Intelligent Design the Future: Delving Into Science at Cambridge: Stephen C. Meyer and Signature in the Cell, Part 2. Intelligent Design the Future: DNA Evidence for Design: Stephen C. Meyer and Signature in the Cell, Part 3. Intelligent Design the Future: The Design Argument Is Unrefuted: Stephen Meyer Responds to Critics In Signature in the Cell, Part 4. Intelligent Design the Future: Evidence for Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design the Future: ID The Future Video Podcast: Biological Information and the Origin of Life featuring Dr. Stephen Meyer. Evolution News & Views: Response to Michael Tkacz's Critique of ID. In my previous installment, I discussed St. Thomas's views of creation and his understanding of how God interacts with the world. The subject could easily fill a long book, of course, but I hope to have provided enough to serve adequately as background for evaluating the criticisms of ID from a few Thomists.
One such Thomist is Gonzaga University philosopher Michael Tkacz, who wrote an article criticizing ID in This Rock magazine, published by Catholic Answers, back in 2008. I read both This Rock and the Catholic Answers website frequently. Both are generally very reliable, orthodox sources of information. What I'd like to focus on here, primarily, is his presentation of the views of St. Tkacz presents his argument as if it were a straightforward, uncontroversial rendering of "Thomism" and the "Catholic intellectual tradition.
" This is the view that nature, as God originally created it, contains gaps or omissions that require God to later fill or repair. "Intervention" Evolution News & Views: On Mechanism: Response to Some Thomist Critics of Intelligent Design. Several "Thomist" critics of ID have claimed that ID is either committed to, entails, or somehow relates to what they consider an unsavory "mechanistic" philosophy. While a number of ID proponents have explicitly denied this, the details are somewhat complicated. So I'd like to respond to this critique at some length in a series of posts. Orthodox Catholics have long opposed the overreaching of a "mechanical philosophy" that came to prominence in the seventeenth century with René Descartes (1596-1650) and Francis Bacon (1561-1626). Christoph Cardinal Schönborn calls mechanism "the dominant form of reductionism in science.
" 1As critics of the Aristotelian philosophy that had come to dominate the thinking in medieval Europe, Descartes and Bacon banished formal and final causation from science for leading to dead ends and sterile explanations. "Mechanical" philosophy is a foil in Catholic surveys of intellectual history. But mechanism is often summarized more narrowly. Evolution News & Views: Scott F. Gilbert, Developmental Biology, and Michael Behe. Scott F. Gilbert's "Developmental Biology" (eighth edition) provides a stunning overview of the elegant biochemical mechanisms controlling the development of organismal form during ontogeny.
The final section of the book, chapter 23 ("Developmental Mechanisms Of Evolutionary Change") is devoted to a discussion of the new evolutionary synthesis, encompassing the new science of 'evo devo' (short hand for 'evolutionary developmental biology'). The book even contains a short rebuttal directed at proponents of intelligent design and, in particular, Michael Behe. Gilbert writes on page 749: "Leaving developmental biology out of evolutionary biology has left evolutionary biology open to attacks from promoters of 'intelligent design.' The asterisk (*) denotes a footnote at the bottom of page 749, which reads: "Behe (1996) makes this point explicitly, using the example of the eye. Where is this attempt at a rebuttal in error? Intelligent Design. No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.
Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. Information And Entropy – Top-down Or Bottom-up Development In Living Systems?
WIT Press Journals Currently displaying Information And Entropy – Top-down Or Bottom-up Development In Living Systems? From Issue 4, Volume 4 of the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics . To view more papers from this issue and others please use the links at the bottom of the page. Papers can be purchased individually for a set price. For more information about access to WIT Press Journals, please visit the Frequently Asked Questions section of the web site. Subscription Access Pay Per Download Open Access Selected Paper Title: Information And Entropy – Top-down Or Bottom-up Development In Living Systems? Authors: A.C. This paper deals with the fundamental and challenging question of the ultimate origin of genetic information from a thermodynamic perspective. Keywords: entropy, evolution, free energy, information, intelligent design, machines, non-isolated systems View more Issues.
