testing the quote function for
[quote]html[/quote]
OR NOT
[QUOTE]MAYBE THIS[QUOTE]

In a stunning turn of events, William Dembski seems to have had a huge change of heart: Bottom line: ID still isn’t science and is dead wrong…. Okay, not really. Just thought it’d be fun to engage in a little quote mining Dembski style….

You may be interested in this exchange I had at PandasThumb regarding the Nature article.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-.....tml#c27396

Dave Thomas wrote:

“It’s been my position for a couple of years that science doesn’t automatically rule out consideration of the supernatural, but does require, like qetzal said,”

and

”

science does NOT “rule out supernatural causes (miracles)”.

”

Dr. Thomas and Dr. Flank,

I very much appreciated your thoughts in that regard. In answer to the question as to who believes in evolution, it is true that polls indicate the more higher education is conferred, the more likely one is to accept Darwinian evolution. However, as the article I think suggests, that demographic is at risk of changing.

Intelligent design on the college campuses is beginning to make in roads with the biology majors and scientists of tomorrow. We were able to convert Michael Behe and Caroline Crocker and we are converting biology majors at the undergrad and graduate level. We have a very easy time with the engineers (who are naturally gifted as recognizing design), mathematicians, computer scientists, a physicists.

This last week I was at Paul Gross’s school, 60 students watched Privileged Planet and we had a panel discussion with 3 of the UVa professors. Also this week at Jason Rosenhouse’s school, James Madison, we had a meeting with 50 students present and Dr. Rosenhouse in the audience. The meeting went from 7pm to 11:30 pm because of the intense interest. There were physics majors there who seemed to really enjoy the discussion. There were biology majors there who were part of our IDEA chapter. Like the case with George Mason University and Dr. Caroline Crocker, I know that at JMU and UVa there are a science faculty who sympathize with intelligent design.

At our meeting at JMU the students discussed with me bio chemistry, physics, computation theory, Godel’s incompleteness, computation theory, cardinality of computable functions, Turing Machines, poplulation genetics, mito-chondrial Eve, Rayleigh-Bernard convection, Quantum Mechanics and the von-Neumann Regress, variable speed of light and the quantum intertial hypothesis and Bradley Michelson’s speed of light measurments, racemization dating, interpretations of Dayhoff Diagrams, testable predictions with sequence divergence….all these topics are tied deeply to intelligent design and creationism. We have undergrad, grad, and PhD participants at our IDEA chapters. The level of intellectual discussion reaches extraodinary levels.

One of our IDEA members does experimental research into phylogeny and are profoundly disturbed at the amount of molecular convergence present and the uncritical acceptance of the molecular clock hypothesis. This empirical data is persuading this student that common descent and Darwinian evolution is argued with flawed and circular reasoning. Empirical data of convergence and the fine tuning of sequence divergence is breaking the Darwinian interpretation of molecular data. Contrary to poplular perception, the hierarchical patterns of molecular taxonomy speak more of common design than common descent. The presence of convergences suggests design, and it also offers counter examples against common descent.

Intelligent design may not be ready for prime time in the high schools, but it is ready for prime time in a religion classes where controversial subjects are ripe for exploration. Though I think it’s rightful place is in the science classes, we may indeed have found a safe haven for our beliefs in the religion department. I can assure you all that our IDEA members at the PhD levels in biology are not dismissing Darwinian evolution because they’ve had a shortage of training in biology or evolution! That is very good news for the movement on the whole!

I believe Dembski’s Fundamental Theorem of Intelligent Design will demolish the Darwinian and materialistic view. His theorem is correct and it is a matter of time before it’s truthfullness becomes apparent.

Nature has indeed proven itself as a the premier science publication by covering a cutting edge scientific movement and giving it front page press. Though they are not at this time sympathetic to intelligent design, responsible reporting should not ignore it. The IDists are winning the hearts and minds of the scientists of the future. That article has reported on the early beginings of a massive movement by intelligent design on the university campuses. The empirical data is speaking to the students. Darwinian evolution and chemical evolution are grossly inadequate explantions for the complexity of life, and for all intents and purposes, Darwinists are holding on to a theory that has been substantially falsified both empirically and theoretically.

Salvador Cordova

It’s an honor to see my name in your weblog. I and Casey Luskin have posted our reflections on the article at http://www.ideacenter.org

Overall we think Geoff Brumfiel worked hard and made an effort to represent us fairly and accurately.

There are a few points of clarification such as Brumfiel’s phrase “divine hand has shaped the course of evolution” which is close to personal views, but not necessairly ID proper. I tried to clarify that at the http://www.ideacenter.org

I thank you for all the inspiration you have provided for our IDEA chapters and for serving on our advisory board.

Salvador Cordova

ID
Friday April 29th 20051512
Filed under: Theology

Intelligent Design in Nature

No Comments so far

Leave a comme [...]