[From a colleague:] The way a scientific theory gets empirically established is not by showing that the evidence requires that precise theory. That is an impossible task–there are always infinitely many theories that fit the data. Rather, it gets established through showing that the evidence discredits the main alternative theories but does not discredit this theory. Read More ›
Rob Pennock, as the witness of the hour in the Dover case, is citing me shamelessly. According to the local paper (go here), the quote of the day is: “So long as methodological naturalism sets the ground rules for how the game of science is to be played, (intelligent design) has no chance (in) Hades.”  William Dembski, senior fellow at the pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute. So who does set the ground rules for science? And why should be trust Darwinists like Pennock? Pennock lost my trust a long time ago (go here).
In The Design Revolution, I characterized theory change as follows: Read More ›
Michael Shermer had an op-ed in the LA Times a week and a half ago. I’m reprinting a fuller version of it here with his permission and including some commentary in italics. Thanks, Michael. Read More ›
THE CASE AGAINST INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name
—THE NEW REPUBLIC—
by Jerry Coyne
Post date: 08.11.05
Issue date: 08.22.05
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050822&s=coyne082205
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 ›
I started blogging end of March 2005, beginning at www.idthefuture.com and now with my blog, Uncommon Descent (I intend to do a lot of cross-posting). Since I’d like Uncommon Descent to provide a complete record of my blogging activity, I include here my prior posts at IDthefuture that have thus far not been cited here: