Intelligent Design

Evolutionists are always pointing out that evolution is a lousy process. Our aching backs, useless wisdom teeth, and backward wiring in our retinas are, they say, consequences of evolution’s ineptitude. It is hardly the sort of thing that a designer would want to copy. Would you want to fly on an aircraft if its design was inspired by such a haphazard process? Of course not. And who can argue with the evolutionist’s logic. If life is the result of the random interplay of the laws of thermodynamics, motion, electromagnetism, gravity and so forth, then we would hardly expect anything that works very well, if at all. But if all this is true, then what about nature’s dazzling designs? If evolution Read More ›

In a previous blog, I mentioned the fact that meteoritic amino acids are undoubtedly a signature of extraterrestrial life and not abiotic, because they are all chiral. However, they are all L-amino (none are D-amino), which is unexpected from the hypothesis of independent spontaneous generation for each event, which should randomly select between L- and D-. There are three possibilities: (1) we hit the lottery with a one-in-a-million chance of never having seen a common D-amino; (2a) there’s a “Darwin-of-the-gaps” materialist explanation for the prevalence of L-amino life; (2b) another “Darwin-of-the-gaps” materialist explanation for abiotic formation of L-amino life; (3) all these meteorites are actually infected from the same source of life. Now (1) offends my mathematical sense as it Read More ›

Fransciso Ayala says intelligent design is an “atrocity” and “disastrous for religion” because it makes God directly responsible for all of the evil in the world.  Ayala apparently believes he can get God “off the hook” for all of the evil in the world by setting him up as a remote deity – along the lines of the wind-up-the-clock deity believed in by, say, a seventeenth century deist – who, while He may have set the initial conditions in the universe, has not tended to it since and therefore cannot be blamed if the evolutionary train has gone off the rails in his absence.  Rubbish.  Ayala is pushing bad theology to support his bad science.  Read More ›

I can’t let this one go without posting the reference to the paper generating all the fuss. Retinal glial cells enhance human vision acuity.   A. M. Labin and E. N. Ribak Physics Department, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel “We construct a light-guiding model of the retina outside the fovea, in which an array of glial (Muller) cells permeates the depth of retina down to the photoreceptors. The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images. The results provide evidence for a natural optical waveguide array, which preserves almost perfectly images obtained through a narrow pupil. Light guiding within the retinal volume is an effective and biologically convenient way to improve Read More ›

In the steady-stream of “not junk after all” findings it was inevitable that our backward retina would be discovered to work quite well, thank you. But if you think it is another icon of evolution that has been shattered, think again. Evolutionary explanations of vision go back to Darwin, and they haven’t changed much in spite of our much improved understanding of how vision actually works. And now new findings that the inverted design of our retina isn’t as bad as it looks, while interesting, are not much more than a yawner for evolutionists.  Read more

After arguing Ad nauseam (examples here, here, here and here) that the evil and dysteleology in nature prove evolution and then denying that he ever did such a thing, evolutionist Jerry Coyne is now sharing more of his theological wisdom. After telling us what god would and wouldn’t do, he now adds that the best conclusion is for atheism or Aristotelianism:  Read more

Is there anyone out there who still thinks evolution is merely a scientific theory? If so they can read Douglas Futuyma’s review of Jerry Coyne’s book, Why Evolution is True, where Futuyma highlights a few of Coyne’s theological proclamations, to add to the many Futuyma himself has made in past years. Of course, all of this theology sits squarely within the evolution genre.  Read more

When you have made a bad call, hold on to it with all your might.  From NEW SCIENTIST. The eye was evolution’s great invention  06 May 2010  “Creationists have used the eye to make the “argument from design”. Evolutionary biologists say that the “inside out” vertebrate retina – leaves us with a blind spot – one of evolution’s “greatest mistakes”. Creationists have argue that the backwards retina has no problems providing excellent vision – and its structure enhances vision. A study by (non-creationist) neurophysicists in Israel has found just that. Müller cells, which support and nourish the neurons overlying the retina’s light-sensitive layer, also collect, filter and refocus light, before delivering it to the light sensors to make images clearer. Read More ›

Evolutionist Denis Alexander approvingly recounts a story of a life scientist student who, upon learning about the intricacies and beauty of DNA packaging, concluded the scheme must have been designed. [62] But elsewhere Alexander finds that the Intelligent Design theory is guilty of designer-of-the-gaps reasoning [304ff].  Read more

