Rebuttals to Critiques of Meyer’s PBSW Article
Part I: One Long BluffPart II: Neo-Darwinism’s Unsolved Problems The September 9, 2004 issue of Nature reported the publication of an article advocating the theory of intelligent design in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The article, written by Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Stephen C. Meyer and titled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” was published in the Read More ›
Evolution
It’s hard to imagine a more innocuous statement than the one the Cobb County, Ga., school board recently ordered pasted into their biology textbooks: “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” Yet this disclaimer is the subject of a nationally Read More ›
The Gods Must Be Tidy!
When as a boy I read “The Scouring of the Shire” near the end of J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, I could not understand why Tolkien felt the need to tack on such an anti-climactic and shabby bit of evil. Only later, as I began to notice modernity’s penchant for ugliness in the world beyond Middle Read More ›
DNA by Design
Teleological Evolution
Evolution’s Logic of Credulity
1. Orr’s Premature Declaration of Victory
Allen Orr wrote an extended critical review (over 6000 words) of my book No Free Lunch for the Boston Review this summer. The Boston Review subsequently contacted me and asked for a 1000 word response. I wrote a response of that length focusing on what I took to be the fundamental flaw in Orr’s review (and indeed in Darwinian thinking generally, namely, conflating the realistically possible with the merely conceivable). What I didn’t know (though I should have expected it) is that Orr would have the last word and that the Boston Review would give him 1000 words to reply to my response (see the exchange in the current issue).
In his reply Orr takes me to task for not responding to the many particular objections he raised against my work in his original review, suggesting that this was the result of bewilderment on my part and intelligent design running out of steam and not, as was the case, for lack of space. This sort of rule-rigging by Orr and the Boston Review — give the respondent a little space, and then let the original author crow about winning — is to be expected. I actually find it encouraging, taking it as an indication of intelligent design’s progress. Orr’s review and follow-up hardly spell the death-knell for intelligent design or for my work in this area. Sooner or later (and probably sooner) Orr will find himself in a forum on intelligent design where the rules of engagement are not rigged in his favor. I look forward to his performance then.
Read More ›Qualified Agreement
Statement regarding the Texas State Board of Education hearings on biology textbooks by Dr. Jonathan Wells
Hello, my name is Jonathan Wells. I have a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology from the University of California at Berkeley, where I also did post-doctoral research. I have published articles in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, I have taught embryology at a campus of the California State University, and I am a member of several scientific societies. Currently, I Read More ›
Laws, Causes and Facts
A response to “Darwinism: Philosophical Preference, Scientific Inference, and Good Research Strategy” by Michael Ruse, Darwinism: Science or Philosophy, Chapter 2, Proceeding of symposium entitled Darwinism: Scientific Inference or Philosophical Preference (March 26-28, 1992). I appreciate very much the opportunity to respond to Professor Ruse. Though it is in the nature of a response to disagree, I must say that Read More ›