Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy, with comments


David Berlinski and The Deniable Darwin

Listen here.

On today’s episode of ID the Future, mathematician and consummate skeptic David Berlinski shares with Discovery President Bruce Chapman about his award-winning essays from Commentary Magazine and the answers that are unacceptable to the scientific community.

The essays first published in Commentary Magazine are now available in The Deniable Darwin & Other Essays , a new book published by Discovery Institute Press, where nothing is exempt from Berlinski’s famous skepticism, excluding neither Darwinism nor intelligent design from his critical eye. The 32 essays included in this volume span fifteen years of wit and insight. Visit the website for more information.

More about the book:

When it comes to some of life’s most profound questions—the origins of life, of matter, of the universe itself—does modern science already have everything all figured out? Many scientists would like us to think they are mere steps away from solving all the deep enigmas of physical existence.

Consummate skeptic David Berlinski shows that all such confidence is at best a bluff.

I should say so. Earlier this year I was listening to a committed materialist, theoretical physicist Larry Krauss of Arizona State U, explain in detail, exactly how the world is going to end.

For the life of me, I couldn’t figure out how he differs from the hellfire sect banging on my door inconveniently on Saturday morning, handing me a tract explaining … how the world is going to end.

Krauss says he has “science” on his side. Yes, but … . science has changed its mind on a number of issues many times in the past few centuries, when its theories proved false.

So has the hellfire sect, though the history is less often recorded.

Look, I am a Catholic Christian and am busy and don’t know how the world is going to end.

Onto the next pod:

2. You should also listen to this one:

How Information Theory Is Taking Intelligent Design Mainstream: An Interview With Dr. William Dembski

This episode of ID the Future continues Casey Luskin’s interviews Dr. William Dembski on his new peer-reviewed paper, “Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success,” published in IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans.

How does this peer-reviewed scientific paper support intelligent design? Listen in as Dr. Dembski shares how his research tests evolutionary theory using information theory and the follow-up paper that he and fellow researcher Dr. Robert Marks are working on.

For more information, read the paper at EvoInfo.org.

Darwinism, as fronted today, is a bankrupt idea. But lots of public payrollers front it into their retirement by sounding alarms about the awful things that will happen if anyone is permitted to question it.

The fact is, natural selection is an immense conservative, not creative, force in nature. As I have said before, it explains why wild wolves of the northern forest* tend to look alike but tame dogs – subject only to intelligent (?) design could be dachsunds, chihuahuas, or Newfoundland rescue dogs.

I can only attribute the current belief in the supposedly immense creative powers of natural selection to urbanization, indoctrination in schools, the desire to avoid conflict, and atheist superstition.

*Note: Yes, I did once meet a wolf. He sure looked like a wolf to me, but he was part of a sled dog pack. When a typical pack bark started up, he could only howl. Okay, he was a wolf, as I had guessed. (In general, wolves do not bark.) I did not rat him or his keeper out. Look, when you need a job, you need a job. Each sled pack member gets frozen bricks of chicken parts daily. And every form of refuge has its price. Also, there is no unemployment insurance lineup for wolves.

3. The Origins of Intelligent Design: Countering Darwinist Urban Legends

Listen here

On this episode of ID the Future, CSC’s Robert Crowther takes aim at Darwinist misinformation about the origins of intelligent design. Crowther makes mincemeat of the assertion that the term “intelligent design” was fabricated following the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court case, showing instead that the term is over 100 years old. He also targets the old Darwinist canard that terms like micro- and macro-evolution were made up by Darwin’s critics.

For more information on the history of intelligent design, read CSC Senior Fellow Jonathan Witt’s “The Origin of Intelligent Design.”

As Darwinism becomes increasingly unbelievable in the light of new information, it is no surprise that urban legends start up, to defend it. But it is useful to know which charges some overheated person is making at a public meeting are in fact urban legends. Remember, that person may have been pumped in advance by a Darwinist or Christian Darwinist operative, and may not even realize that the Truths they have been told are merely legends, so go lightly over the earth. Also, remember, many teachers are compelled to recite Darwinist nonsense (or other nonsense, possibly) to keep their jobs. No reason to assume they believe it.

Whatever happened to the days when teachers were considered professionals, like doctors and lawyers?

4. The Real Frankenstein: Giovanni Aldini

Listen here.