Here’s an excerpt (translation follows) from a remarkable interview with Francisco Ayala by one of the most prominent media outlets in Spain. One wonders how a Catholic priest, even a former Catholic priest, can actually believe all this. In his book Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion he calls me (a mathematician by training) a “sociologist.” Given his remarks below, apparently anyone who is not the right sort of scientist is, in Ayala’s view, a sociologist. Great to see the Templeton Foundation supporting him. Source:  http://www.abc.es/20100506/ciencia-/barbaridad-culpar-dios-disenado-20100506.html Entrevista realizada al biólogo Francisco J. Ayala Diario ABC, Madrid, 6 de Mayo de 2010 Entrevista: A. Grau, Nueva York  -Usted ha recibido muchos premios y reconocimientos en EEUU por su lucha sin cuartel contra el llamado creacionismo. ¿De Read More ›

Over in Spain, ex priest Francisco J. Ayala is spreading his silly and distorted views about ID. “It is not even a matter of conviction. I am certain that the five or seven scientists (mostly social scientists) on the Discovery Institute’s payroll, do not believe what they say. Creationism (which Ayala obviously conflates with ID) is the biggest aberration that can be conceived — not to science — but to faith. It is an atrocity that it attempts to solve the challenge of theodicy; that is how to reconcile the existence of evil in the world with that of God, placing on God the blame for everything that goes wrong. I cannot conceive anything more disastrous to religion than intelligent design. According Read More ›

As many critics have pointed out, evolutionary theory has biased the life sciences with its view of spontaneity. In this universe, things just happen to happen. And that includes the most complicated, least understood thing of all—life. This is the religiously-motivated “just add water” view of biology that makes little scientific sense. Now an evolutionist has appropriately used this very phrase to describe yet another evolutionary take on how life got its start.  Read more

Below is an op-ed by me that appeared yesterday in the Baptist Press. It revisits the persecution by Baylor administrators of Robert Marks and his work on ID (for the history of what happened, go here). Specifically, it addresses the challenge that Marks’ work on ID is likely to pose to incoming Baylor president Ken Starr. Interestingly, today’s New York Times (go here) hints at the same issue:

———————————————
Dr. Sloan [Baylor’s former president] angered faculty with his leadership style, and he hired William A. Dembski, a proponent of intelligent design who found little favor with the school’s science departments (and has since left). Dr. Sloan resigned in 2005. Since then, Baylor has had another president and an interim president.

Asked about Baylor’s tumult, Mr. Starr, who knows from tumult, was circumspect.

“A lesson learned is the need for the conversation in the community to remain very vibrant,” he said, a bit vaguely, when asked about the Sloan years. “I want to be very clear that I am not laying any blame at the feet of any of my predecessors,” he added.
———————————————

Yes, “circumspect” is the right word. In any case, here is my op-ed:

FIRST-PERSON: Vindication for I.D. at Baylor?
William A. Dembski | Posted on May 6, 2010

www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=32885

FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)–Baylor University remains a proving ground for SBC controversies. Former Baylor president Robert Sloan’s “2012 Vision” continues, at least for now. This vision rests on two pillars, seeking to establish Baylor both as a top research university and as a school faithful to its Christian heritage. Secularized faculty, who are in the majority at Baylor and forced Sloan’s removal (he is now president of Houston Baptist University), see Baylor’s Christian heritage as a liability and would like to make the university’s slide into secularization complete.

Ken Starr, who becomes Baylor’s new president June 1, therefore faces a crucial test: Will he continue the full Baylor 2012 Vision, advancing not just Baylor’s academic distinction but also its Christian faithfulness, or will he give up on this second pillar of the vision? Starr’s commitment to academic excellence is not in doubt. During his tenure as dean of Pepperdine Law School, he significantly raised its academic standing. The question is what he will do regarding Baylor’s Christian identity.

Starr, no stranger to controversy, seems poised to do the right thing. But good intentions are one thing, decisions and actions are another. Baylor will be sure to test Starr’s mettle. Indeed, his first test is likely to come from an unexpected source, an online college resource known as College Crunch (www.collegecrunch.org). Organizations like this draw traffic to their website (and thus earn their keep) by posting items of interest to prospective college students. One such item, first appearing on the site in March, lists “The 20 Most Brilliant Christian Professors.” On this list is Baylor professor Robert J. Marks II. Here is College Crunch’s description of him (www.collegecrunch.org/…/the-20-most-brilliant-christian-professors): Read More ›

Go here and click on the green podcast symbol to listen to the rest of the discussion about the origins debate and Darwin’s predictions.

I’ve been in trial the last couple of weeks, and I am just now coming up for air.  I see the debate has continued in my absence.  Alas, yet another confirmation (as if another were needed) that I am not indispensible.  Thank you to all of our posters, commenters and lurkers, who continue to make this site one of the most robust stops on the internet vis-à-vis the intelligent design debate.

 We live in a post-modern world, and the defense position at trial last week brought that dreary fact forcefully to mind.  Read More ›