Science and Culture Today | Page 1380 | Discovering Design in Nature

Late last year senior fellow Jonathan Wells visited Japan to deliver two speeches on intelligent design and evolution.

Photo source: Discovery Institute.

Dr. Wells’ first lecture (in English, with simultaneous translation into Japanese) was to an international philosophy conference. More than 150 people attended, including scientists and scholars from Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, India, Taiwan, Greece and Mongolia. A few Americans were present, along with participants from Bangladesh, France, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic (who brought along a copy of the new Czech edition of Icons of Evolution). According to Wells, the audience was polite, the questions were penetrating and the Q&A was lively.

A student at Boise State University recently published an opinion article in the campus newspaper, the Arbiter Online, defending intelligent design. In the article Aaron Vandenbos observed that there is a difference between how ID-proponents and evolutionists behave when in debate: “In my experience, IDists, knowing that they are the underdog, are careful to be objective and factual. On the other hand, I have noticed that evolutionists tend to spend most of their time questioning their opponents’ credibility, belittling their opponents’ intelligence, demolishing straw men and then doing victory laps.” He then explained that evolutionists have defined the terms of this debate so as to settle it before it has even begun. Mr. Vandenbos wrote: Now, I certainly do not Read More ›

A couple weeks ago I watched some video footage of the American Museum for Natural History’s 2006 Darwin Exhibit, which showcased a number of Darwinian scientists who were religious. These included Ken Miller, Francis Collins, and Richard Fortey, all of whom were portrayed discussing their acceptance evolution and some form of religion (their specific religious persuasions were not specified in the exhibit footage I saw). No Darwinists were shown stating views which opposed religion. I also recently purchased John Dupré’s book Darwin’s Legacy: What Evolution Means Today (Oxford University Press, 2003). It’s a fairly short book, and given that Dupré is both professor of philosophy of science and Director of the ESRC Centre for Genomics in Society at the University Read More ›

As I recently noted, anti-ID legal scholar Jay Wexler believes that Judge Jones went too far by trying to address whether ID is science. Continuing this line of argument, self-described “liberal First Amendment theorist” Arnold H. Loewy makes a point that Judge Jones missed: “it is not the Court’s job to distinguish good science from bad in the realm of education.” (pg. 85) Our form of government requires a separation of powers. During lawsuits alleging violations of the Establishment Clause in school curricula, courts are allowed to determine if the curriculum establishes religion, but that’s it. Yet Judge Jones found that ID’s claims have allegedly “been refuted by the scientific community” as he sought to address scientific questions about whether Read More ›

See http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/anim_innerlife.html for a computer demonstration of how our bodies respond to sites of inflammation. See also here. I find it amazing that Darwinists cite mere sequence similarity between different genes as evidence that such complexity of the cell originated from a random and blindly-selective process.

The Municipality of Istanbul’s conference on intelligent design apparently turned out to be a precedent-setting hit. We can’t think of anything comparable in the Middle East. At least one follow up conference is planned. (See this post from earlier today.) Some photos have just come in that illustrate the impressive venue:

The Advocate today gives a big hip-hip-hooray for Darwin’s “process.” They worry that the public doesn’t accept Darwinian evolutionary claims to explain the complex diversity of life and the universe. Must be that they just don’t understand. Their solution? Perhaps the “law of evolution” would be more easily understood by the public than the “theory” of evolution. It’s interesting that evolution is so solid, so proven, that it will only survive if it is declared a law. When evolution is the law of the land, what will happen then to those who dissent?

On February 24, an audience of approximately 500 students, journalists, scholars and scientists gathered to hear five speakers present an international perspective on intelligent design in Istanbul’s Cemal Resit Rey Concert Hall. The conference, which was sponsored by the Cultural Affairs Bureau of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, featured speakers from Turkey, Britain, and America. Already recognized as a success by the local leadership, the conference introduced intelligent design to the people of Turkey and was covered by mainstream Turkish media.

On Wednesday, February 28, Bryan Fischer debated Kitzmiller plaintiffs’ attorney of the ACLU, Witold “Vic” Walczak, over teaching intelligent design in schools. The debate was sponsored mostly by the ACLU. Mr. Fischer reports that the pro-ACLU crowd cheered supportively when Fischer read a statement by Darwinist biologist P.Z. Myers advocating academic intolerance towards proponents of ID. Fischer reported: Of course Fischer read aloud P.Z. Myers’ quote with the intention of shocking the “pro-ACLU crowd” because Fischer assumed that they would value academic freedom, tolerance, and civil discourse. Apparently Fischer’s assumption was wrong.

As noted recently, anti-ID legal scholar Jay Wexler believes that Judge Jones went too far when he tried to address whether ID is science in the Kitzmiller ruling. Wexler also complains that “The Judge Did Not Explain Why He Addressed the “Is it Science?” Issue” and argues that Judge Jones gives “no coherent answer” to that question: “If there is no coherent answer, then Judge Jones’ explanation that consideration of the science issue will be useful to other courts likewise falters.” (Jay D. Wexler, “Kitzmiller and the ‘Is It Science?’ Question,” 5 First Amendment Law Review 90, 108, 109 (2006).) The implication is that Judge Jones’ ruling on whether ID is science, which was largely copied from the ACLU, is Read More ›