Darwin’s Dilemma
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Biology, Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design
I am looking forward to watching Darwin’s Dilemma.
Its All About the Evidence…Evidently!
Posted by DonaldM | Filed under Atheism, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Theology
In many discussions across the blogoshere about the existence of God or supernatural entities, the claim is often made that there’s no reason to think that such things exist because there simply is “no evidence”. Those who do think such entities exist are either “delusional” a la Richard Dawkins, or holding such beliefs “without evidence”. In either case, the theist has somehow failed in his or her epistemic duties to retain such beliefs, especially in our modern, scientific world.
But what precisely is the problem? Is it really a case of “no evidence”, meaning that no observation or phenomenon has ever or could ever provide evidence for the existence of God?
If that is what is meant, it would seem to be reasonable to ask for evidence that such a claim is true. But what that evidence would even look like isn’t at all clear. Or maybe what is meant is that there may be some observations that could be seen by some as evidence for the existence of God, but that there are no known principles that can connect that evidence to the conclusion. In its stronger forms, it is added that no one has ever or will ever know of such principles. What evidence there is for such a claim isn’t clear either. Read the rest of this entry »
Methodological Naturalism: Is it Necessary for Science?
Posted by DonaldM | Filed under Atheism, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Philosophy
I’ve recently had the “privilege” of discussing some of the implications of so-called methodological naturalism (MN) on one or two blogs. For Darwinists, especially Darwinists who take philosophical naturalism (PN) as true, MN is an absolute necessity for scientific practice.
Thus MN becomes an extension of PN, and has the effect of making science a correlate of PN. Now, many defenders of MN would argue that isn’t the case at all and that MN is quite separate from PN and in no way implies its truth or even demands that PN be followed. But is that possible? Given what MN says and how it operates within science, is there a principled way to distinguish between it and full-blown PN?
I don’t think there is. Read the rest of this entry »
Atheist Bigots Abound
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Atheism, Darwinism, Intelligent Design
While not every Darwinist is an atheist, just about every atheist is a Darwinist. So don’t tell me that there is no connection between ID, Darwinism and Atheism.
Thank you to EN&V for bringing this bigotry to our attention and another demonstration of atheist morality.
Chronicle of Higher Education Unearths New Evidence in Support of Gonzalez, But Tries to Discount It
Iowa State’s Spokesman Tells Another Whopper about University’s Tenure Standards
U.S. Senator Expresses Alarm Over Denial of Tenure to Gonzalez at Iowa State
Key Developments in Gonzalez Tenure Denial Case, May 14-19
Darwinists Spread Misinformation about Guillermo Gonzalez’s Denial of Tenure
ISU Faculty Admit ID Played Role in Gonzalez Tenure Denial
Intellectually Fulfilled Theism
Posted by derudo | Filed under Atheism, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Theology
Isn’t it interesting that 19th century (the great “death of God” era) Darwinian “science” made it possible for Dawkins to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist, but that late 20th century science has made faith and theism more rational and reasonable than ever before in human history (in my opinion)? It’s an interesting turn of events. The “science” in which Dawkins put his atheistic faith turned out to be bogus.
It turns out that the universe did not always exist, and that it began in a flash of light (high-frequency gamma rays, but that’s electromagnetic radiation, just like light, only much more highly energetic). And who would have expected in Darwin’s time that life was not fundamentally based on chemistry, physics, and probability, but on information, information processing, and nano-technology super-machines?
Paul had it all figured out 2,000 years ago when he pointed out in the book of Romans that we are without excuse to disbelieve, because God has made Himself evident in things that are made (i.e., designed), and these things are all around us, especially us, who are fearfully and wonderfully made.
ID, Darwinism, and Divine/Fallen Human Uniqueness
Posted by derudo | Filed under Atheism, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Theology
Dear Teleological Folks,
I posted the following over at UncommonDescent.com but it is undoubtedly long lost in the comments. I thought it might be of interest here. As some of you may know, I used to be a militant, Dawkins-style atheist. All that changed in 1994 after I bought my five-year-old daughter a cartoon video entitled The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. Everything went downhill from there as I apostatized from my former religion of atheism. 
(Yes, it is a religion!)
***
The gap between humans and all other forms of life on the planet — in so many categories that one would have to write many books on the subject — is so profound that it represents the ultimate discontinuity in nature, which is characterized not by seamlessness, but by discontinuities. This is the antithesis of Darwinian philosophy.
As a former atheist, I would suggest that the great divide is not between Catholics and Protestants, but between materialists and those who recognize the uniqueness of humankind (this includes our great capacity for good, and our great capacity for evil). It is only by recognizing our divine origin — which seems increasingly difficult to deny, in my view — that we have any hope of cultivating the good and suppressing the evil. But this requires brutal self-honesty, which is antithetical to the fallen part of our nature referenced above.
