Tag: The Greatest Show on Earth
Science Review Offers False Accusations about Chloroquine Resistance
In one paragraph Lents et al. twice cited sources they thought contradicted Behe, and twice suggested he ignored or dismissed contrary evidence.
Intelligent Design and Common Descent
A reader asks, “I was just wondering why some fellows at Discovery believe in ID but still hold to common descent.“
Ignoring Other Research, New Study Explains (Away) the Origin of New Body Plans
Recently, a team of British paleontologists added a new pseudo-explanation.
Pro-Intelligent Design Book Makes Times Literary Supplement’s “Books of the Year” Issue, But Dawkins and Other Darwinists Left Out in Cold
Although this year has been widely touted as the “Year of Darwin” because of its big Darwin-related anniversaries, the book reviewers at the Times Literary Supplement (TLS) in London seem less than enthralled with the year’s crop of pro-Darwin retreads from the publishing industry. Indeed, the TLS’s “Books of the Year” issue just released last Friday fails to include any of the year’s big pro-Darwin tomes such as Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution Is True or even Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth among its “Books of the Year.” Instead, the only book so honored that focuses on the Darwin-ID debate is Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, which was selected by noted Read More ›
Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth Shies Away from Intelligent Design but Unwittingly Vindicates Michael Behe
Richard Dawkins’ new book, The Greatest Show on Earth, is being touted as a scathing rebuttal to intelligent design (ID), yet an actual response to mainstream ID thinking can hardly be found in the book. Though the book makes passing mention of “irreducible complexity” in a couple places, there are zero mentions of leading ID proponents like Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Phillip Johnson, Stephen Meyer, or any other well-known ID proponent. Instead, Dawkins refers extensively to “creationists,” repeatedly attacking young earth creationism, while also making heavy use of fallacious (and dubious) “poor design” examples that rebut no argument made by a leading advocate of design since perhaps the 19th century. It seems that Dawkins didn’t have the stomach Read More ›