Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

May 4 “The Paradigm Project: Intelligent Design” film drops 7 PM PST


(Time zones.)

Here. (For some reason, we can’t embed the content just yet. )

Meet some of the world’s most dangerous minds—scientists who are daring to claim that nature provides compelling evidence of intelligent design. In this new video premiering May 4, join host Kutter Callaway as he investigates recent developments about the origin and evolution of life and what these developments may mean for humanity’s age-old search for faith and purpose.

The video features interviews with philosopher of science Stephen Meyer, author of Signature in the Cell, Darwin’s Doubt, and The Return of the God Hypothesis; molecular biologist Douglas Axe of Biola University, author of Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition that Life Is Designed; and molecular and cell biologist Jonathan Wells, author of The Myth of Junk DNA, Icons of Evolution, and Zombie Science.

This is a really intriguing article. I previously published something similar on Alfred Hitchcock, and I drew on additional material - https://blablawriting.net/essay-examples/alfred-hitchcock about his films to help me obtain a better grasp of the issue. I hope this helps. Now I can safely assert that I am a subject matter expert in this field.IvoryLawrance
February 24, 2022
06:00 AM
It's not good. Really you know, someone studying intelligent design science, should obviously start with studying how people intelligently designing stuff works. That is very obvious, that you should start with the direct evidence of intelligent designing that you have availabe. The fact is that intelligent design scientists, generally understand nothing about people intelligently designing stuff, which is the only intelligent designing they have direct evidence of. That's just a total disqualification of intelligent design science. To focus on the "master programmer", or God, is totally wrong. Not only from a scientific point of view, but also from a moral point of view. Because the focus on God this way, fudges up the reality of the ordinary human spirit. It is implicitly saying, everything on earth is material, but maybe there is / was some kind of other being master programmer who is spiritual. It is obviously ignoring the ordinary human spirit, which is a total sin. So here's how intelligent design science should be structured. First is the creationist conceptual scheme. 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact This achieves the established education goal of understanding the difference between matters of opinion, and matters of fact. That is of direct practical benefit in the ordinary lives of people, as like learning basic mathematics is. Then choice is explained as the center of intelligent design theory. The power of choice to potentially deal with many DNA configurations in an instance, by having them all as possibilities in a decision on them, is obviously an attractive solution for surmounting the mathematical improbabilities of obtaining a viable DNA configuration. Natural selection sorting out a few DNA configurations over a lifetime, is obviously totally weak in comparison to the instantenous power of choice to deal with many DNA configurations. So then intelligent design science should be focused on humans intelligently designing stuff, and stuff being intelligently designed in the DNA system. The DNA system interpreted as an information processing system, and the human mind interpreted as an extension of the DNA processing system. And in the culture around intelligent design science, evolutionists should be regarded as evil. None of this kumbaya, different points of view. The fact that the nazi's taught selection and evolution to the Hitler Youth, in explicit reference to Charles Darwin, is what defines the reputation of evolution theory. Nazism was based on regarding personal character of people as a matter of fact of biology. Creationism shows that personal character belongs in the subjective category. It is just totally evil for people to not have subjective regard for your emotions and personal character. For people to measure and calculate, and then state as fact what emotions and personal character you have, is utterly disgusting. Evolution theory is evil in it's rejection of creationism. And in it's co-opting of subjective terminology like "success", for objective science. Evolutionists should be thrown out from universities, as generally all theory which objectifies subjective terminology, should be thrown out.mohammadnursyamsu
May 5, 2021
08:04 AM

Leave a Reply