| Main |

October 2009 Archives

October 5, 2009

Intelligent Design Legitimized Through Darwin's Own 'Vera Causa' Criterion

Robert Deyes continues his review and summarization of SITC at ARN's The ID Report.

The distinction between historical and experimental science is one that extends back over the centuries and at its core seems easy to grasp. Whereas historical science has as its focus events that have defined the history both of our planet and larger cosmos, experimental science has its eye on the current operation of nature.

The 19th century philosopher William Whewell coined the term 'palaetiological sciences' to describe those fields of science, such as geology and paleontology, that have a historical perspective (1). Whewell's broad application of the term shone through in his two great works, his History of the Inductive Sciences and his Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences (1). Immanuel Kant used a similar distinction contrasting those sciences that describe "relationships and changes over time" with those that deal with the "empirical study and classification of objects...at present" (2).

Read the whole report here.

October 13, 2009

New review says SITC is a "crucial", "must have" book, even for intelligent design critics

For those interested in the history and philosophy of origins and in the present controversy over the "establishment" understanding, this is a helpful book. For those wishing to have a better understanding of DNA and a "simple cell," this is an astonishing book. For those who wish to honestly consider what is the best explanation for the origin of specified complex information found in living things, this is an invaluable book. For those who have for whatever reason gravitated to the general proposition that design seems to make intuitive sense, this is an essential book so you can appreciate there is a scientific foundation for your belief. For those who disagree with intelligent design this is the crucial book you must have so as to understand your opponent's best arguments.
That's from a lengthy new review of Signature in the Cell by Ken Ferguson of the Washington Policy Center, published by Spectrum Magazine. You can read it all here.

October 14, 2009

Dawkins Dodges Meyer, Won't Debate Evolution vs. Design

Recently, on the Michael Medved show, arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins, author of The Greatest Show on Earth, was asked point-blank by Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman why he wouldn't debate Stephen Meyer, author of Signature in the Cell. His response? Weak sauce:

I have never come across any kind of creationism, whether you call it intelligent design or not, which has a serious scientific case to put.

The objection to having debates with people like that is that it gives them a kind of respectability. If a real scientist goes onto a debating platform with a creationist, it gives them a respectability, which I do not think your people have earned.

Hm. Did Professor Dawkins have these same scruples when he went up against John Lennox in 2007?

No matter -- Professor Dawkins made his position clear enough: address young earth creationism, then tell your audience that you've destroyed intelligent design... which of course, even Richard Dawkins admits, is not the same thing as young earth creationism.

Read the transcript of the entire exchange below -- and note Bruce Chapman's great line about Expelled:

Continue reading "Dawkins Dodges Meyer, Won't Debate Evolution vs. Design" »

October 19, 2009

Reclaiming Biology From The Design Heisters

Robert Deyes has just posted the next installment in his detailed overview of Signature in the Cell, this a review of chapter eight, over at Uncommon Descent.

In the middle ages, Moses Maimonides debated heavily with Islamic philosophers over the Aristotlean interpretation of the universe. By looking at the stars and seeing their irregular pattern in the heavens, he concluded that only design could have generated the star arrangements he observed (1). In the process he ruled out necessity and the Epicurean ideology of chance. Centuries later Isaac Newton similarly opted for design as the best explanation for the origins of our solar system. Writing in his General Scholium for example Newton left us with no doubt over where his focus lay:

"This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being" (2).

Read it all here.

October 23, 2009

Darwin's Defenders Deny Life's Evident Design

Following on the heels of his last bestseller, The God Delusion, Darwinian biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins has scored another publishing triumph. The No. 5 bestseller in the country, according to the New York Times, is Dawkins's The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. You might think his success would give him the courage to face critics of his ideas in open debate. But you would be wrong. As one of the architects of the theory of intelligent design, I have formally challenged Dawkins to debate our contrasting views of evolution before the public, but his representatives have responded in the negative, insisting that he does not debate "creationists."

Never mind that intelligent design is not creationism. Why does Dr. Dawkins refuse to debate? Maybe because some of the strongest evidence of intelligent design in living beings comes from the study of life's origin itself, posing in turn an enigma that neither Charles Darwin nor Richard Dawkins ever claimed to be able to solve.

Read the rest of this article here.

About October 2009

This page contains all entries posted to Stephen C. Meyer's News page in October 2009. They are listed from oldest to newest.

September 2009 is the previous archive.

November 2009 is the next archive.

More can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.