Evolution News & Views: Peer-Reviewed Paper Investigating Origin of Information Endorses Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design. A peer-reviewed paper, "Information and Entropy -- Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living Systems? ," by University of Leeds professor Andy McIntosh in the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics expressly endorses intelligent design (ID) via an exploration of a key question in ID thinking: The ultimate question in origins must be: Can information increase in a purely materialistic or naturalistic way?
It is not satisfactory to simply assume that information has to have arisen in this way. The alternative of original design must be allowed and all options examined carefully. A professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory, McIntosh is well acquainted with the workings of machinery. . (1) First, he defines the term "machine" (a device which locally raises the free energy) and observes that the cell is full of machines. All of these functioning parts are needed to make the basic forms of living cells to work. ... Further citing Signature in the Cell, McIntosh states: Are we living in a designer universe? Signature in the Cell - Debates. Debate with Keith Fox on Premier Radio UK Dr. Stephen Meyer debates with Keith Fox, professor of biochemistry at Southampton University and chair of the UK’s Christians in Science network. Topics in this lively but respectful exchange include origins of life and the design inference in science. Debate with Peter Atikins on Premiere Radio UK Signature in the Cell author Stephen Meyer debates Oxford University chemist and “new atheist” Peter Atkins about origins of life, evolution and intelligent design.
Debate on Origins of Life featuring Stephen Meyer, Richard Sternberg, Michael Shermer, and Donald Prothero Advocates for intelligent design and Darwinian evolution squared off to debate the origins of life, the challenges to Darwin’s theory of evolution and the alternative theory of intelligent design. Debate with Chris Mooney on The Michael Medved Show Debate With Peter Ward on The Dori Monson Show (KIRO) Audio MP3 Dr. Dr. Intelligent Design is not Creationism. Intelligent Design is not CreationismBy: Stephen C MeyerThe Daily Telegraph (London)February 9, 2006 This article was originally published in the Daily Telegraph (UK) on January 29. Original Article In 2004, the distinguished philosopher Antony Flew of the University of Reading made worldwide news when he repudiated a lifelong commitment to atheism and affirmed the reality of some kind of a creator.
Flew cited evidence of intelligent design in DNA and the arguments of "American [intelligent] design theorists" as important reasons for this shift. Since then, British readers have learnt about the theory of intelligent design (ID) mainly from media reports about United States court battles over the legality of teaching students about it. But is this accurate? Contrary to media reports, ID is not a religious-based idea, but an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins. What signs of intelligence do design advocates see? This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Pro-Darwin consensus doesn't rule out intelligent design. Pro-Darwin consensus doesn't rule out intelligent designBy: Stephen C.
MeyerCNN.comNovember 23, 2009 Link to Original Article (CNN) -- While we officially celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" on November 24, celebrations of Darwin's legacy have actually been building in intensity for several years. Darwin is not just an important 19th century scientific thinker. Increasingly, he is a cultural icon.
Darwin is the subject of adulation that teeters on the edge of hero worship, expressed in everything from scholarly seminars and lecture series to best-selling new atheist tracts like those by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. And that of course is why he remains hugely controversial. We are told that a consensus of scientists supporting the theory means that Darwinian evolution is no longer subject to debate. Of course, that does happen. DNA functions like a software program. VG.pdf (application/pdf Object)
Stephen Meyer Reframes Christianity Today's Question on Intelligent Design (Stephen C Meyer - News) Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer. RichardSternberg.org | Welcome. Evolution News & Views: Intelligent Design explains and unifies data from across the spectrum of scientific fields. Evolution News & Views: Randy Isaac on "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" "Creationism" In my previous post, I discussed Randy Isaac's distinction of "evolutionism" and "evolution" in his essay "Science and the Question of God," published at the BioLogos Foundation website. After proffering a distinction between "evolution" and "evolutionism," Isaac talks about (young earth) creationism.
I have some quibbles with what he says on the subject, especially with respect to biblical authority; however, I do share his concern that many young earth creationists appeal to the "tu quoque" argument. That is, many argue (in effect) that since everyone holds arbitrary presuppositions, it's no problem for Christians to do so. But saying that everybody begs the question is hardly a reasonable rebuttal to the charge that I'm begging the question. "Intelligent Design" Isaac speaks of intelligent design generically, so you might expect him to treat the subject broadly. Isaac concludes the ID section of his essay with this: Evolution News & Views: Does Intelligent Design Help Science Generate New Knowledge?