Home » Intelligent Design » ID Podcasts

ID Podcasts

This just in from a colleague at Discovery Institute:

There is a new episode of the IDTF podcast available at: http://intelligentdesign.podOmatic.com. This week we offer a brief summary of The Design Revolution: Answering The Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design.

Help spread the word: http://www.podOmatic.com/podcast/tell/intelligentdesign.

Be sure to visit the IDTF website at www.idthefuture.com, and keep up with the latest news on the debate over how to teach evolution by going to Evolution News and Views at www.evolutionnews.org.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

7 Responses to ID Podcasts

  1. Sounds good! Probably one of the best ways to spread the word is through media. I know I always enjoy mp3′s!

  2. I appreciate the efforts here gang… but the podcasts to date have been kinda lame. Too short… no real substance or interviews. In fact… the one decent interview (which there was a short version of on the podcast with the extended version to be posted on the website) still is all of 4 seconds. :(
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....7_02-07_00

    The Reasons.org gang has a great weekly show which I highly recommend until ID the Future gets it together. :)

  3. A couple things from http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/

    Did the ACLU Squeeze the Intelligent Design Decision out of Dover?

    “ … once the facts are examined, as Manzari and Cooper nicely lay out, the attorneys fees collected by the ACLU are not merely the cost of losing a lawsuit, but rather look much more like a fat taxpayer funded gift to the ACLU & AUSCS.”

    If true, the ACLU is looking more like Halliburton every day …

    South Carolina Requires Students to Critically Analyze Evolution

    ”The Associated Press has corrected the lead paragraph of its story on biology standards … the AP’s original story erroneously stated that the new South Carolina standards do not require the critical analysis of evolution.

    The new AP story clearly states that the South Carolina standards do require critical analysis of evolution. The article correctly points out that teaching students to critically analyze evolution is not the same thing as teaching alternative theories such as intelligent design.” (emphasis added) or violating the establishment clause! (comment added)

    Small victory, but look for the ACLU to get their feathers (er … reptilian scales) up. They can push their luck, but I see a fall coming. The ‘hopeful monster’ of the evo-devo clan is about to be dismembered.

    And on http://www.idthefuture.com

    Design is Undesign, Design is Undesign …

    “Francis Crick once charged biologists to constantly remind themselves that biology studies things that only give the appearance of design.”

    What?? In other words, if you begin to see the light, close your eyes?! This is a perfect example of the ‘blinders’ that are issued to incoming biology students.

    In a way, I hope the ACLU does challenge them on this. The mistakes of the past aside, this time I see an opportunity of getting the courts to not only cast aside the concept of not encouraging ‘critical thought’, but if anything, making it mandatory that we do that within our ivy covered walls. And let’s start with the primary grades.

    And while we’re at it, let’s work on having the courts work on redefining what the ‘Establishment Clause’ really intended to do. The courts have broadened its definition way beyond what Tom Jefferson intended.

  4. Cool, look forward to some serious podcast discussions and in the future. An interview with Dr. Sanford would be great.

  5. “… and interviews in the future.” It would be nice if we could edit our post too ;-)

  6. Essay on ID in Toronto Star 5/06
    “Lilienfeld, a biologist, argues that intuition, so helpful in much of life, is a bad guide to accuracy in this case. The Earth does look flat; it isn’t. The sun appears to revolve around the Earth; it doesn’t. Living things appear to have been designed by someone (or Someone); they aren’t.
    Lilienfeld contends that the solution is to improve the teaching of science in school, to impress upon students that intuition can be wrong, and that the scientific approach is one way of ensuring that doesn’t happen.
    Of course, if intelligent design is part of that science education, so much for the chances of introducing thinking.”

    Thus, by Lillienfeld’s type of science:

    Every letter in “Brave New World” SEEMS to be specified, chosen between a wide variety of possibilities, though it is not.

    Though the meaning in the genetic code translated into corresponding amino acids SEEMS to be caused by intelligence, its not.

  7. I possess only the baccalaureate in philosophy which has helped me immensely
    in researching the philosophical and scientific difficulties of Darwinian evo theories. I cannot understand why more academics have not pointed out that the life science departments at the very university they teach expouse a evolutionary doctrine based on poor logic(Medawar’s ‘informations Law of Conservation) and a significant lack of empirical evidence–especially when “origins” was published. A good way to futher Nieztchie’s “reevaluation?” Because Hebert Spencer was right??? He approved of Darwin’s induction by adhering and championing it as well. Eric Peterson

Leave a Reply