These are ultimate issues, and are ultimately the only ones that really matter, because they affect and reflect upon all areas of our lives, which is why the (ID/Darwinism) debate is so heated.
Philosophy First Science
Posted by DonaldM | Filed under Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Theology
Sal’s recent OP about setting up a YC discussion blog got me thinking about the influence and role that philosophical presuppositions play in how one views science and scientific findings, or even in how one defines what science is. As I follow discussion after discussion on various blogsites regarding YEC v OEC v Naturalism, it becomes more and more clear that ones philosophical, theological or metaphysical presuppositions about the world play a very large and defining role is how one arrives at any conclusions about these matters, or even how one views evidence for or against these views. Unfortunately, it also seems to be the case that few will admit to these presuppositions, and try to make the case that they derive their position “purely” from the science itself. However, it doesn’t seem to me that a good case can be made for that position. Read the rest of this entry »
Hydroplate theory anybody?
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Intelligent Design
This thread has changed from the original title and the OP deleted due to the nature of the comments.
Intelligent design is a science, not a faith
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Darwinism, Intelligent Design
A great article from the UK supporting ID.
Finally, Randerson claims that ID is “pure religion”. In fact, ID is a logical inference, based on data gathered from the natural world, and hence it is firmly in the realm of science. It does not rely upon the Bible, the Qur’an, or any religious authority or tradition – only on scientific evidence. When a religious person advocates teaching ID in science without identification of the designer, there is no dishonesty or “Trojan horse”, just realism about the limitations of the scientific method. If certain Darwinists also had the intellectual honesty to distinguish between science and their religious beliefs, the public understanding of science would be much enhanced.
EN&V
Exciting Books in 2007
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design
Bill pointed out some exciting upcoming new books on ID. Let me add to his list Science’s Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism by Cornelius G. Hunter
Bill’s list:
- THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION by Michael Behe
- THE DESIGN OF LIFE: DISCOVERING SIGNS OF INTELLIGENCE IN BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS by Jonathan Wells and William Dembski
I wonder what happened to Dean Kenyon.
Krause added:
The Design Matrix by Mike Gene
ID and Interventionism
Posted by | Filed under Intelligent Design
This is a repost of an older submission which was lost.
It is presented as a resource to answer the recurring question “does ID require intervention by the designer?”
If, by chance, it should ever come up that ID requires miracles or direct interventions in the course of the history of life (just kidding, of course it will come up) perhaps these notes from Dembski and Behe will come in handy.
Read the rest of this entry »
The Destructive Power of Materialist Indoctrination
Posted by derudo | Filed under Darwinism, Intelligent Design
I was an atheist, brainwashed by the establishment, into my 40s. I got a triple dose of indoctrination: from the public schools, from the secular environment in which I grew up (a small college town, surrounded by intellectual university types), and from the university itself. There was no doubt in my mind that God was a human fabrication and that we were the product of purposeless Darwinian mechanisms. In retrospect, however, I realize that I accepted these conclusions completely uncritically, which is ironic, because educated intellectual types supposedly take pride in critical thinking.
Read the rest of this entry »
Dolphin Extra Fins Are Evidence of Design
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design
TOKYO — Japanese researchers said Sunday that a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of back legs, a discovery that may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land. — AP
: UD
I did a little googling on this story, and I find that none of the usual Darwinian propaganda outlets are reporting this discovery. The only reporting is done by the news media. So I wonder why? If this is another missing link the Darwinian Priors would be flocking to the journals to spin their just so stories. Why the relative silence? Does anyone else think this is unusual? Read the rest of this entry »
When is a Skeptic not a Skeptic?
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design
Krauze at TT posted this comment from Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine.
You’re saying that somehow, the first, very simple cell, was actually incredibly complex. Yeah, well, where’s the evidence for that? I mean, where’s the fossil evidence for that? You can’t just make stuff up in science. You actually have to some empirical evidence, so where is that? They have nothing like that, of course. So that, to me, is a deeply flawed argument. [My emphasis]
Michael Shermer might be right in that we don’t have any fossil evidence of that very first instance of a cell. Krauze is mostly right when he said Read the rest of this entry »
Hugh Ross’s New Book Creation As Science
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Evolution, Intelligent Design
This upcoming book is billed as “A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/Evolution Wars” . I strongly disagree with Ross’s criticism of Intelligent Design science. However, I do commend him for his apologetics and effort in trying to get a creation model out.
Why Is AiG So Much More Holier than Thou?
