Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design

Robert Marks: The “Charles Darwin” of Intelligent Design

Spread the love

Robert Marks Charles Darwin 

Evolution was a known concept before Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859. But Darwin’s work on evolution pushed it from obscurity to a widely known and accepted concept. Part of what helped Darwin in pushing through evolution was the credibility he had acquired from publishing lots of specialized scientific treatments (such as an extended treatise on barnacles) before publicly wading into evolution.

Fast forward to the beginning of the 21st century. Robert Marks has built a career establishing his credibilityas a foremost thinker and researcher on the topic of computational intelligence. He has amassed an enviable publication record and huge set of government research grants. No one can question his scientific bona fides. And now, with his Evolutionary Informatics Lab (www.evoinfo.org), he is going for broke to establish intelligent design as a scientific research program.

Just as Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled evolutionist, so Robert Marks is making it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled design theorist. Robert Jackson Marks II is THE CHARLES DARWIN OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN!

16 Replies to “Robert Marks: The “Charles Darwin” of Intelligent Design

  1. 1
    Granville Sewell says:

    Clive,
    While I share your admiration of Marks, I’m sure Mike Behe will always be considered the Darwin of ID, and “Darwin’s Black Box” will be the “Origin of Species”…I’m sure Marks would agree!

  2. 2
    Heinrich says:

    Does this mean Marks is about to publish an abstract about his ID theories?

  3. 3
    Gods iPod says:

    Yeah, I think that’s a title that could only be split between Behe and Dembski.

  4. 4

    Thanks Gods iPod, but I’ve been called the “Isaac Newton” and “Dick Butkus” of intelligent design, so I’m all monickered out.

    Seriously, though, Clive may have a point. It may take someone like Bob Marks to push ID over the top.

  5. 5
    Granville Sewell says:

    Bill, I’ll let you be “our” Alfred Wallace. 🙂 And who would our Richard Goldschmidt? Has to be someone a little heretical, I’ll nominate David Berlinski. And our Richard Dawkins (rotweiler)? We could have some fun with this.

    Dick Butkus??

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    I once had a teacher in college similar to Dr. Marks, he was ‘scary smart’. He would write equations that filled the blackboard from one end to the other. And he knew every nuance of them as to how the equations could be worked for different situations. How I ever got out of that class with a passing grade of C I’ll never know. (I truly think those generic prayers I said before and during the final exam helped a lot). The teacher never mentioned his faith until the end of the course work to which he then related his Christian faith to the class. Though I was not a committed Christian at the time, I was not offended in the least in the humble manner in which he related his faith to the class and in fact felt that it was completely ‘appropriate’ in the way that he chose to do it. Though he did not cause me to become a committed Christian at that particular time in my life, he none-the-less left a lasting impression upon me, for years later when I finally did realize that Christ is exactly who He claims to be, namely God, that teacher was one of the first people I called with the news of my conversion so as to thank him for having such a positive impact on my life for Christ. ,,, Once again thank you Dr. Ron Martin

  7. 7
    DiEb says:

    What a nice praise of R. Marks! Btw, I hope to read his (and W. Dembski’s) The Search for a Search soon – is a date set yet?

  8. 8
    above says:

    Regardless of where the evidence eventually takes us, I think it’s a great idea to have an ID research programme, perhaps in the style that Lakatos proposed.

  9. 9

    In Brazil some Darwinians call me the ID rotweiller when I am a very peaceful kind of guy!!!

  10. 10
    mikev6 says:

    In Brazil some Darwinians call me the ID rotweiller when I am a very peaceful kind of guy!!!

    While I know calling those who accept evolution “Darwinist” has a solid marketing purpose, I’ve always found it odd.

    Does this mean that ID proponents can now be referred to as “Marksist”? I can see that causing some confusion in certain circles.

  11. 11
    Joseph says:

    Umm Clive, Darwin was wrong…

  12. 12
    critter says:

    #8
    I find this interesting.
    Can you give some links to ID research?

  13. 13
    Bertvan says:

    Just so someone comes up with something more reasonable than the bizarre notion that “natural selection” (principally, premature death) has the power to turn genetic accidents into complex, rationally interacting systems. I hope it happens soon.

    http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

  14. 14
    tribune7 says:

    Dick Butkus??

    He was instrumental in the NFL theorem.

  15. 15
    lars says:

    He was instrumental in the NFL theorem.
    Groan…

  16. 16
    Dov Henis says:

    ID?

    Comprehend evolution !

    Natural Selection Defined
    Beyond Historical Concepts

    Natural selection is E (energy) temporarily constrained in an m (mass) format.
    Period.

    Dov Henis
    (Comments From The 22nd Century)
    03.2010 Updated Life Manifest
    http://www.the-scientist.com/c......page#5065
    Cosmic Evolution Simplified
    http://www.the-scientist.com/c......page#4427
    “Gravity Is The Monotheism Of The Cosmos”
    http://www.the-scientist.com/c......page#4887

Leave a Reply