Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Thomas Woodward’s case for ID

arroba Email

Thomas Woodward’s case for ID:

He authored Doubts About Darwin (DAD – a 2004 Book of the Year–Christianity Today magazine) and co-edited Darwinism Under the Microscope with Dr. James Gills. He has published articles in Christianity Today and Moody Monthly. His sequel to DAD, Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design was released in the Fall of 2006. He also coauthored with Dr. James Gills The Mysterious Epigenome: What Lies Beyond DNA (2012).

Comments are disabled at the vid, so feel free to comment here*. What ya think? (Personally, I wish they would lose the obvious churchy background. )

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

*Politely—this site is NOT called After the Bar Closes. We borf trolls wherever we find them.

Some time ago Tom sent me autographed copies of his books which I read from cover to cover, and which I treasure to this day. He invited me to be interviewed on his radio show, which I did. Just prior to the interview I called him up. He was conducting a class (finals week, as I recall) and I told my story to him and his class (on speaker phone) about my conversion from militant atheism to Christianity, and the role ID played in that conversion. It is said that one can't be argued into The Kingdom, and I suppose to some extent that is true, but reason, evidence, science, mathematics, and apologetics certainly played a major role in my conversion. I still give a lecture I entitle, "I no longer have enough faith to be an atheist." Rationality, alone, has permanently inoculated me from ever returning to the darkness of my former atheism, and people like Tom Woodward have supplied the vaccination. Gil GilDodgen
A good intro vid for the people. I like the fossil stuff. It makes a good case against evo because some things look the same as in the fossil record despite the long time claimed they have existed. However the biggest point about the fossil record and biological change is that it doesn't have anything to say about biological change unless one accepts the geological presumptions behind its deposition origin. so this means its irrelevant to bio sci investigation. Its geo sci THAT makes a conclusion about bio change. Yet not bio and not sci bio. Thats the bigger evolutionist historical important error. ID and even yEC brothers also screw this up. Robert Byers
OT: Locking mechanism found for 'scissors' that cut DNA - Dec. 24, 2014 Excerpt: Alyssa Ward, a graduate student in Desiderio's laboratory, says that the system works like the bolt on a door. The PHD piece is the lock, H3K4me3 is the key and the deleted piece is the actual bolt. When all of the pieces are normal, H3K4me3 unlocks the PHD segment, which moves the bolt so that the door can open— i.e., so that RAG can cut. If there is a mutation in the PHD, the key won't fit the lock, so the door remains bolted. But, if the lock or bolt is removed entirely, the door can open and close freely. http://phys.org/news/2014-12-mechanism-scissors-dna.html bornagain77
OT: Complete Fossil Sponges - 83.5 - 71.3 million years ago - pictures A very rare occurrence can be found in a unique Cretaceous fossil deposit in North Central Germany. A variety of highly unusual SEA SPONGE FOSSILS dating from a Campanian Era sea of the Cretaceous were preserved in FULL THREE DIMENSIONAL PRESERVATION retaining delicate anatomy seldom seen in prehistoric sponge fossils.,,, Sponges belong to the scientific group called PORIFERA. These creatures have an origin that dates back to over 500 million years ago. http://www.paleodirect.com/imgset3/spngrf1.jpg http://www.paleodirect.com/pgset2/sp004.htm Ancient sponge fossil http://www.paleodirect.com/imgset3/sp004gh.jpg Modern sponge http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_fSwq5if0Fs/UIhOSKgwFyI/AAAAAAAAADk/YuYAcBkVb9Q/s320/57c.jpg Barrel and Chimney Sponges Filtering Water - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7E1rq7zHLc Dr. Stephen Meyer: Darwin's Dilemma - The Significance of Sponge Embryos - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPs8E7y0ySs bornagain77
Denyse, thanks for posting the "Nazkine" edited version of a talk I gave in Hawaii in November, but to be clear to any who listen to this presentation, I did not use the title "The Case for Intelligent Design." That was the title that the editor used when publishing the talk. My original title for this talk was less focused exclusively on ID; it was generally a reply to the New Atheists... "Is God a Delusion?" tomward

Leave a Reply