Many criticized the Darwinists for extrapolating too far, and now the Darwinists confess that actual, observable variation–whether in the barnyard or in nature–demonstrates only the capacity of a species population to vary within limits.
Check out this book review by Christine Rosen from the June 13 issue of the Weekly Standard — go here. A few quotes to whet your interest:
Del Ratzsch as an extended critical review of Niall Shanks’s anti-ID book God, the Devil, and Darwin. The review is at Ars Disputandi — go here.
A few days ago, I posted an old cartoon by Wayne Stayskal (“The Literal Interpretation of Darwin” — go here). I updated the cartoon slightly by substituting the phrase “intelligent design” for “creation.” Stayskal drew the cartoon back in 1981 at the time of the Arkansas creation trial. Here’s another one of my favorite Stayskal […]
Check out the following item: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20050608-9999-lz1c08intel.html. Have any of these respondents read any of the ID literature?
Here’s a blurb from the June issue of Advances, the AAAS monthly newsletter:
Here’s an update from IDURC’s director:
Robert Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral is doing a multimillion-dollar multimedia production trying to reconcile science and religion. Check out this report: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20050616-9999-lz1c16crystal.html.
Timothy Shortell is an associate professor of sociology at Brooklyn College who, on his homepage (go here), states: “I am currently working on a project examining public reaction to Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection from his day to our own.” It will be interesting to see what becomes of this project in light […]
Del Ratzsch’s entry on “Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence” is now available online in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments and includes some remarks about ID. Del is simultaneously a critic and supporter of ID. His book Nature, Design, and Science (SUNY Press, 2001) is worth reading.
I received this from a colleague in the UK on the the parallels between the ID debate and the environmentalism debate.
“To sum up: [The hallmark of empirical progress is not trivial verifications: Popper is right that there are millions of them. It is no success for Newtonian theory that stones, when dropped, fall towards the earth, no matter how often this is repeated. But, ] so-called ‘refutations’ are not the hallmark of empirical failure, as […]
There’s an interesting exchange tucked away in some comments at the Pandasthumb on what it would take to provide an evolutionary explanation of the bacterial flagellum:
To say that evolution is “a theory which has created cures for diseases and alleviated suffering” is therefore grossly misleading. It is like saying that tooth decay has assisted in designing new methods of filling cavities.
I think their listeners would be rather stunned to hear you or Behe or similar not remotely sounding like anti-scientific biblical creationists, which is the current stereotype they have of you and the ID movement
Of all the fundamentalist groups at large in the world today, the Darwinians seem to me the most objectionable.
[William Tucker writes:] I havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t seen the movie, but I did read the excerpt from the book, The Privileged Planet, in the March 2004 issue of The American Spectator. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know whether IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d call authors Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay RichardsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ argument Ã¢â‚¬Å“religious.Ã¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“CreepyÃ¢â‚¬Â would seem a better term. MORE
evolutionists, in their thirst to crush ID, are every bit as committed to political maneuvering the most ardent supporter of the “Wedge.”