At my prompting, Beliefnet has now reverted to the original title (go here). [Earlier I had written:] After President Bush’s recently stated public support for teaching intelligent design, an editor at Beliefnet asked me to respond to it. Moreover, she asked me to clarify where I stand on creationism. I responded with a brief essay that appears on my designinference.com website (go here). I titled that essay “Why President Bush Got It Right about Intelligent Design.” That essay has now appeared on Beliefnet, where it was re-titled — without my knowledge or permission — “Intelligent Design, Yes; Creationism, No” (go here). This new title is contentious and misleading. My target in this essay is Darwinian materialism. I discuss creationism in Read More ›

My good friend and colleague Jeffrey Schwartz (along with Mario Beauregard and Henry Stapp) has just published a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society that challenges the materialism endemic to so much of contemporary neuroscience. By contrast, it argues for the irreducibility of mind (and therefore intelligence) to material mechanisms. Read More ›

The Little Engine That Could… Undo Darwinism
By Dan Peterson

What critics of Intelligent Design theory can’t accept is that its proponents are making scientific, fact-based arguments.

The American Spectator, June 2005 Read More ›

Denis Alexander is a molecular biologist with very solid credentials who is based at Cambridge University. He is also a theistic evolutionist who has written several books on the relation between science and Christian faith. His most recent is Rebuilding the Matrix (with Zondervan). Even though he is a critic of ID, he helped one of my ID colleagues who got shafted by another Cambridge lab. I therefore feel a sense of gratitude to him. Read More ›

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 ›