Ceci n'est pas un blog
Is Intelligent Design science?
Countless hours have been wasted poring over this most uninteresting, pedantic and pointless of questions. Rather than seeking to answer the questions raised by Intelligent Design (ID), certain people seem to think it is much more pressing to determine once and for all in which drawer of the filing cabinet the question should reside.
Enough! I don't care whether or not ID is science; I want to know whether it is true!
| Print article | This entry was posted by Anthony on 23 Nov 2010 at 11.52 pm, and is filed under Science & Faith. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
No comments yet.
No trackbacks yet.
An open letter to the British Humanist Association
about 1 year ago - 10 comments
Dear BHA, After re-loading your website home page a few times, I found on it the following quote by Ariane Sherine: "All children should be free to grow up in a world where they are allowed to question, doubt, think freely, and reach their own conclusions about what they believe." As an evangelical Christian, I wholeheartedly…
Intelligent Design: a Bayesian summary
about 2 years ago - 5 comments
This post concludes my recent splurge on Intelligent Design (ID). I have been trying to argue: That ID is basically anti-evolutionism That, as anti-evolutionism, ID is half an argument for creationism That the question of whether ID is science is actually quite dull That ID proponents are right to point out the speculative nature of…
Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools?
about 2 years ago - 12 comments
I don't see why not. Many people in the UK believe in Intelligent Design (that is, they don't believe in modern evolutionary theory), 51% according to one report. This in itself is a good reason to expect children at least to be familiar with the term and what it means. They should learn about some…
Complexity and design
about 2 years ago - 19 comments
The basic argument of anti-evolutionism (Intelligent Design, ID) is that chance processes cannot account for the complexity that we see in living things. The probabilities are simply vanishingly small. That may be true, but I'm nervous about that kind of argument. The reason is that I'm not sure we properly understand complexity. There are examples…
Can science point to an intelligent designer?
about 2 years ago - No comments
I find myself in full agreement with the basic presupposition of Intelligent Design (ID): that a world in which an intelligent agent has acted might be expected to be different to a world in which no such intelligent agent has acted, and that the methods of science (i.e., empirical enquiry) might be a useful tool…
Darwinian speculations?
about 2 years ago - 7 comments
One of the quotes Michael Behe showed at Monday's Darwin or Design? evening was the following: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity, but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system,…
Is Intelligent Design creationism?
about 2 years ago - 18 comments
No. But there is a connection. Intelligent Design (ID), being essentially anti-evolutionism, is half of an argument for creationism. Basic scientific arguments go something like this: You are wrong. I am right. Or, in more detail: Your model does a poor job at explaining the data. My model does a better job at explaining the…
Michael Behe: what is "Intelligent Design"?
about 2 years ago - 4 comments
Last night I called in at Westminster Chapel for Darwin or Design? An Evening with Michael Behe, hosted by Justin Brierley, presenter of Premier Christian Radio's Unbelievable? programme, with support from the new Centre for Intelligent Design. I thought I'd use that as an excuse for a series of blog posts about "Intelligent Design" (ID), as…
I live in York and I 
Loading ...
