__edited

In the January 16 edition of the Weekly Standard in an article titled “Survival of the Evolution Debate” Adam Wolfson recites the long debunked mantra of Darwinists accusing ID of merely residing on Paleyian analogical reasoning and therefore being subject to Hume’s critique. In Wolfson’s own words:

In making such claims the IDers are putting old wine in a new bottle. Some version of the design thesis is to be found in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and, perhaps most famously, in the writings of William Paley. The 18th-century English theologian argued that when we find a watch we infer a watchmaker; so too when we discover evidence of design in nature we properly infer a Maker or Creator.

During the Christmas break, I posted a four-part series analyzing various issues surrounding the Dover intelligent design ruling. In case you missed it, I am reposting the first three parts of the series here in one place. The analysis addresses the following questions:

1. Is Judge Jones an activist judge?
2. Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?
3. Did Judge Jones accurately describe the content and early versions of the ID textbook Of Pandas and People?
   The fourth part of the series can still be accessed here.

I. Is Judge Jones an activist judge?