In the recent discussion on this blog and elsewhere about the Templeton Foundation distancing itself from ID, there’s been no mention that in 1999 the Templeton Foundation had a brief dalliance with ID. That year, in Santa Fe, Paul Davies convened a private conference titled “Complexity, Information, and Design: An Appraisal.” In attendence at the conference were Sir John Templeton himself, Charles Harper, Paul Davies, Charles Bennett, Gregory Chaitin, Niels Gregersen, Stuart Kauffman, Harold Morowitz, Ian Stewart, Laura Landweber, and yours truly. The proceedings of that conference then appeared with Oxford in 2003, edited by Niels Gregersen, under the new title From Complexity to Life: On the Emergence of Life and Meaning. Design, however, figured centrally in the discussions of the original conference. Moreover, the original title of the conference, “Complexity, Information, and Design,” was mine — I recommended it to Charles Harper, who then mentioned it to Paul Davies, who then ran with it.

At the time, I was in regular touch with Charles Harper, a senior administrator with the Templeton Foundation and currently a public voice of the foundation expressing disapproval of ID. He had received a preprint of my book The Design Inference, had it vetted in-house (notably by British statistician David Bartholomew), and found it not entirely without merit. Indeed, at the time we discussed expanding Templeton’s “portfolio” to include some representation of ID. A year or two later, Templeton interest in ID dried up. The official story has always been that ID is bad science, bad theology, and bad politics. But I would suggest that the real reason is Templeton’s craving for respectability among the scientific elites, and ID, for now, is too iconoclastic for Templeton’s comfort.

It might interest readers of this blog to know that Charles Harper and I had explored a much bigger follow-up conference to the 1999 conference in Santa Fe. What follows is a conference proposal that I sent to Harper in 1999. At the time, he was interested in making this conference happen. I would still be interested in doing a conference like this and would welcome Templeton’s involvement. Read More ›

Here’s a pro-ID cartoon that appeared in the Tokyo Sekai Nippo:

Mustafa Akyol presents a report on Turkey’s first ID conference here. Speakers included Paul Nelson, David Berlinski, Mustafa, John Lennox, and Alpaslan Açıkgenç.

For those not familiar with Mustafa, you can listen to lectures by him at the MacLaurin Institute website (scroll down and look for his name). He shared the podium with UD’s Denyse O’Leary during one lecture.

Read More ›

We often hear biologists claim the theory of evolution is as well tested as the theory of gravity. What we don’t often hear is physicists claim the theory of gravity is as well tested as the theory of evolution. Click here to learn why. 😆

On another UD thread there was discussion about an amazing piece of biological molecular machinery and the deficiencies of Darwinian processes to account for it. The bottom line is that Darwinists are looking in the wrong place for an explanation (random variation and natural selection), just as alchemists did when trying to figure out how to transform lead into gold (chemistry doesn’t deal with the nucleus of the atom). They both represent entirely inapplicable explanatory categories for the problems under consideration.
Read More ›

The act, often abbreviated “PERA” (Public Expression of Religion Act) was introduced introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2006 and was passed by a strong majority. It was not considered by the Senate in 2006. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) has reintroduced it to the Senate for 2007. The act prohibits the award of attorney’s fees in 1st amendment establishment clause cases which are characterized by citizens suing the government (federal or local) for things like having a cross in a city seal, a monument with the ten commandments in a courthouse, or (directly relevant to ID) putting a sticker in a textbook saying evolution is a theory not a fact (Cobb County), or telling a biology class that there Read More ›

Remember to use the secret handshake whenever you need to get an ID paper past the Darwinian goalies: “Although these observations do not undermine Darwin’s theory, …” ABSTRACT: According to classical evolutionary theory, phenotypic variation originates from random mutations that are independent of selective pressure. However, recent findings suggest that organisms have evolved mechanisms to influence the timing or genomic location of heritable variability. Hypervariable contingency loci and epigenetic switches increase the variability of specific phenotypes; error-prone DNA replicases produce bursts of variability in times of stress. Interestingly, these mechanisms seem to tune the variability of a given phenotype to match the variability of the acting selective pressure. Although these observations do not undermine Darwin’s theory, they suggest that selection Read More ›

Riffing off Joey Campana’s valuable backgrounder on the REAL relationship between the Templeton Foundation andID, Denyse O’Leary suggests that there is a power struggle  going on over at Templeton, with funding for ID as a key bone of contention. How else to reconcile the views of honcho Charles Harper and honchess Pamela Thompson? They are not singing from the same hymnbook.

