Monthly Archives: April 2005
|April 30, 2005||Posted by William Dembski under Biology, Evolution, Science|
The Kansas State Board of Education will hear from scientists and scholars next week about how best to present evolution in the classroom. If you are not testifying to the board, there is still a significant role for you to play in the wider debate. Namely, write supportive letters to the editor to appear during […]
|April 30, 2005||Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design|
ID gets prime time in Brazil
|April 29, 2005||Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design|
I’ve always been troubled by the claim that Mt. Rushmore was carved by sculptors. After all, where did the sculptors come from?
|April 29, 2005||Posted by William Dembski under Evolution, Intelligent Design|
Scientists know that natural selection can explain the awe-inspiring complexities of organisms, and should be prepared to explain how. But attacking or dismissing intelligent design is likely to aggravate the rift between science and faith that causes students to become interested in intelligent design in the first place.
|April 29, 2005||Posted by William Dembski under Evolution, Science|
From a colleague: A 3-member Committee of The Kansas State School Board will conduct hearings in Topeka next week, and possibly the week after, to evaluate proposed changes to the state science standards. Thursday through Saturday next week, May 5-7, the Committee will hear testimony from scientists, philosophers and educators who think the standards should […]
|April 29, 2005||Posted by William Dembski under Evolution, Intelligent Design, Science|
…the very foundation of science in the United States is at risk…
|April 28, 2005||Posted by William Dembski under Darwinism, Evolution|
Their simple, idiotic credulity as a populace would have been the envy of Lenin. That is the tragic paradox. The Land of the Free, telly and burgerfed, has become the Land of the Credulous Moron.
|April 25, 2005||Posted by William Dembski under Evolution|
One of my favorite over-the-top quotes about the power of natural selection comes from novelist Barbara Kingsolver. According to her, natural selection is Ã¢â‚¬Å“the greatest, simplest, most elegant logical construct ever to dawn across our curiosity about the workings of natural life. It is inarguable, and it explains everything.Ã¢â‚¬Â (Small Wonder, 2002). Another Kingsolver, however, […]
|April 25, 2005||Posted by William Dembski under Evolution, Intelligent Design, Religion, Science|
We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.
|April 25, 2005||Posted by William Dembski under Evolution|
Although the phrase Ã¢â‚¬Ëœcreation scienceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ carries disreputable connotations because of its frequent use by some religious fundamentalists, we truly need some Ã¢â‚¬Ëœcreation scienceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (in the other sense of that phrase) as a major component of evolutionary theory.
|April 24, 2005||Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design|
What follows is a story from Science on the controversy in Kansas over the teaching of evolution. Notice how the story is framed in terms of “Science” versus “Intelligent Design.” One thing it might interest you to know is that the meeting in question took place at a church (it was held at the Plymouth […]
|April 23, 2005||Posted by William Dembski under Comp. Sci. / Eng., Science|
Interesting paper on randomness and information theory: Using Information Theory Approach to Randomness Testing http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.IT/0504006. B. Ya. Ryabko and V.A. Monarev
|April 23, 2005||Posted by William Dembski under Biology, Evolution, Science|
Hubert Yockey attended the 1996 Mere Creation conference at Biola University. At that conference he and I discussed his role in the ID movement. He described himself as an outsider who could do more good for ID by maintaining his intellectual independence and directing his energies at refuting the evolutionary reductionists than by explicitly making […]
|April 22, 2005||Posted by William Dembski under Biology, Intelligent Design, Self-Org. Theory|
YesterdayÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Nature has, on page 24 of the advertisement section, an announcement requesting grant proposals for the John Templeton FoundationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s “Purpose in the living world” research programme, titled “The Emergence of Biological Complexity” (for more go here and here). Purpose? Biological complexity? Evidence of fine-tuning in biological complexity? All in one breath? This may not […]
|April 21, 2005||Posted by William Dembski under Evolution|
“You know, you are going to have to get past those reservations if you want to pursue a career in this field. It just isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t possible to succeed in Marine Science if you do not accept the theory of evolution.”
|April 21, 2005||Posted by William Dembski under Evolution, Intelligent Design, Religion, Science|
While this subject is in the publicÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s eye, no Wedge member should be able to speak in public without a strong challenge to their claim that Intelligent Design creationism is scientific and not religiously motivated. –S.T.Smith
|April 20, 2005||Posted by William Dembski under Evolution, Religion, Science|
In a previous post, I remarked that John Paul II “seemed to sign off on conventional evolutionary theory save for the divine infusion of souls at the origin of humanity.” This is not quite accurate. As a friend and colleague who knows the Catholic world much better than I do noted to me by email:
|April 20, 2005||Posted by William Dembski under Evolution, Intelligent Design|
The National Center for Selling Evolution (NCSE) has a widely publicized, in their words, “tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of Ã¢â‚¬Ëœscientists who doubt evolution’ or Ã¢â‚¬Ëœscientists who dissent from Darwinism’.” They call it “Project Steve.” (Go here for a description of the project and here for the list; go here […]
|April 20, 2005||Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design|
Here are three letters from the New Scientist, the first and the last tacitly supporting ID. The last letter raises the interesting question to what degree throwing time at a problem can make up for deficiencies in intelligence. There is a research question here that needs cashing out.
|April 19, 2005||Posted by William Dembski under Evolution, Intelligent Design, Religion|
Prediction: Bush and Benedict XVI will do to evolution what Reagan and John Paul II did to communism