Intelligent Design

One of the main pages on my new blog has a brief account of my journey towards accepting ID. I’ve taken a few different stances on the biological origins question in the past so it’s been a bumpy ride for me. This article is mainly autobiographical, but it gives me a chance to lay my cards on the table so I don’t have assumptions made about me and so readers know roughly where I’m coming from. Here’s a snippet: So, how and why did I become an intelligent design advocate? It’s a long(ish) story… I am, perhaps unsurprisingly, a Christian. I was raised in a Christian home and, with the exception of a period of ephemeral teenage agnosticism, I have Read More ›

Back in November of last year, I published a post announcing a new ID blog I was working on. This post is to let UD readers know that I have now put the blog online. Do pop in and have a look around! There isn’t much material to look at yet, though there are a few static pages with further information on, that may be of interest. I will be adding additional pages and will begin putting a few articles up shortly. I will be highlighting some of the main pages in turn also. Please do head over and let me know what you think of the look etc. either here or on my page. I would appreciate the feedback. Read More ›

From 400 kya? Here: Researchers found four teeth in the Qesem Cave near Rosh Ha’ayin (not far from Tel Aviv), and they were astonished at test results that conclude the fossils to be some 400,000-years-old. The significance of this is that it’s possible that the origin of prehistoric man is in Israel, and not in East Africa. And an additional surprise is that prehistoric man was mainly vegetarian and not carnivorous. Before we revise all the textbooks, let’s hang on and see if the teeth are really that old. Do they fit into any known pattern? Their examination revealed that they belong to a type of prehistoric man that lived in Israel, and that until now no one knew existed. Read More ›

Some readers here may be aware of an online debate I’m taking part in with a neo-Darwinist (and friend), Francis Smallwood. Francis blogs at Musings of a Scientific Nature. We are currently discussing the issue of whether intelligent design is just a recent strain of creationism, and whether it is a legitimate scientific theory. What follows is our second round of responses. You can read Francis’ response by following the link at the bottom of this post. Feel free to criticise what I have written, and interact with Francis on his blog. Enjoy! ‘Is Intelligent Design science or ‘creationism in a cheap tuxedo?’ Joshua Gidney-2nd response In my opening remarks I attempted to argue that intelligent design is in no Read More ›

Gallup has updated their origins survey:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?
1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,
2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process,
3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

They found:

since 1982 . . .
the 46% who today choose the creationist explanation is virtually the same as the 45% average over that period — and very similar to the 44% who chose that explanation in 1982. The 32% who choose the “theistic evolution” view that humans evolved under God’s guidance is slightly below the 30-year average of 37%, while the 15% choosing the secular evolution view is slightly higher (12%).

See: In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins Read More ›

A couple of days ago I posted my opening statement to a formal online debate I’m currently engaged in with Christian neo-Darwinist Francis Smallwood at Musings Of A Scientific Nature. My opening statement can be found here, and his here. What follows are my opening thoughts on the question whether ID is ‘creationism in a cheap tuxedo’, or a valid scientific theory. At the bottom of this post you can find a link to Francis’ first response to me on his blog. Is Intelligent Design science or ‘creationism in a cheap tuxedo?‘ Joshua Gidney-Opening As I have already outlined in my opening statements, intelligent design theory states ‘that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are Read More ›

A couple of months ago, I agreed to take part in a written debate with a good friend of mine, Francis Smallwood. Francis, like me, is a commited Christian. Unlike me though, he is also a neo-Darwinist. On his blog Musings Of A Scientific Nature he writes on many different scientific issues, although his primary focus is on Darwinism. I encourage UD readers to check his blog out. As an enthusiastic ID proponent, I obviously think his embrace of Darwinian theory is profoundly mistaken, and equally I think his criticisms of ID are weak. However, he is at least willing to engage in debate with people of opposing view points and is not as dismissive as most Darwinists. Our idea Read More ›

Those of you who’ve followed my posts and comments will have picked up that my view of Intelligent Design is pretty complicated. On the one hand, I defend design inferences, even strong design inferences. I’m entirely comfortable with questioning Darwinism (if that view still has enough content to identify it as a clear position, anyway), and have a downright dismissive view of both naturalism (if that view… etc) and atheism. I regularly see the ID position butchered, mangled and misrepresented by its detractors, most of whom should and probably do know better.

