Intelligent Design

For many years the molecular sequences in the bat genome have not been cooperating, and recent research continues to confirm these findings. If evolution is true, then we must believe that the incredible echolocation ability found in some bats arose multiple times, by evolving independently. That’s not easy for evolutionists to explain. How could such uncanny design details repeat themselves via blind biological variation (no, natural selection doesn’t help)?  Read more

The DNA code, which translates DNA sequences into protein sequences, has always been claimed as extremely compelling evidence for evolution. The code was first described in the mid twentieth century and, among other things, was found to be universal, or nearly so. The same DNA code is used in the cells in your brain and your big toe. The same DNA code is used in different species. The same DNA code is even used across the major kingdoms. All tissues, all species use the same code? Surely they were not independently created—they must have evolved. And if the code varied, on the other hand, evolution would surely be falsified. In one fell swoop, the DNA code not only is another Read More ›

Last month, I noted with pleasure that Dr. Karl Giberson appeared to have extended an olive branch to ID people, and I wrote a reply here in a similar spirit.  It seemed to me then that Dr. Giberson was showing a breadth of mind and a listening attitude that was unusual among theistic evolutionists, and I genuinely wanted to encourage it, and to encourage ID supporters to respond graciously to his overture.

I am disappointed to report that this month, Dr. Giberson has taken two steps backward for his previous step forward, and has displayed a narrowness of mind of exactly the sort that has provoked ID/TE frictions in the past.

I am referring to his Biologos column, published on May 10, 2010, entitled “Would You Like Fries With That Theory?”  The condescension toward the common man implied in the title is matched only by the condescension toward the common man (and others) frankly expressed in this article. Read More ›

Francisco Ayala has taken an aggressive theological stance against intelligent design, even using words like “blasphemy” and “atrocity” to characterize it (go here). But if Ayala feels entitled to make such strong accusations against ID, one might wonder what Ayala’s own theological views are. I therefore emailed him and copied Michael Ruse: Dear Prof. Ayala, I’m writing to inquire whether in any of your writings you lay out your present religious faith (and, if so, where?). I’m copying my friend Michael Ruse because I find his criticisms of ID parallel your own, and yet he makes clear that he himself is an atheist. You, on the other hand, regularly cite your background in the Roman Catholic Church as a priest. Read More ›

The editor of the Indian Journal AntiMatters is a German physicist, Ulrich Mohrhoff, a long-time resident of India who has published numerous scientific papers on quantum mechanics. Since he had published an article based on chapter 5 of my new Discovery Institute Press book In the Beginning… in AntiMatters (and also my “Epilogue”), we asked him if he would write an endorsement for the new book. He declined, saying while he appreciated my critiques of Darwinism, “it is preposterous to assert that ID is the alternative to materialism.” (I believe this was specifically referring to the introduction to my chapter 6, where I claim that the strongest argument for ID is to clearly state the alternative view, [materialism].) I quoted Read More ›

Biologos has a review of William Dembski’s new book The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World by Stephen Ashley Blake, with an introduction by Darrel Falk.

From Falk’s introduction:

My theological background is Wesleyan. Theological scholars in the Wesleyan tradition are rarely troubled by death before the Fall. It’s a non-issue for most Wesleyans, but it is an issue for many evangelicals. In fact, this one concept may be the most significant barrier blocking many evangelicals from accepting an old earth and coming to grips with the reality of evolution. Dembski, in this book, leaves the realm of math and biology. This time he dons his theological hat and lays out a view that ought to generate much conversation among those troubled by death before the Fall.