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Intelligent Design, Theology
Denyse O’Leary just posted on some YEC’s criticism of ID. Well, having had first hand experience with the strident attack from young earth creationists, I can say their criticism toward ID is mild by comparison. I wonder if the strident attack that YEC have toward other Biblical Creationists is not due to an inferiority complex. They have established themselves as the Pope of Biblical Orthodoxy. They will readily acknowledge that many OEC like myself is Biblically sound in many (if not all) other doctrines except the day/age interpretation. For that we are Bible compromisers and adhere to heresy. Although not calling OEC heretics but just promoting heresies, is a distinction without a difference. AiG claims that this is just an inconsistent interpretation of Genesis. Now who is being inconsistent? Doesn’t AiG know (or purposely ignore) that this strident rhetoric will produce a group of young earth followers that makes ‘big bang’‚ adherence the test of orthodoxy? I know. I’ve been questioned about my salvation due to my acceptance of the big bang theory.
The problem with the YEC charge that OEC are Bible compromisers is arrogant to say the least. They would acknowledge many OEC like John Ankerberg, J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, Gleason Archer, and Walter Kaiser is faithful defenders of the Bible other than their inconsistent interpretation of the word YOM in Genesis. YEC can legitimately disagree with these scholars without resorting to name calling. Considering preeminent scholars like Walter Kaiser and Gleason Archer, both knowing eight to ten Old Testament languages.
The creation of the universe is dated in Genesis 1:1 as being “in the beginning.”‚ Of that we can be as certain as we are of revelation itself. The creation of Adam came six “days”‚ later, but one must be warned that right there in the first chapters of Genesis the Bible uses the word day with three different meanings: (1) daylight (Gen 1:5), (2) a twenty-four-hour day (Gen 1:14) and (3) an epoch or era, as we use the word in speaking of the “day”‚ of the horse and buggy or Abraham Lincoln’s “day”‚ (Gen 2:4; compare the RSV’s “In the day”‚ with the NIV’s “When”‚ ). I would opt for the day-age theory, given all that must take place on the sixth “day”‚ according to the Genesis record. Incidentally, this day-age view has been the majority view of the church since the fourth century, mainly through the influence of Saint Augustine. — Kaiser, W. C. (1997, c1996). Hard sayings of the Bible (Page 103)
You can disagree with it and you can criticize it but to refer to people like this as Bible compromisers? Read the rest of this entry »
Christianity and ID
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Intelligent Design, Theology
I will make my comment to Krauze’s post here. I think between the YEC and TE, there is a spectrum of Christian positions on ID. Hugh Ross is a OEC with progressive underpinnings. There are also those who are OEC that does not subscribe to progressive creation. Where we stand in that spectrum is less important than how we view Scripture.
As a fundamentalist I view the Bible as the authoritative and inerrant Word of God. The problem comes from how we interpret that Scripture. Do we interpret it willy-nilly or do we apply certain hermeneutic principles to the perspicuous understanding of that Scripture. In other words, the Scripture was written to be understood and followed by its adherents. In that sense it follows the same construct and literary principles of all other ancient documents. Read the rest of this entry »
Tribute to Henry Morris
Posted by scordova | Filed under Intelligent Design
Bill Dembski writes:
It’s with sadness I announce that Henry Morris died Saturday evening (2.25.06). Henry Morris was a great man, and all critics of Darwinian evolution are in his debt for maintaining pressure on this pseudoscience when so much of the Western world capitulated to it. As I wrote last year at this time (go here) in reference to a conversation with Michael Ruse about Henry Morris’s significance:
During our conversation, Ruse commented that for all his disagreements with the young earth creationists, and Henry Morris in particular, he did give them credit for, as he put it, “keeping this issue alive.” The “issue” here was the debate over biological evolution and, in particular, the possibility of design providing a viable alternative to existing materialistic accounts of evolution.
My own experience has abundantly confirmed Ruse’s remark. In traveling outside the United States, I’ve found that evolutionary theory goes largely unchallenged. In the United States, by contrast, there remains widespread skepticism toward evolution. And even though intelligent design has emerged as the most visible banner under which evolution is now being challenged, the challenge would not exist without the efforts of Henry Morris and young earth creationists.
I myself would not be a design theorist today without them. To be sure, I am not a young earth creationist nor do I support their efforts to harmonize science with a particular interpretation of Genesis. Nonetheless, it was their literature that first got me thinking about how improbable it is to generate biological complexity and how this problem might be approached scientifically.
May the work of dismantling Darwinian materialism that Morris began come to completion soon.
Intelligent Design in Spanish
Posted by fdocc | Filed under Intelligent Design
Teleologist and beloved readers,
I have been collaborating in the effort to present Intelligent Design in Spanish, my native languange in the Blog for a new Website:
Today I have translated to Spanish my observations of the Double Talk that exists within evolutionism, clearly represented by the correspondence established between the Hooker and the Darwin (smile).
The Hooker and The Darwin, 
Chuckling behind their dirty hands (smile.)
Darth Vader’s Advice to Michael Ruse
Posted by scordova | Filed under Intelligent Design
Give Yourself to the Dark Side. Join the ID Movement.
In a Remarkable exchange between Michael Ruse and Daniel Dennett Ruse is warned that he is being seduced by the dark side of the force.
