Over a decade ago, Phillip Johnson, in his public lectures, used to describe his critique of evolutionary naturalism as encapsulated in an analysis of three words: science, evolution, and creation. According to Johnson, by suitably equivocating about the meaning of these words, Darwinists were able to confuse the public and themselves into consenting to a theory that ordinary standards of evidence rendered completely insupportable. Read More ›
‘Intelligent Design’ Proponent Phillip Johnson, and How He Came to Be
By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 15, 2005; D01
Many of you have probably seen this, but here’s a high-res, full screen video of the Honda ad: GO-LINK. It’s one of the best examples I know of the coordination of natural forces by intelligence.
It seems that some of my readers are disgruntled because their comments are not appearing on this blog and, in some cases, because I’m removing them as users. Please have a look at my Comments about Comments from last month. One of the things I stressed there is don’t bore me. Darwinists tend to think that simply by telling an evolutionary story about some phenomenon that they have achieved remarkable insight. I don’t. There are plenty of other forums where I mix it up with Darwinists. Think of this blog as my playground. If you have to take a whiz, do it elsewhere.
Have a look at the following image and consider what your gut is telling you: (1) that nature is full of extravagant design that we should not expect on materialistic principles; (2) that nature has programmed us through evolution (e.g., sexual selection) to appreciate beauty in nature so that we can be good little robots and spread our genes. Here’s the image.
“Powerball lottery officials suspected fraud: how could 110 players in the March 30 drawing get five of the six numbers right? That made them all second-prize winners, and considering the number of tickets sold in the 29 states where the game is played, there should have been only four or five.” MORE.
Here’s an interesting piece in Nature about the possibility that anthropomorphism might still have some place in the natural sciences. Given the reductionism of the present age, such a move is both radical and atavistic, hearkening back the old notions of scala natura and humans as microcosms reflecting in miniature the truth of the macrocosm. Read More ›
DOBBS: New York, Kansas, and several other states are considering controversial proposals that would change the way our children learn about the creation of human beings, the earth and our universe. A relatively new theory, called intelligent design, suggests that Darwin’s theory of evolution can’t explain the existence of every life form on earth. Those who support intelligent design believe a higher being must have played some role. Now, proponents of intelligent design want evolution to be challenged in our classrooms. Read More ›