Read More ›

In his evolution apologetic, Science on Trial, Douglas Futuyma argued that the idea that the species were created is obviously false because they not well designed. Evolution, concluded Futuyma, must be true. For instance, Futuyma pointed out that photosynthesis is immensely useful, yet no higher animals have this mechanism. But new research is finding just that. The green sea slug, it seems, is part animal and part plant. As one report explained:  Read more

The burden of proof rests with BW proponents, not ID proponents. For those with inquisitive minds, I suggest checking out David Berlinski’s comments here, starting at 41 minutes. As everyone with any sense knows, David Berlinski — a mindless, born-again, Christian religious fanatic — is masquerading as a secular Jewish mathematician while attempting to impose a theocracy and destroy the entire foundation of modern science. I have, on several occasions at UD, proposed that simple mathematical analysis of the available probabilistic resources — even making unrealistically optimistic probabilistic assumptions at every turn — renders totally absurd the claim that the mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection can account for what we find in living systems beyond the utterly Read More ›

In 1734 Daniel Bernoulli used cutting edge statistical methods of his day to prove that our solar system must have evolved as a result of a single cause. He who would deny this, concluded the scientist-mathematician, “must reject all the truths, which we know by induction.” Bernoulli’s high confidence was, of course, unwarranted as later years would reveal. But today, almost three centuries later, little has changed.  Read more

In Part 1 we argued that Origin-of-life (OOL) was indistinguishable from creationism, but distinguishable from panspermia. In Part 2, we argued that panspermia had not, in fact, solved the problem of OOL by positing infinite space or eternal time. However, we pointed out that panspermia at least recognized that there was a coupling between space-time and OOL, a coupling we identify with the Fourier Transform. In contrast, most OOL theories suppose life began at two points and a line: a point in time, a point in space (microscopic coacervate, etc.) and a line of serially encoded information (DNA, enzyme, etc.) Our goal for this post, is to elucidate what this FT does to the traditional OOL theory, how this transform Read More ›

I have just been re-reading R. G. Collingwoods “Essay on Metaphysics”, and am now more that ever convinced that Collingwood’s perspective is incredibly important to the ID debate. Collingwood was a mid-20th Century British Philosopher who was WaynFlete Professor of Metaphysical Sciences at Oxford University, and who worked himself to death. He published many works – all of them in style that is incredibly easy to read, but very challenging to the reader. Unlike many philosophers he was very interested in the natural sciences, and documented the course of Western science in his “Idea of Nature”. Yet, in his last days he warned that natural science, as now conceived in the West, will ultimately destroy Western Civilization. And this would Read More ›

In my previous post, I suggested that we can learn from panspermia how to avoid the Origin-of-life (OOL) problem–by spreading it out. In the case of materialists from Epicurus to Hoyle, this was accomplished by making time eternal. If you have eternity to do something, they argue, why even the most improbable will necessarily occur. One can also make a spatial version of this argument by saying if the universe is infinite, then somewhere the improbable will necessarily occur. Sounds good, but… Does this argument work? Not the way they intend it to. For one thing, most cosmologists believe the universe to have begun in a Big Bang, which severely restricts the amount of time available for any improbable object. Read More ›

A previous blog drew attention to Glial (or Muller) cells that conduct light from the surface of the eye’s retina to the photoreceptor cells. These cells provide a low-scattering passage for light from the retinal surface to the photoreceptor cells, thus acting as optical fibres. Their function was reported to “mediate the image transfer through the vertebrate retina with minimal distortion and low loss”. New research in this area has increased knowledge of their functionality after constructing a light-guiding model of the retina outside the fovea. As a result, the “retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images”. For more, go here.

John Avise commences his paper with a quotation from Michael Behe affirming that research into the molecular workings of the cell leads unambiguously to the conclusion: “design!” To counter this, Avise presents the human genome as clear evidence for non-sentient design. He thinks that conventional evolutionary mechanisms are perfectly capable of explaining complexity, declaring: “it is not my intent here to repeat the voluminous evidence for how natural selection in conjunction with other nonsentient evolutionary forces can yield complex adaptations”. Instead, he suggests that the decision as to whether the design is intelligent or non-sentient can be made by looking at the imperfections and flaws evident in the cell’s molecular systems. “Both a Creator God and natural selection are powerful Read More ›