Science

Discovery Institute’s study, which found that 90.9 % of Judge Jones’ section on whether ID is science was copied essentially verbatim from the ACLU’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, provoked much discussion. As expected, most Darwinist defenders of Judge Jones swept some of the criticisms of judicial copying aside while engaging in harsh ad hominem attacks against us. I have already responded to some Darwinist defenses of Judge Jones. A few other Darwinists have continued to respond, and still they fail to rebut my legal arguments and misunderstand the type of normal analogical and policy legal reasoning I employed. I close this debate with a new response to such Darwinist critics available at: “Analogical Legal Reasoning and Read More ›

Eminent philosopher of science Elliott Sober is always worth reading. He takes ID seriously and tries to offer principled critiques–and he’s even willing, if need be, to let his critiques slice both ways.

Robert Naeye at Sky & Telescope recently posted a simplistic rant against intelligent design. His logic is astoundingly bad, and his “attacks” on ID are the most elementary sort that have been rebutted too many times to mention. (But I will anyhow — go here, here, and here just to start.)

Here’s his big complaint:

Over at ARN’s ID Update David Tyler is considering the sad situation in science where ID is ruled out a priori and Darwinian explanations are ruled in. More importantly, it is good practice in science to consider multiple hypotheses and to find ways of evaluating them. One often notes arguments by Darwinians making the claim: “an intelligent designer would not do it this way”, always leading to rejection of the intelligent design hypothesis. Here is a case where there are good reasons, supported by a mathematical model, why an intelligent designer would do it that way. When any potential challenge to the Darwinian argument is excluded, are scientists hindered by limiting the scope of their research?

In 1970, Nobel laureate Jacques Monod called DNA the “secret of life” and said that the discovery of its structure and function — especially “the understanding of the random physical basis of mutation” — means that “the mechanism of Darwinism is at last securely founded” and that humans are “a mere accident.”[¹]

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 ›

The Scidev Network is run out of the UK and seems to be focused on Latin America, South America, Africa, the Middle-East and Asia.

The Science and Development Network (SciDev.Net) aims to provide reliable and authoritative information about science and technology for the developing world.

The organization “aims to provide reliable and authoritative information about science and technology for the developing world” with their goal being “to help both individuals and organisations in developing countries make informed decisions about how science and technology can improve economic and social development.” They have an interesting section of their website devoted to explaining to scientists and non-journalists how to work with the media and how to communicate their messages to reporters.

We reported a survey last year (“Poll: 60 Percent of Doctors Reject Darwinism“) that showed a surprising percentage of doctors simply don’t agree with Darwinian evolution. While doctors seem to be more apt to doubt Darwin’s theory than biologists, apparently biologists and scientists are more apt to be arrogant than the general public.
In a blog at The Panda’s Thumb, Steve Reuland writes:

It is true of course that doctors are more prone to being creationists than scientists in general and biologists in particular. This is to be fully expected, as it’s unlikely that you’re going to find any one group of people who are more convinced about evolution than biologists and other scientists. But the fact is, we see a steady increase in the acceptance of evolution when we move from the uneducated to the educated, and from those whose educations are irrelevant to evolution towards those who are more relevant.

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 ›