SEATTLE, DEC. 14 – The policy on teaching evolution recently adopted by the Dover, PA School Board was called “misguided” today by Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which advised that the policy should be withdrawn and rewritten. “While the Dover board is to be commended for trying to teach Darwinian theory in a more open-minded manner, this is Read More ›
Original Article Intelligent design, which holds that only an unspecified superior intellect can account for the complexity of life forms, is increasingly appearing in science forums and journals as an alternative to evolution theory. Evolution has been widely accepted in scientific circles ever since Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species revolutionised biological sciences 145 years ago. But the new theory’s support Read More ›
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 ›
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 ›
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 ›
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 ›