For those who missed it, check out this animation presented by DaveScot.

I find the phenomenon of the DNA supercoiling problem and its biochemical solution even more compelling than examples like protein synthesis and the bacterial flagellum, since twisted ropes are familiar to everyone. This might make for another highly persuasive ID mascot.
Read More ›

Here’s a just released report that gives the lie to claims that the Templeton Foundation has uniformly eschewed support of ID research: In the past few years, the media has created confusion about the scholarly track record of the intelligent design (ID) research community, as related to funding from the John Templeton Foundation (JTF). The JTF is a philanthropic organization that funds research exploring science, philosophy, spirituality, theology, and their interplay. Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president of the JTF, was a central figure in this media drama, as he was falsely reported in the New York Times as claiming that ID scholars failed to respond to requests for grant proposals from the JTF. This false claim has been Read More ›

As part of accepting his Oscar for best science fiction movie about how burning less fossil fuel will save the world, Al Gore burns 3,000 gallons of fossil fuel in a private jet to travel from his 10,000 square foot Tennessee mansion to Hollywood and back just to get handed a trophy. We salute Al Gore for so well representing everything we’ve come to expect from bleeding heart liberals. Way to go Al “Do As I Say Not As I Do” Gore!

Update: Tennessee Center for Policy Research finds Gore’s mansion uses 20 times more energy than the average home. Read More ›

How much more difficult will it be to get an endowed ID chair at a major state university? Thanks to a more than $1-million donation from a gay male couple who hope one day to marry in California, UCLA’s law school is planning to establish what is described as the nation’s first endowed academic chair in sexual orientation law. The cash gift from John McDonald and Rob Wright will help fund the research of a still-to-be-named professor at UCLA Law School’s Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy. That 5-year-old think tank investigates such topics as anti-homosexual discrimination, the impact of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies and the demographics of same-sex couples who have adopted children. Read More ›

Is there only one Designer of life or are their multiple designers? Here is James Shapiro’s take: Bacteria are small but not stupid:
Cognition, natural genetic engineering, and sociobacteriology

Bacteria as natural genetic engineers….

This remarkable series of observations requires us to revise basic ideas about biological information processing and recognize that even the smallest cells are sentient beings.

In the case of engineered products we often might think of designers (plural) versus a designer (singular). It may be that some Ultimate Intelligence created the universe and (by way of extension) engineers. But even for those of us who accept that there is an Ultimate Intelligence, it is not customary to say that God made automobiles and airplanes and genetically engineered food.

Can we find proximal sources of intelligent design of life without appealing directly to the Ultimate Intelligence? Even though I personally believe God was the Ultimate Creator of the universe and hence even the creator of the Wright Brothers, I generally still identify airplanes as the proximal intelligent design of the Wright Brothers. A similar issue may arise in identifying the Designer or designers of life on Earth.
Read More ›

Michael Shermer valiantly argued the thesis of his book, Why Darwin Matters in a debate with Bill Dembski, February 21, 2007.

Shermer said:

No one, and I mean no one, working in the field is debating whether natural selection is the driving force behind evolution.

Shermer defended his thesis honorably without resorting to any smear or ridicule of ID proponents. Nevertheless, despite his valor and commitment, Shermer fought and continues to fight a losing battle. A new book from MIT press controverts Shermer’s claims:

Natural selection is commonly interpreted as the fundamental mechanism of evolution. Questions about how selection theory can claim to be the all-sufficient explanation of evolution often go unanswered by today’s neo-Darwinists, perhaps for fear that any criticism of the evolutionary paradigm will encourage creationists and proponents of intelligent design.
Read More ›

O’Leary looks at the spate of anti-God books and other promotions for the new Church of Atheism, and suspects that atheism was way more fun in the days when it was just a quiet, Godless Sunday at home.

Now, the church – as we all know – is the weak point of any religion. And when all you’ve got is a church – and remember, these people are supposed to be “beyond” belief – well, to me, that sounds a bit like getting married and finding out that you have no spouse but two mothers-in-law … and more too, if you want them!

Read More ›