Intelligent Design the Future

Today’s ID the Future episode features excerpts from a lively conversation with Frank Turek as host and Stephen Meyer as guest. The focus: Meyer’s new USA Today bestseller, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe.* The two discuss the new book, and Meyer fields questions from the audience. The conversation originally appeared on Turek’s national radio show, CrossExamined, and the excerpts from that longer interview are used here with permission. (*As an Amazon Associate, Discovery Institute earns from qualifying purchases.)

On this ID the Future from the vault, hear the final segment of Bill Dembski’s appearance on the Gilmore & Glahn radio show. Dembski and John Gilmore continue their discussion of advances being made behind the scenes in the overall scientific debate, and the inevitable demise of Darwinian evolution as the predominant theory in life sciences.

Source

On this ID the Future from the vault, hear the final segment of Bill Dembski’s appearance on the Gilmore & Glahn radio show. Dembski and John Gilmore continue their discussion of advances being made behind the scenes in the overall scientific debate, and the inevitable demise of Darwinian evolution as the predominant theory in life sciences.

On today’s ID the Future Tom Gilson–author, senior editor with The Stream, and occasional contributor to Evolution News & Science Today–tackles the question of how best to discuss intelligent design with friends and associates skeptical of ID. There is so much misinformation about the theory of intelligent design that many well-intended people reject not the actual theory but a silly caricature, a straw man. They don’t realize that ID is not an argument from ignorance but an inference to the best explanation based on positive evidence for design and negative evidence against competing materialistic explanations. It involves what is known as abductive reasoning, a standard mode of reasoning in the historical sciences. When in conversation with someone who understands none Read More ›

Source

On today’s ID the Future Tom Gilson–author, senior editor with The Stream, and occasional contributor to Evolution News & Science Today–tackles the question of how best to discuss intelligent design with friends and associates skeptical of ID. There is so much misinformation about the theory of intelligent design that many well-intended people reject not the actual theory but a silly caricature, a straw man. They don’t realize that ID is not an argument from ignorance but an inference to the best explanation based on positive evidence for design and negative evidence against competing materialistic explanations. It involves what is known as abductive reasoning, a standard mode of reasoning in the historical sciences. When in conversation with someone who understands none Read More ›

On today’s ID the Future, physicist Brian Miller continues his conversation with host Eric Anderson. Here they explore more problems facing the idea that life began as strings of RNA. In their discussion of the RNA World Hypothesis and the origin of life generally, they touch on ideas advanced by Jeremy England, Jack Shostak, Nick Lane, Helen Hansma, and others. One of several big problems with the RNA-first hypothesis underscored by Miller and Anderson: For it to have even a slender chance of working, you need prebiotic Earth to generate not one but two information-rich RNA strands, and they somehow need to find each other before falling apart, and do so despite the fact that they aren’t looking for each Read More ›

Source

On today’s ID the Future, physicist Brian Miller continues his conversation with host Eric Anderson. Here they explore more problems facing the idea that life began as strings of RNA. In their discussion of the RNA World Hypothesis and the origin of life generally, they touch on ideas advanced by Jeremy England, Jack Shostak, Nick Lane, Helen Hansma, and others. One of several big problems with the RNA-first hypothesis underscored by Miller and Anderson: For it to have even a slender chance of working, you need prebiotic Earth to generate not one but two information-rich RNA strands, and they somehow need to find each other before falling apart, and do so despite the fact that they aren’t looking for each Read More ›

On this ID the Future from the vault, William Dembski continues his conversation on the Gilmore & Glahn radio show. Host John Gilmore and Dembski, a philosopher, mathematician, and ID pioneer, cover a wide range of topics, including the state of the intelligent design movement, where the science is headed, Dembski’s controversial ID talk at the University of Chicago, and the growing number of prominent scientists and scholars who may or may not accept intelligent design but who insist that Darwinian evolution is a failed theory. The conversation occurred in 2015, so an exit question we can ask ourselves is, what remains the same about the evolution/design debate, and what has changed in the intervening six years?

Source

On this ID the Future from the vault, William Dembski continues his conversation on the Gilmore & Glahn radio show. Host John Gilmore and Dembski, a philosopher, mathematician, and ID pioneer, cover a wide range of topics, including the state of the intelligent design movement, where the science is headed, Dembski’s controversial ID talk at the University of Chicago, and the growing number of prominent scientists and scholars who may or may not accept intelligent design but who insist that Darwinian evolution is a failed theory. The conversation occurred in 2015, so an exit question we can ask ourselves is, what remains the same about the evolution/design debate, and what has changed in the intervening six years?

In today’s ID the Future historian Richard Weikart (Cal State Stanislaus) dissects a new Cambridge University Press book on social Darwinism by Jeffrey O’Connell and Michael Ruse. Weikart, author of Hitler’s Ethic, From Darwin to Hitler, Hitler’s Religion, and The Death of Humanity,* says that a major shortcoming of the new book is the authors’ attempt to put as much distance as possible between Darwin and eugenics thinking, and between Darwin and Hitler. The new book paints Darwin follower Herbert Spencer as the eugenics-championing bad guy and posits that Darwin and Darwinism had little or no influence on Hitler’s warped master race ethic. Weikart patiently highlights some key evidence to the contrary, statements front and center in Hitler’s writing. Did Read More ›

Source