There is some evidence that once again, the diapason of opinion is being changed. The claims of intelligent design are too insistent and too plausible to be frivolously dismissed.
Science doesn’t need methodological naturalism. It doesn’t need methodological theism, either.
As I noted earlier, some Darwinists have contacted me insisting that not all freshmen were required to attend the lecture by anti-ID philosopher Robert Pennock at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) (first described here). I felt it was clear that freshmen were required to attend the lecture, given that UCSD’s main student website, Tritonlink, stated, “All first-quarter freshmen are required to attend the event.” Wanting to be diligent, I decided to contact organizers of the lecture to find out the facts. What I found was that, when Darwinists inquired, they were given different answers than I was given. Additionally, I gained fascinating insight into the mindset of Robert Pennock himself. One Answer for Darwinists, a Different Answer for Read More ›
(Editors Note: This Post Was Revised and Updated on November 28, 2006): Some people have contacted me insisting that not all freshmen were required to attend the lecture by Robert Pennock at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) (first discussed here). In this regard, consider the following points: I have posted a screen shot at https://evolutionnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/tritonlink_11-24-06.jpg which clearly stated on the main UCSD student website (called Tritonlink) that “All first-quarter freshmen are required to attend the event.” To my knowledge UCSD has not issued any statements retracting or changing this announcement. I have been presented with no credible evidence that the official UCSD student website statement was incorrect. A 6th College web page did state that “first quarter CAT Read More ›
On Tuesday, I reported that the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) required all freshmen to attend an anti-ID lecture by Robert Pennock. Apparently it was a packed house in the 5000-seat RIMAC arena, illustrating that thousands of freshmen did attend (as they were required). In my prior post I noted that Pennock’s “arguments are fairly standard misrepresentations of intelligent design” and tried to make “educated predictions about Pennock will say.” I know many pro-ID people were in the audience. One friend contacted me and confirmed that most of my predictions about Pennock’s arguments were correct. Pennock made the following arguments, as I predicted: Wrongly claimed ID appeals to the supernatural; Misquoted ID proponents about the nature of intelligent Read More ›