Intelligent Design

Nothing exposes the failure of a dogma more than the propaganda it hides behind. Pathetic ideas cannot stand the light of day. They run from open inquiry and call everyone a liar. Evolution is pathetic–not because it is a religiously motivated idea with little scientific support, but because of its deceitful cover up. It makes religious proclamations and then points the finger at others. It is scientifically absurd yet it claims to be a fact. And when probed, watch out. Continue reading here.

At the Canadian Science Writers’ Association convention in Sudbury, Ontario, our Sunday dinner speaker was American theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University, who presented sample clips from famous sci-fi films. And a whole lot more. Would you be astonished to learn that the films portray implausible or impossible physics? No? Filmmakers value audience numbers more than atomic numbers. His clips entertained, but did not surprise: However, his talk frequently targeted religion and politics: although he professed to respect theists, he offered snarky asides suggesting that fear of science is growing in Canada (because it might damage religion), adding, “In many ways I hope it does, but it wasn’t designed to do that.” Dr. Krauss also told the assembled Read More ›

This just in from Walter Bradley, President of the ASA: Dear Friends, I wanted to bring to your attention a unique opportunity this summer. The annual meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation will be held at Baylor University July 31-August 3. The ASA is the world’s largest organization of evangelical Christians who work in science and engineering, and it provides a forum to discuss faith-science questions. The program this year is particularly exciting with a mini-symposium on string theory and the alleged multi-universe and another symposium on origins where theistic evolution and intelligent design will be discussed. Timely issues raised by the human genome and its interpretation by some to imply a non-historical Adam and Eve will be discussed by Read More ›

The religion in evolution can be subtle and it can fool even sophisticated thinkers. Elliott Sober, for example, has recognized that religious premises are used by evolutionists. He says they don’t work because they rely on gratuitous assumptions. In his book Evidence and Evolution he writes the following: Continue reading here.

The summer of 2000 promised to be very exciting for ornithologists and paleontologists alike as they flew into Beijing for the fifth quadrennial meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution (Ref 1). The setting was most appropriate given the richness of fossils that have been unearthed in Chinese soil. The central theme of the meeting lay in trying to resolve the question of whether birds had really evolved from dinosaurs (Ref 1). However, rather than a harmonious discussion with the constructive disagreement that one might expect from any scientific ‘get-together’ aimed at resolving discrepancies in data, the meeting did nothing but expose an underlying discord (Ref 1). Read More ›

Would you believe that the blind, unguided process of evolution repeats itself? Would you believe that evolution somehow repeats striking patterns of change? Evolutionists do. Continue reading here.

Dr. Stephen Meyer discusses his new book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.

I was asked to define my littlest blog for a “deep” search engine group, Feedmil, and replied as follows:

Colliding Universes takes a critical look at cosmology, especially its many unexplained assumptions. Here’s one:

Earth is not special. There must be many planets that host life forms.

Now, what if we find 3000 exoplanets and none host life forms?

Does that suggest that Earth is special?

No, many cosmologists would say. We just haven’t looked hard enough. Find 3000 more.

It becomes obvious that their research is intended to confirm the “not special” view, and that – for both practical and philosophical reasons – it cannot be disconfirmed.

The practical reason is that they can always argue, “They’re out there somewhere.” The philosophical reason is that they are determined to believe what they want to believe.

That’s fine, but don’t call it science.

Incidentally, even if, after a search of 6000, two other planets were found that had life forms, we would know that there are three special planets, ours being one.

But don’t expect the pop science media to interpret it that way.

Also just up at Colliding Universes, my blog on competing theories of our universe: Read More ›

Professor Peter Harrison, the Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford, has some very useful research on the history of science and religion that may be of interest to intelligent design researchers. Both books reveal important information about the religious foundations of modern science in terms of the desire of members of the Royal Society to recover pre-Fall Edenic knowledge, and how a literal reading of the Bible then enabled a literal reading of nature as opposed to the pre-modern symbolic reading. The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science (2007) http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521875592 The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (1998) http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521000963

Did you know evolution is a religious theory? If this seems strange then read on. In this post I will explain one way that evolution is contingent on religious reasoning. Such reasoning is a constant thread running through the evolution genre, but it can be subtle. If you are familiar with the evolution literature you may have noticed this underlying theme, but exactly how does it work? Enter evolutionist and philosopher Elliott Sober. In his new paper, Sober continues his work in analyzing the arguments for evolution. He has done much work which is particularly helpful in showing (i) the premises built into the arguments and (ii) the relative strengths of the different arguments evolutionists use. And strong arguments are Read More ›

Having trouble talking about ID with your wife or girlfriend?  Well, here is a perfect way to start them off.  This story about love, betrayal, and death will surely get them interested.  Here is an excerpt: “Well,” began David, “I’ve been doing a lot of reading on intelligent design theory.  Have you heard or read about this theory?” “I can’t say I have,” replied Tommy.  He picked up the pitcher and poured himself some pomegranate juice with sparkling water mix; he had a feeling his throat was going to need plenty of hydration.  “Fill me in,” he said, making a legitimate effort at open-mindedness and attentiveness. David cleared his throat in order not to sound too eager.  “Let’s see,” he Read More ›

The question is here. It looks at “Does Dark Energy Really Exist? Or does Earth occupy a very unusual place in the universe?” by physicist Timothy Clifton and astrophysicist Pedro G. Ferreira, who argue just that: If we give up the Copernican principle, we do not need dark energy to explain the composition of the universe.(Scientific American, March 23, 2009)

The winning entry is by KeithDP:

I liked it because he made a number of pertinent points that less often raised than they should be: Read More ›

Commentator Tony Blankley attempts to link financial regulation with intelligent design (bad) and non-regulation with “an evolutionary process” (good). The whole tangled metaphor reads like the guy doesn’t get it. Whether one regulates or doesn’t regulate is intelligent design – because intelligent agents make the choice either way. And regulation has its own evolutionary process – often, alas, it is the law of unintended consequences = the system evolves without guidance to produce unintended outcomes. Some people should read up on ID and Darwinism before they use them as metaphors. See also Quote mining: Old media vs. new media

In “Actually, the goal posts were just pulled up. Too much trouble to move…”, I linked to Jonathan Well’s comment on subtle attempts to change just what Darwinian evolution means, to avoid disconfirmation of any particular model. You know, first it’s natural selection only, then, lo and behold, group selection is allowed, then Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired characteristics), then gene swapping …

First junk DNA proved Darwin was right, then when it turned out not to be junk, you can be pretty sure, it will still prove Darwin was right. Darwinism has become a catch-all for a tired, worn-out theory, hysterically popular in the academic culture, with no real definition or foundation for why.

Anyway, Mike Flannery, author of Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution, comments on my notes on the obviously unsupportable claim that artificial selection (= animal breeding) supports Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation): Read More ›

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer will be appearing on the Laura Ingraham show this coming Tuesday, June 23rd, at 11:00 a.m., EST. They will be discussing Dr. Meyer’s new book Signature in the Cell, DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. For information on the new book please visit www.signatureinthecell.com. They will be joined by Francis Collins, author of The Language of God.  You won’t want to miss this discussion.