Intelligent Design

ID The Future Podcast — “Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design”

Spread the love

For those who are not aware of this resource, check out:

http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/

I particularly enjoyed the following interview by Casey Luskin with Thomas Woodward, author of the book listed above.

http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2006-11-29T22_39_10-08_00

On this episode of ID The Future, CSC’s Casey Luskin interviews Dr. Thomas Woodward and they discuss his new book Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design, which analyzes the rhetoric used by Darwinists in their critiques of intelligent design. Woodward documents how Darwinists often use ad hominem attacks and promote “fantasy themes” about the supposed “theocracy” of intelligent design to avoid discussing the scientific issues.

Did you know that, according to Niall Shanks, Phillip Johnson is like the guy who hangs around schoolyards peddling soft drugs, hoping to get the kids hooked on the hard stuff?

Ask yourself: Who in the ID versus Darwinism debate is getting desperate, and who are the wacky conspiracy theorists?

3 Replies to “ID The Future Podcast — “Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design”

  1. 1
    jwrennie says:

    Clearly it is the ID people who are the wacky conspiracy theorists.

    After all, I was given a taste of Darwin on Trial from Phil the other day near my local school and now I am free basing and mainlining copies of Darwins Black Box.

    Beware the pushers!!!!!

    😛

  2. 2
    TerryL says:

    What gets me is how easily the evolutionists themselves resort to the ad hominems, all the while decrying their use–which, mais bien sur, is the only tool of the IDiots.

    Some months ago, I was involved with a Yahoo group (something like “Evolutionversusintelligentdesign2”–I forget the exact name), when one of the members began grousing about how Dr. Dembski doesn’t really know what he’s talking about because, although a mathematician and prolific publisher, he doesn’t publish in mathematical journals.

    So I posted a comment reading: “If Bill Dembski is a nut because he publishes somewhere other than in math journals, what does that say about you, who only publishes in a Yahoo group?”

    Oh, how the how-dare-you’s did fly! Ha!

  3. 3
    darth314 says:

    It is about time that the Darwinist strategy of ad hominem attacks to cover up the lack of evidence fro their “theory” is exposed!

Leave a Reply