|
Creationism is not the same as ID according to creationists. "they're (ID proponents) not even interested in the Bible!" Ken Ham.
Casey Luskin deftly demonstrates that the irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum still whips Darwinian evolution, even after Judge Jones and Kenneth Miller have finished their shaddow boxing. Click this link "In any other context we would immediately recognize such systems as the product of very intelligent engineering."
The Open Minded Challenge. Watch the two videos- â??The Privileged Planetâ?? and â??Unlocking the Mystery of Lifeâ??, and then, if you can, without lying, tell us why you think ID is not based on observation and scientific research, but is based on religious doctrines and faith.
Paul Willis, whilst talking about penguins, tries to demolish Intelligent Design on the ABC Science Show April 7th 2006. He completely misunderstands ID and instead resorts to emotionalism and bad language. Listen to this MP3 sample of his "scientific" thinking.
"In the past, phylogenetic trees have produced a particular view of early eukaryote history that
was appealing, but turned out to be wrong in salient aspects." T. Martin Embley & William Martin in Nature 2006. Science Magazine 7th April has two articles which it is claimed refute Irreducible Complexity. The first, Reducible Complexity by Christoph Adami and the other Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation by Thornton et al. Michael Behe, who first coined IC in biology, answers what he considers this "lamest attempt yet" to refute IC. Another critique appears here.
Actually, after 10 years we still do not have a single, peer reviewed study in any scientific journal that actually has falsified Irreducible Complexity.
Intelligent design is scientific, and evidence favors a designer
Listen to The War of the Worldviews. (Quicktime)
"To me, the most thrilling thing about ID is that it shows us that while Darwinism may be true, it is not necessarily true." Barry Arrington, an attorney in Denver.
The Brits are not afraid of Intelligent Design in schools.
On the "Science Show" Australian ABC Radio, Robyn Williams trashes ID. Do these provide a balanced presentation? here or here.
William Dembski MP3 defends ID after Dover. Right click then "save target as"
Australian NSW Greens Dr John Kay has strong feelings about Intelligent Design.
Why not check out the growing list of eminent scientists who are sceptical about the claims of Darwinism.
Michael Behe answers his accuser Judge Jones from the Dover ID case.
Why is it often hard for ID papers to get through peer review? Just how good is peer review? "I was told repeatedly that I should have found peer reviewers who would reject the article out-of-hand." Richard Sternberg talking about a Peer reviewed article "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
Cardinal Schonborn, Catholic archbishop of Vienna writes in First Things that although "modern science first excludes a priori final and formal causes" ... "reason can grasp the reality of design without the aid of faith"
Stephen Barr writes beautifully, supplementing Cardinal Schonborn in Feb "First Things". "The Argument from Design has been enormously strengthened by discoveries in physics and cosmology, whatever bruises it is supposed to have taken from Darwin."
Now for a Sydney Anglican opinion. William Dembski MP3 defends ID after Dover. Right click then "save target as" Australian NSW Greens Dr John Kay has strong feelings about Intelligent Design. Why not check out the growing list of eminent scientists who are sceptical about the claims of Darwinism. Michael Behe answers his accuser Judge Jones from the Dover ID case. Why is it often hard for ID papers to get through peer review? Just how good is peer review? "I was told repeatedly that I should have found peer reviewers who would reject the article out-of-hand." Richard Sternberg talking about a Peer reviewed article "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Robin Collins writes a very interesting piece on finding a place for ID. Vatican hosts ID conference hear about it. Cardinal Sch�¶nborn, Catholic archbishop of Vienna writes in First Things that although "modern science first excludes a priori final and formal causes" ... "reason can grasp the reality of design without the aid of faith" Stephen Barr writes beautifully, supplementing Cardinal Sch�¶nborn in Feb "First Things". "The Argument from Design has been enormously strengthened by discoveries in physics and cosmology, whatever bruises it is supposed to have taken from Darwin." The Vatican Astronomer trashes ID. Now for a Sydney Anglican opinion. Britons are unconvinced on evolution. Is it a problem with education or the theory itself? UK Telegraph publishes a good piece on ID and readers respond. "The cell can be compared to a factory orchestrating individual assembly lines into integrated networks fulfilling particular and superimposed tasks." In Nature Jan 22 2006 Anne-Claude Gavin writes "Cells use a mixed strategy of prefabricating core elements of machines and then synthesizing additional, snap-on molecules that give each machine a precise function. That provides an economic way to diversify biological processes and also to control them." Science magazine's breakthroughs of 2005 Winner: "Evolution in action." Genome sequencing and painstaking field observations shed light on how evolution works. These discoveries show how the genetic regulation system works. They do not explain the origin of information contained within the genome. Notice the other contenders for the award. They seem to confirm Intelligent Design.
"Intelligent design has gained adherents because a sizable number of people are capable of reading and thinking for themselves." Tom Bethell Washington Times Listen for 2 minutes to Richard Dawkins outlining his faith in Natural Selection's ability to design. Panel member Bill Hodgson responds to recent press on ID. |