dysteleology
Thank Darwin for Dysteleology! Evolution Can’t Lose
Undesirable Intelligent Design is Still Intelligent Design
Evolution Reads Like “Scroll,” Pope Says
For some unknown reason, the recent confab of scientists and theologians at the Vatican has gone largely unremarked by the mainstream media. But our colleague Bruce Chapman was paying attention and has some thoughts on the Pope’s address to the scientists, philosophers, theologians and others in attendance. Read all about it here [link expired]. Pope’s Wise, if Limited, Message on Evolution The Vatican has still not really dealt adequately with the issue of Darwinian evolution, but on evolution broadly Pope Benedict XVI continues to make more sense than anyone else in the hierarchy. His greeting last Friday to the Pontifical Academies of Science conference that is now concluding in Rome is well worth reading. The conference as a whole appears to have Read More ›
Ayala Plays Both Sides
Many readers of Scientific American Magazine have recently written me about the new article, “The Christian Man’s Evolution: How Darwinism and Faith Can Coexist.” Most have pointed out how fatuous Ayala’s view of God comes across. As author Sally Lehrman writes, seeming to think this very clever, Ayala (and “science-savvy Christian theologians”) “present a God that is continuously engaged in the creative process through undirected natural selection.” (bolding added)This line, of course, prompted much talk of square circles and Christian atheists, as well it should. Writes one reader, “You mean: ‘a God who is continuously engaged’ by being completely unengaged?” But apart from the clear contradiction in this thinking, Ayala demonstrates an inconsistency we find repeatedly from Darwinists who are Read More ›
What does being president have to do with how we teach evolution?
In light of the recent focus on the presidential election, and speculation on Sara Palin’s views on teaching evolution, it is worth thinking about what a President’s role in this issue should be. Last year, Logan Gage laid out the case for a limited but important Presidential role regarding contentious scientific issues like evolution. I’m curious, is there anyone on the stage that does not believe in evolution?” came the question at the first Republican presidential debate. Much has been made of the fact that three candidates raised their hands. The candidates were not allowed to elaborate, but what should they have said had they more time?…But the question still arises, what does all this have to do with being Read More ›
The Love of the Flies
If you missed “Flies In Danger Escape With Safety Dance,” a story by NPR’s Joe Palca, give it a listen. And don’t forget to check out the videos which show how flies take off from a stationary position. This kind of story puts a damper on the kind of rhetorical jabs commonly heard from Darwinists, such as, “Do we really want to make God responsible for flies and mosquitoes?” Every time someone takes the time to study one of these creatures — in this instance, scientist Michael Michael Dickinson — they come away awestruck, saying things like: “When you see a fly flitting around your hair, or your potato salad, you might see an annoyance,” he [Dickinson] says. “But in Read More ›
The Deification of Charles Darwin
Darwin Day is upon us at long last. Now for a full week humanists the world over will celebrate the birth of their saint, Charles Darwin. Celebrations come complete with Darwin carols celebrating atheism and sung to Christmas carol tunes; edible trees of life; Darwin look-a-like contests; and lots more revelry. Discovery Institute is honoring Darwin with a short vidcast of their popular ID The Future podcast titled “Darwin Day and the Deification of Charles Darwin.” It features CSC senior fellows Dr. John West and Dr. Jonathan Wells discussing the historical importance of Darwinism and its impact on modern science and society.
Patent Infringement?
Scientists at the University of Edinburgh are busy imitating nature’s design by building nanomachines. Two things to note: First, these new designs are not perfect, and yet they were clearly designed by intelligence. I hope ID critics will finally put to rest the inane charge that if a system has a flaw in any sense — that is, if it is not optimal in every sense (which is impossible) — then that system was not designed. As the scientists note, the nanomachines they are making are not even as good as nature’s nanotechnology. Second, if nature is full of such poorly designed systems, why is it that some of the best scientists in the world keep looking to nature for Read More ›
Sober Analysis?
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.
Read More ›