Proteins change single mutation by single mutation, amino acid by amino acid, so that’s the level of explanation that is needed. What part of “numerous, successive, slight” is so hard to understand?

If (as Orr claims) I.D. “looks less and less like the science it claimed to be and more and more like an extended exercise in polemics,” isn’t it strange that it has recently convinced the foremost secular philosopher in England (Antony Flew) to give up his atheism?

A good Darwinist will imagine 2 or 3 far-fetched intermediate useful stages, and consider the problem solved. I believe you would need to find thousands of intermediate stages before this example of irreducible complexity has been reduced to steps small enough to be bridged by single random mutations

What’s going to happen as scholars and scientists of the highest caliber — like Antony Flew and Richard Smalley — keep dumping evolution? Perhaps evolution really is a theory in crisis.

Here is an email from one of my ID colleagues in the defense industry. Imagine this scenario, but with me instead of Bolton going not to the UN but to the NSF to head a new initiative on ID with lots and lots of tax dollars to back it up. Could this happen? Who would […]

Baylor’s eclectic approach to gathering faith-and-learning resources meant they sometimes failed to screen out the culturally militant elements of evangelicalism. In a head-shaking blunder, Sloan’s team put William Dembski—point man for the Intelligent Design movement—in charge of a new science-and-religion center. It’s hard to imagine any step that would have been more effective in convincing skeptical faculty that Sloan was turning Baylor over to the fundamentalists.

Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution
By JOHN SCHWARTZ, as reported in the NYTimes
Published: May 28, 2005
The Discovery Institute, a group in Seattle that supports an alternative theory, “intelligent design,” is announcing on its Web site that it and the director of the [Smithsonian] museum “are happy to announce the national […]

Evolutionary biology is one big group-think in which its practitioners can no longer imagine the need to justify their theory…. Evolution has come this far in spite of the facts.

According to the Prime Minister there are a sufficient number of scientists who have a special interest in this area.

I reflect on the potential applications of the new understanding on ‘engineered self-organization of systems too complex to design’

The Little Engine That Could… Undo Darwinism
By Dan Peterson
What critics of Intelligent Design theory can’t accept is that its proponents are making scientific, fact-based arguments.
The American Spectator, June 2005

The son, by contrast, has turned repudiating his father’s legacy into a full-time occupation.

The following report by Science & Theology News discusses blogging for ID: http://www.stnews.org/articles.php?article_id=549&category=news.

“intelligent design,” a stalking horse for creationism

Advocates of ID pretend to use scientific methods to support their religious preconceptions.

Here’s a novel, if perverse, take on why the teaching of ID should be encouraged: http://www.alternet.org/story/22039.

Have a look at the video at the following site: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/index.html. Is there any design-theoretic significance that on a logarithmic size-scale, we’re close to the middle of the known physical universe? Regardless of the answer to this question or whether there even is an answer, you’re in for a treat if you haven’t seen such […]

the fossils of the “Cambrian Explosion” period, near the base of the geological column, include some of the most sophisticated eyes ever known to have existed — the compound eyes of trilobites have double calcite lenses, which defeat any slow evolutionary explanation, and, what is more, they have no precursor in the rocks

Allen Orr’s article against ID is now out in the New Yorker (go here). It’s as bad as I thought it would be. I’m on the road right now but will comment on it later in the week. Note that I remarked last week on this blog that a fact-checker from the New Yorker had […]

The scientific case against Darwinism is largely won.

Biologists have often thought about evolution in the same way many think about death and taxes — something inevitable. But Romesberg is a chemist, and he found himself asking not only how, but why evolution happens.

Two ID books were selected among Christianity Today’s 2005 Book Awards: in the category of Apologetics/Evangelism, Lee Strobel’s The Case for a Creator; in the category Christianity & Culture, my book The Design Revolution (another of my books Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology received that same award in 2000). Awards like this […]

“intelligent design theory” (ID) … its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed.

The only reason for raising such questions before state education authorities is not to deepen the scientific understanding of teenagers but rather to sow deliberate confusion.

to be effective in its support, the scientific community needs to understand the empirical claims of ID

They got Charles Darwin trapped out there on Highway Five
Judge says to the High Sheriff,
“I want him dead or alive
Either one, I don’t care.”

Scientific criticism of evolution should not be muted for fear of being labeled a creationist.

Evolutionary logic has a further advantage, namely, the results are not required to be true, thus eliminating a tiresome (and now superfluous) restriction on the growth of evolutionary knowledge.

Denis Alexander is a molecular biologist with very solid credentials who is based at Cambridge University. He is also a theistic evolutionist who has written several books on the relation between science and Christian faith. His most recent is Rebuilding the Matrix (with Zondervan). Even though he is a critic of ID, he helped […]

I just learned from my editor at Cambridge University Press that The Design Inference is going to be issued in paperback in the next 6 months. This is good news. When the book came out in 1998, it listed at $55. I believe it is now up to $85. This will take the price down […]

The New Yorker is doing a major piece on intelligent design next week written by Allen Orr