On this special Halloween edition of ID the Future, John West shares the inspiration for Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.

In his book, Darwin Day in America, West examines the experiments that Italian scientist Giovanni Aldini conducted on human corpses. His gruesome experiments provided the inspiration for Frankenstein and foreshadowed the rise of a virulent strain of materialism that attempted to use science to reduce human beings to mere matter in motion.

Okay, Hallowe’en is over and we have mostly got the window soap message pranks and toilet paper pranks out of our lives, but West’s book is much recommended by me. He really helped me understand how materialism came to be a dominant force in society.

5. Darwin’s Predictions With Cornelius Hunter

Listen here:

On this episode of ID the Future, Cornelius Hunter is interviewed by Casey Luskin about his website, DarwinsPredictions.com , and his blog, Darwin’s God:

Listen in as Dr. Hunter examines the evidence of evolution’s failure as a theory and answers the objections evolutionists raise to his arguments.

Well, which of Darwin’s predictions ever did come true? I’d be interested to hear.

I don’t know what’s true, but I know what isn’t. And I hate seeing Brit toff Darwin compared to refugee scientist Einstein or emancipator Abe Lincoln.

@ Dr. Dembski, the article "The Search for a Search" isn't any longer linked from R. Marks list of publication, and EIL seems to have dropped the article, too. What has happened? DiEb
@Dr. Dembski, Here, I added an example to illustrate why I think that the formulation - and the proof - of the Horizontal New Free Lunch theorem apply only to the trivial case of a guess, but not to searches in general. DiEb
In his podcast, W. Dembski announced that the paper A Search for a Search (a collaboration with R. Marks) in to be published soon. I've quite a problem with this article (see here or here), so I'm interested in the progress of its peer- review. Anything new? DiEb
Denyse - Yes, and God created whiskey so we Irish wouldn't take over the world. And good Catholic families - so we could try! MConnely
Adel DiBagno, if one is an Irish-descendant, one can't help it. Just as your ancestors survived serious problems, so did mine. You have every right to be proud of your ancestors' achievements. If someone wants to be Irish, so far as I know, they usually can be. If they want to land immigrant in Canada, they usually can. [Note: Not that this applies to you, just a routine warning: We have no time for criminals, vengeance seekers, terrorists, or revolutionaries, and our reputation for niceness here is vastly overrated. We love people who just want to live in peace and better their lives. Otherwise ... ] O'Leary
What is it with all of these Irish-descendant persons? O'Leary, Mahoney, MConnely. Occasions of sin, indeed. We Italians have demonstrated repeatedly that we can survive those occasions. Adel DiBagno
Mr. Mahony, I believe you are correct sir. The morals of the world have gone straight downhill since Vatican II. I don't remember having trouble with evolutionists when we were saying the Mass in Latin. MConnely
Your comment about the payload is a telling one. Science that is useful and productive is to be encouraged and applauded. But undirected speculation is, in my view, an occasion of sin. Origins research not conducted under appropriate guidance will inevitably lead to ungodly conclusions and is to be condemned and, as a political matter, discouraged. P. Mahoney
PMahoney at 1: I am not well educated in theology, so was not aware that Pius IX had condemned this stuff. But of course he was right to do so. Any reasonable person could condemn it. Once a scientist begins to sound like the local hellfire sect distributing tracts on Saturday morning, we must know that something is going wrong. For the record, I met many sincere scientists - who were humble in the face of the facts - at that same meeting, which lasted four days. I learned a great deal of value and hope to pass it on. But none of those scientists said a word about theology or politics or claimed that my fellow citizens and myself (Canadians) were afraid of science. Good thing, because that just is not true. Canadians typically want to hear what the payload is. Remember, we built the Canadarm on the Space Shuttle. That was all about payload. O'Leary
Your remarks about Kraus underscore the deficiencies of naturalism and unenlightened rationalism. (As a Catholic, I'm sure you have in mind their condemnation by Pius IX). Kraus typifies the narrow empirical mindset that is constantly on its knees searching for the next grubby datum, when reason and revelation are there to show the eternal truths. That is why I admire Dr Dembski's work (though I imagine we differ on matters doctrinal!): by giving us logical proof of design, he has made it unnecessary to join the Darwinists in their foetid laboratories. Excelsior! P. Mahoney

Leave a Reply