Casey Luskin from the IDEA Center sent the following report on a recent news story that aired on San Diego’s Fox affiliate. Amazingly, the station devoted over four minutes –an eternity in TV news time– to looking at what ID is. An MPEG of the story is available for download from the IDEA Center at http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1298. (newly updated link)
In response to Michael Behe’s case for intelligent design in a recent edition of The New York Times, two letters to the paper’s editor charged design theory with being untestable. Design theory has failed to produce “statements that are susceptible to testing,” wrote Karen Rosenberg. Similarly, Donald Terndrup asserted , “Design will be a real science” when and only when “we have testable answers for these questions.” But as philosopher of science Stephen Meyer has explained, the methodology used for intelligent design is strikingly similar to that used by Darwinists to argue for common descent. An argument against
To the Editor: Jim Holt’s piece “Unintelligent Design” is filled with the usual Darwinist canards about how various designs found in living things are suboptimal according to the writer’s undefined and untested opinions on optimality. That’s all standard fare–chock full of unexamined theological presuppositions (of the “God wouldn’t have done it that way” variety) and not worth a response. Holt also trots out the usual nonsense about Pope John Paul II somehow accepting Darwinian evolution.
Dr. Chris Macosko at the University of Minnesota sent the following letter to The New York Times responding to Bruce Alberts comments about Mike Behe’s recent op-ed in the Times, “Design for Living.” Since the Times’ didn’t see fit to publish this letter, Dr. Macosko agreed to let us publish it here. To the Editor: Bruce Alberts, president of the NAS, responded to Michael Behe’s Feb. 7th Op-Ed. As an NAE member, I take exception to Dr. Alberts‚�� statement that “modern scientific views are entirely consistent with spontaneous variation and natural selection driving a powerful evolutionary process”, since he forces ‚��consistency‚�� by excluding the alternative: intelligent design. Are there scientific grounds for his exclusion? On the contrary; scientists routinely use Read More ›
Portsmouth, NH columnist D. Allan Kerr favors evolutionary theory and equates intelligent design with creationism. So you might think Darwin’s defenders would be pleased as punch with him. Think again. Mr. Kerr is being taken to task by the Darwinist thought-police. His crime? He had the audacity to suggest that students might actually