. . . But the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Ronald Numbers viewed the phenomenon as a growing global issue, saying intelligent design had made significant inroads in Australia, throughout Latin America, in Korea and most surprisingly, Russian and even China, which remains a communist state. . . . MORE
Comment #2 is the winning entry. It’s the closest to what I was looking for, though it’s still a long way from the indirect Darwinian pathways that supposedly led to the highly integrated molecular machines of the sort described by Michael Behe. Most of the entries focused on evolving a structure to improve a given function. The point of this exercise, however, was to document evolutionary pathways in which functions and structures change over time. I awarded the winning entry $150.
Biological evolution is supposed to describe a gradual process that can produce marvelous adapations from simple precursors (e.g., the mammalian eye from a light-sensitive spot). But what about technological evolution? In the history of human technology, what is the longest chain of gradual changes that transforms one system into another. Read More ›
Here’s a quick note from a regular PT/talk.origins contributor. Let me encourage commenters on this blog to add to this thread their favorite contemptuous remarks by Darwinists. Look to the Brits for the best examples of snootiness. Read More ›
KU withdraws intelligent design course Thursday, December 1, 2005 . . . “It was not my intent when I wrote the e-mails, but I understand now that these words have offended many on this campus and beyond, and for that I take full responsibility. I made a mistake in not leading by example, in this student organization e-mail forum, the importance of discussing differing viewpoints in a civil and respectful manner.” . . . MORE
Watch this 11 minute PBS interview with Dr Stephen C. Meyer explaining Intelligent Design Theory:https://www.discovery.org/v/the-tavis-smiley-show/ Watch this 2 minute BBC interview with Dr. Richard Dawkins explaining Darwin’s Theory:http://www.arn.org/docs/dawkins.mpg
Don’t Fear the Designer Competing philosophies and beliefs. By Tom Bethell December 01, 2005, 8:29 a.m. Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bethell200512010829.asp
Here’s a report from a colleague on Ken Miller’s talk yesterday evening at Sacred Heart University (“Intelligent Design and the Battle for America’s Schools: Why Darwin Still Matters” — go here for the press release):
Earlier tonight I attended a presentation by Ken Miller at Sacred Heart University. It appears he got a pretty good turnout. I could only attend for about 45 min and I didn’t take any notes. Here are a few quick thoughts about the style and substance of his talk.
As far as style goes, Miller gave a good and entertaining presentation. It was very professional, slick, and colorful; he makes very effective use of various technological and visual aides; at times he was even funny. Indeed, on several occasions he had the audience cracking up. The only annoying part of his talk, in terms of style (more on substance momentarily), was his continual bragging about his credentials, how many books he has written, his qualifications, etc. I’ve never seen so many pictures and slides of the presenter! Overall I’d have to say he put on a darn good show. Read More ›
Under God or Under Darwin? Intelligent Design could be a bridge between civilizations. By Mustafa Akyol December 01, 2005, 8:17 a.m. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/akyol200512010817.asp . . . In a furious New Republic cover story, “The Case Against Intelligent Design,” Jerry Coyne joins in this hype and implies that all non-Christians, including Muslims, should be alarmed by this supposedly Christian theory of beginnings that “might offend those of other faiths.” Little does he realize that if there is any view on the origin of life that might seriously offend other faiths — including mine, Islam — it is the materialist dogma: the assumptions that God, by definition, is a superstition, and that rationality is inherently atheistic. . . .
Here’s an email from someone I banned from this blog. If you can’t see why I’ve lost all patience with people like this, then you need to be spending your time elsewhere in cyberspace. William, Is there the slightest possibility you might ‘open’ your ID forum to dissenting views? You have some very dedicated apostles stroking your online ego, and insulating these young scientists from the ‘Borg’ is very Christian of you indeed; however, to many of us on the ‘outside’ your questionable editing practices suggest little more than self-aggrandizing censorship. You are a curiosity, your theory a religious oddity, and your ‘designer’ is wearing your hat. Respectfully, [snip] As for this blog’s commenting policies, go here and here.
http://www.fields.utoronto.ca/audio/05-06/public_lectures/kadanoff
[Updated links 30nov05:
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/nation/13286369.htm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Creationism_Class.html]
[From a colleague:] The University of Kansas is flexing its anti-religion muscle again, this time by announcing the introduction of a new course in the Religion department: “Creationism, Intelligent Design and Other Religious Mythologies.”
