Intelligent Design

The Chronicle of Higher Education is currently running a refreshing op-ed piece entitled, “Why Can’t We Discuss Intelligent Design?,” by J. Scott Turner, arguing for open discussion of ID on university campuses. The twist: Dr. Turner is a an associate professor of biology at the State University of New York’s College of Environmental Science and Forestry who thinks intelligent design is “wrongheaded,” but nevertheless deserves to be discussed in academia.

Spoof.Com has a funny article, “Flaws Found in Intelligent Design Theory,” poking fun at dysteleological arguments against ID. The parody has biochemist “Dr. Jack Harvey” complaining about the fact that penguins can’t fly and that they must live in a very harsh environment. “Dr. Harvey” goes on to complain that humans aren’t designed because they sometimes have large noses and illness. The article said, “Some scientists say that Harvey’s claims bolster the ridiculous idea of ‘evolution’.” If only this type of thing really were a spoof. Unfortunately, Darwinists make these fallacious arguments all the time. For example, today at Uncommon Descent, William Dembski discusses how various scientist have mocked the Christian hymn “Battle Hymn of the Republic” by singing about Read More ›

A student note in Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion agrees that Judge Jones overextended the judicial arm when he decided on the question of whether ID is science. Observing that Judge Jones correctly found that the Dover School Board members had religious motives, Philip A. Italiano then explains that the ruling should have stopped its analysis there and not extended into broad questions about the definition of science. Italiano recognizes that the Kitzmiller facts did not present the appropriate case in which to decide whether ID is science: Perhaps there theoretically could exist a factual scenario in which the motives of those who write intelligent design into a public school science curriculum are nonreligious, and in which the only Read More ›

If you haven’t been keeping up with the ID The Future podcasts, you will want to make doing so one of your new year’s resolutions. IDTF has become quite popular and recently has started producing occasional video podcasts as well. Today there is a short podcast about how to properly define and explain what the theory of intelligent design is. Last Friday IDTF featured a short video clip from Dr. Stephen Meyer’s recent appearance on the PBS program Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg. Previous podcasts have included: These are just a few of the IDTF podcasts from 2006. There is a complete archive of every podcast currently available here.

Part I of this series discussed two exciting papers which support the claims of intelligent design (ID), and in Part II, I discussed how the molecular data is failing to support Neo-Darwinian common descent with modification. This final post of a 3-part series recounting some interesting scientific discoveries reported since the Kitzmiller ruling will discuss how Darwinists have tried to oversell evolution to the public while ID-proponents have continued to do some exciting research. While researching protein structure at various institutes in the UK, Douglas Axe, now at the Biologic Institute in Redmond, Washington, published two peer-reviewed papers that are cited by anti-evolutionists as evidence that intelligent design is backed by serious science.”Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes Read More ›

Part I of this series discussed two exciting papers which support the claims of intelligent design (ID). While ID is certainly compatible with common ancestry, molecular evidence against the Neo-Darwinian icon, “Darwin’s Tree of Life,” continues to mount. This paper will discuss how molecular data is posing great challenges to the Darwinist assumption that life forms a nested hierarchy. Perhaps with time, common design will be considered as a serious option.

It’s been just over a year since the Kitzmiller ruling, and over a series of 3 posts, I’d like to briefly highlight some scientific discoveries reported since that time: Random mutation and blind selection may have trouble on the horizon. This will become especially clear in the second post of this series which will discuss the difficulty Neo-Darwinism is having constructing robust phylogenetic trees.

Last summer, 49 scientists (mostly biologists) from the University of Virginia co-authored a letter to University of Virginia (UVa) Magazine arguing that “[n]ot only does evolution clash with religious dogma, but it undermines the significance that some would like to give to the place of humans in the universe.” Both Salvador Cordova and I wrote letters responding to their anti-religious mischaracterizations of intelligent design. UVa Magazine has now kindly printed abbreviated versions of our letters. Salvador Cordova has discussed these at UncommonDescent, and we also reprint our original letters below in full: I was mentioned in the article ‘Ultimate Questions’ which sparked the recent flurry of letters to the editor over intelligent design (ID). I hope to set the record Read More ›

An article in the latest issue of New Scientist highlights the exciting work of scientists at the Biologic Institute, a new research lab conducting biological research and experiments from an intelligent design perspective. While writer Celeste Biever can’t suppress her visceral pro-Darwin bias from the story (which carries the dismissive title “Intelligent design: The God Lab”), Biever’s article is going to make it very difficult for Darwinists to continue to assert that scientists who support intelligent design aren’t conducting scientific research.

As Biever’s article grudgingly makes clear, “researchers [at the Biologic Institute lab] work at benches lined with fume hoods, incubators and microscopes—a typical scene in this up-and-coming biotech hub.” The article also reports on some of the research projects underway, and even describes Darwinian biologist Ken Miller as conceding that the topics being explored “are of interest to science”:

On Evangelical Outpost, Joe Carter has a post about our study on Judge Jones’ copying of the ACLU’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Darwinist bloggers Ed Brayton and Joe McFaul participated in the thread critiquing the study. My responses to them showed how Darwinist critiques are off-base and misrepresent the study, as well as the nature of our arguments. I include some excepts from my responses here to help readers see why the Darwinist critiques of the Judge Jones’ study don’t hold up: A Final Note on DictaIn conclusion, if anyone doubts that courts regularly cite to dicta from other cases to make their arguments, consider how the U.S. Supreme Court relied heavily upon the famous “mystery Read More ›