument, I didn’t even mention, let alone champion, ID, and neither did the Biologos commenters. Read More ›

Evolutionist Jerry Coyne thinks atheism is true. But if atheism (in addition to evolution) is true, then how could Coyne know it? For if atheism and materialism are true, then Coyne’s brain is nothing more than a set of molecules in motion. Its various configurations are simply a consequence of its beginning, subsequent inputs, and some random motion here and there.  Read more

Jody Bottum is one of the best writers we have.   I believe this even when I disagree with him, which is more often than one might think.  Today’s piece in “On the Square” is a gem.

The next volume of the Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies is going to focus on evolution and Intelligent Design, as well as the interweaving of the two. For those who are unaware, the Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies (JIS) is a publication of the Institute for Interdisciplinary Research (IIR), and has been in publication since 1989, and has contributors from around the world. The last issue, for instance, had contributors from Romania, Poland, and the US, including institutions such as Loyola and Princeton, as well as a paper by Templeton Prize winner Michael Novak. According to the IIR website: It is becoming increasingly clear that neither man nor his world can be fully understood from the standpoint of any single discipline. A Read More ›

In your idiotic ideas file you no longer have to go back to the ancient myths, or even to centuries-old folly such as bloodletting, for we now have evolution–an idea that is promoted at this very time. One of the many inanities of evolution is its serendipity. If evolution is true, then we must believe that all manner of complex biological structures and machinery evolved (somehow) for one function, only then to enable new, revolutionary advancements to occur. Call it evolution’s Law of Unintended Consequences.  Read more

 Rod Dreher writes: Time and time again, an experimental gadget gets introduced — it doesn’t matter if it’s a supercollider or a gene chip or an fMRI machine — and we’re told it will allow us to glimpse the underlying logic of everything. But the tool always disappoints, doesn’t it? We soon realize that those pretty pictures are incomplete and that we can’t reduce our complex subject to a few colorful spots. So here’s a pitch: Scientists should learn to expect this cycle — to anticipate that the universe is always more networked and complicated than reductionist approaches can reveal. …Karl Popper, the great philosopher of science, once divided the world into two categories: clocks and clouds. Clocks are neat, Read More ›

The following anthology, coedited by me and Mike Licona, is now available at Amazon.com: Here’s the table of contents for the science section: Section Two: The Question of Science 8. Creator and Sustainer: God’s Essential Role in the Universe — Robert Kaita 9. The Pale Blue Dot Revisited — Jay W. Richards and Guillermo Gonzalez 10. Oxygen, Water, and Light, Oh My! The Toxicity of Life’s Basic Necessities — Joe W. Francis 11. The Origin of Life — Walter Bradley 12. What Every High School Student Should Know about Science — Michael Newton Keas 13. Darwin’s Battleship: Status Report on the Leaks This Ship Has Sprung — Phillip E. Johnson 14. Debunking the Scopes “Monkey Trial” Stereotype — Edward Sisson Read More ›

In 1951 the leading evolutionist George G. Simpson stated that there really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact. The question, concluded Simpson, has been decisively answered in the affirmative. Simpson was by no means the first to make this high claim—even stronger statements were made in the nineteenth and even eighteenth centuries—but in the twentieth century this sentiment came to dominate the life sciences. It became more than merely broadly accepted, it became mandatory. This set up evolutionary theory as what Thomas Kuhn would call “normal science.” Evolution became the standard, the dominant paradigm, within which the life sciences operated. From high school biology Read More ›

After Darwinist Steve Matheson debated Stephen Meyer at Biola, various essays appeared on the internet pointing out Matheson’s numerous errors and oversights. In the face of having his assertions publicly discredited (see a summary in Fact Free Science of Matheson), he wrote an open letter to Stephen Meyer. Your Discovery Institute is a horrific mistake, an epic intellectual tragedy that is degrading the minds of those who consume its products and bringing dishonor to you and to the church. It is for good reason that Casey Luskin is held in such extreme contempt by your movement’s critics, and there’s something truly sick about the pattern of attacks that your operatives launched in the weeks after the Biola event. It’s clear Read More ›

Here

As followers of this controversy will remember from previous posts, the California Science Center (CSC) denied screening of Illustra Media’s film Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record.  A lawsuit ensued, in which the California Science Center was sued to disclose documentation, of which they are legally bound under the Public Records Act to disclose, in an attempt to discover what provoked the obvious discrimination. The outcome of the suit is that the CSC has to disclose the documentation and pay the attorney’s fees of the Discovery Institute.  Here is a short podcast from the Discovery Institute on the matter:

California Science Center to Pay Attorneys’ Fees and Sett…

Intelligent Design The Future

Read More ›