To be taught by a professor of religion, no scientists allowed. God forbid that the students would hear both sides of a controversy presented in their strongest terms by experts.
When protestations arise from those who sense a somewhat disengenuous linking of ID (or creationism) with Mythology, the Provost self-righteously says, “The course title is not meant to offend any religion or belief, KU Provost David Shulenburger said Tuesday. He explained in a written statement that “myth” and “mythology” are common in the academic study of religion.” Read More ›
Not much new here except for some observations about my time at Baylor, observations I was finally in a position to share, not being on the Baylor faculty anymore. –WmAD
William Dembski: An Intelligent Voice in the Design Debate
An interview by Glenda Mathes
(appeared in the 28sep05 vol24, no2
issue of Christian Renewal)Dr. William A. Dembski is one of the most articulate and productive proponents of intelligent design theory. With advanced degrees in mathematics, philosophy and theology, Dembski’s intellectual arguments are making inroads within the scientific community while a more general audience finds his writing understandable.
An astute debater and prolific author, Dembski has written, co-authored and edited several books including: The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems, Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing and Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design.
Dr. Dembski is the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, and the executive director of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design.
Christian Renewal recently had the opportunity to interview him via email.
CR: Dr. Dembski, you write in The Design Revolution: “Intelligent design is not creationism and it is not naturalism. Nor is it a compromise or synthesis of these positions. It simply follows the empirical evidence of design wherever it leads. Intelligent design is a third way” (pp. 26-27). Can you briefly explain for Christian Renewal readers how intelligent design differs from creationism and naturalism and what it offers as a “third way”?
Read More ›
FAVORITE QUOTE: “Edwards says conservative evangelicals are responsible for the framing of the intelligent design debate. ‘Evangelicals thrive on being embattled — their identity is tied up into being attacked and their defending principles,’ Edwards says. ‘Being attacked by science only validates their position.'”
Let me just add that being attacked by theologians like Edwards further validates my identity and position.
INTELLECTUAL CURRENTS: Intelligent Design Finds Few Sympathizers at HDS
Published On Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:16 AM
By SARAH E. F. MILOV
Crimson Staff Writerhttp://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510153
When Harvard was founded in 1636, the University was charged with educating ministers in creationism and other central tenets of Christianity.
Three hundred and sixty-nine years later, in the midst of a national debate about God’s place in the classroom, even the University’s divinity faculty — the heirs to that theological mission — reject the latest argument for God’s role in creation: “intelligent design.” Read More ›
[From a colleague and friend:] D’aucuns disent aveugle l’horloger qui a concu la vie, mais c’est son horologe qui nous frappe tous de cecite: les uns aveugles par tant d’intelligence, les autres etant les pires aveugles parce qu’ils n’en veulent rien voir. [Some call blind the watchmaker who conceived of life, but it is his watch that strikes all of us blind: some are blinded by so much intelligence, others are blind in the worst way because they do not wish to see it at all.] —Rosine Chandebois, Pour en finir avec le darwinisme [To Be Done With Darwinism] (Editions Espaces, 1993). (Chandebois is an experimental embryologist at the University of Marseille.)
In September, Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show devoted several programs to the topic of evolution (“Evolution, Schmevolution — Who’s Right, Who’s Full of It”). What’s more, I appeared on one of those programs (go here and here). In those programs, Stewart & Co. had some lines that were not only funny but also memorable. The one that sticks out poked fun at ID: “We’re not saying that the designer is God, just someone with the same skill-set.” That line is now being reused on the debate circuit, with Eugenie Scott, for instance, deploying it this November at a debate at Boston University (go here). Although the line is funny, it is not accurate. God’s skill-set includes not just ordering matter Read More ›