Stephen Meyer on PBS’s ThinkTank
This film in two parts features Stephen Meyer and Michael Ruse on PBS’s ThinkTank in 2006, hosted by Ben Wattenberg. Used with permission. Part I Part II
Stephen Meyer on PBS’s ThinkTank with Ben Wattenberg, pt. 2
This film is Part 2 of the full episode featuring Stephen Meyer and Michael Ruse on PBS’s ThinkTank in 2006, hosted by Ben Wattenberg. Used with permission. See part 1 here. Part I
Stephen Meyer Debates Michael Ruse on Public Radio’s Interfaith Voices
In this audio feature, Michael Ruse engages Dr. Stephen Meyer’s in a lively discussion about Meyer’s new book Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Rise of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design on public radio’s Interfaith Voices. For more information on the book and to order your copy visit http://www.darwinsdoubt.com.
A Review of Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue
Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue Edited by Robert B. Stewart Fortress Press, 2007, 257 pages Despite—or perhaps because of—the great volume of books published annually on Darwinian evolution and intelligent design, few new contributions are worth the time of those familiar with the major works of Dawkins and Gould, Johnson and Dembski. (Recent exceptions to Read More ›
Response to Critics, Part 3: Michael Ruse
Dear Readers, Today I give you one last response for now, to Michael Ruse’s review of Edge of Evolution. After more reviews are in, I’ll compose a comprehensive response. I leave you with this for now. Michael Ruse in The Globe and Mail Michael Ruse is a philosopher of biology who has written over a dozen books on aspects of Darwinian thought. 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 ›
Damage Control at the AAAS
The AAAS Board Resolution on intelligent-design theory represents the scientific establishments latest effort to insulate evolutionary biology from critique and discussion. The challenge of intelligent design for evolutionary biology is real. This is not like someone who claims that ancient technologies could not have built the pyramids, so goblins must have done it. We can show how, with the technological Read More ›
Michael Ruse is Just Confused!
This article appeared in a discussion on the topic of intelligent design published in the July/August, 2002 issue of Research News & Opportunity In Science And Theology. Other contributoring thinkers included Karl Giberson, Michael Ruse, Eugenie Scott, William Dembski, Robert Pennock, and Jonathan Wells. If nothing else, Michael Ruse has chutzpah. Let me tell a little story about blood clotting, Read More ›
Disbelieving Darwin — And Feeling No Shame!
Science, we are told, is tentative. And given the history of science, there is every reason for science to be tentative. No scientific theory withstands revision for long, and many are eventually superseded by theories that flatly contradict their predecessors. Scientific revolutions are common, painful, and real. New theories regularly overturn old ones, and no scientific theory is ever the Read More ›
The Demarcation of Science and Religion
Open Letter to Paul R. Gross, “Politicizing Science Education”
Dear Mr. Gross: Your article, “Politicizing Science Education,” (available at http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/publication.cfm?id=43) recently came to our attention. While we share your concern for what you call “the maladies of contemporary education,” we think you have gravely misrepresented several of the key issues. Science education in this country cannot be repaired without candor and accuracy. Yet candor and accuracy are woefully lacking Read More ›
Michael Behe’s Response to Boston Review Critics
The following is Michael Behe’s response to the essays published by Boston Review following Allen Orr’s review of Darwin’s Black Box. Allen Orr Professor Orr has a mistaken notion of irreducible complexity. I thought I made that clear in my reply, but from his response I suppose I did not, so let me try again. I define irreducible complexity in Read More ›