On the flipside, I don’t think ID (or for that matter, no-ID) is science, even if I reason that if no-ID is science then so is ID. My personal leaning has always been towards theistic evolution, and I see evolution as yet another instance of design rather than something which runs in opposition to it – a view which I know some ID proponents share, but certainly not all. I think non-scientific arguments for and inferences to design have considerable power, and see little reason to elevate particular arguments simply because some insist they’re “scientific”.

Here’s another part of that flipside, and the subject of today’s post. One of the more prominent ID arguments hinges on the trichotomy of Chance, Necessity, and Design. The problem for me is that I question the very existence of Chance, and I see Necessity as subsumable under Design.

Read More ›

An archaeologist has been studying stone spheres in Costa Rica and has concluded they were designed. According to PhysOrg, he doesn’t know who made the spheres, when they were made, or why they were made. Why is he jumping to a conclusion of intelligent design? He should be considering natural explanations. There are plenty of natural forces that can make a sphere and even simulate hammer marks.  By concluding design, he has brought the scientific investigation of these stones to a standstill. To be a scientist, you can’t take the easy way out and assume design every time you see something you can’t explain. Some designer, too; some of the stones are up to two inches out of round.  Who Read More ›

In the last year and a bit I’ve done a lot of work in trying to understand and then critique the approach of Dr. Denis Alexander of the Faraday Institute in Cambridge (UK). I know that many readers of UD are familiar with Alexander’s big-selling work, “Creation or Evolution – Do We Have To Choose?”. This book is probably (alongside Francis Collins) the work with the most traction by Darwinists seeking to argue from a Biblical Christian viewpoint. I’ve previously drawn attention to IVP’s “Should Christians Embrace Evolution”. In this post I want instead to draw attention to my own response, “Creation or Evolution – Why We Must Choose”. If you don’t want to read the blurb and just want Read More ›

Researchers at Brigham Young University shaped DNA strands into the letters BYU, reported Live Science.  Let’s have a little fun with this clever achievement (an indisputable case of intelligent design) with some thought experiments that make use of ID reasoning. Suppose instead of forming the DNA into letter shapes, they used a code with the existing bases arranged in triplets: AAA = A, AAC = B, AAG = C, AAT =  D, and so forth.  Cracking the code would reveal the letters BYU. Suppose they spelled out “Brigham Young University” in full using this code and signed their names with it.  Now they’re not only approaching the Universal Probability Bound, they are tightening the independently verifiable specification. Suppose instead they Read More ›

Science and scientists, especially in America, are wonderful. I am currently laying on my couch, playing music from my laptop, and will probably turn on my HDTV later on to just enjoy a nice relaxing evening. Without scientists none of this would be possible.

However, sometimes scientists need to “know their role.” What I mean by that is how whenever faced with a dissenting viewpoint, some scientists tend to produce massive arguments to discredit the dissenter; one of the problem with this, however, is their arguments are based upon logical fallacies. That might make for a good way to vent, but it doesn’t make it a good argument.

Take, for instance, Dawkins, Panda’s Thumb, et al, and their recent treatment of Dembski’s class curriculum. I could offer quotes, but I’m sure we’ve seen most of them. Rather, what I believe to be an adequate summary of the arguments against Dembski’s curriculum is as follows:

“Bill DUMzki r dum! LOL! Iz Xian + ID = soopid. Dawkins r in Demzkis boat, eatin all hiz cookies! LOL!!!!1111!!1!!11!!!1”

I wish I could say I were exaggerating, but unfortunately the only thing I changed was the composition of the words.

Read More ›

At BeliefNet, David Klinghoffer has posted: A Challenge to Intelligent Design-Bashing Regulars on this Blog Tuesday July 21, 2009 Categories: Life’s Origins & Evolution You know who you are. Rather than go on grousing about how there’s no evidence for intelligent design, it’s not science, and so on and so forth, here’s my challenge to you personally. Read Stephen C. Meyer’s new book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne). He lays out a massive evidentiary case. As a philosopher of science, he also explains what science is. If you really want to tell me there’s no positive scientific evidence that biological information coded in DNA reflects purposeful design, then go ahead and read Meyer’s Read More ›