There have been a number of carefully written books and articles arguing that ID has failed to make its case. ID advocates have published responses to these arguments. Which of these lines of argument is most convincing, when compared to what is known about living systems?
A huge amount of change has occurred over the more than two millennia since the time of Democritus. Design arguments that he and his intellectual offspring eschewed have gone through many iterations, experiencing periods of great success and times of decline, but have never been dealt a deathblow. In fact, they continue to thrive. The recent resurgence of design arguments, coupled with an explosive accumulation of knowledge about the molecular complexity of life and elegance in the universe life inhabits, suggest that the design inference faces a robust future.
Studies of species in the sixteenth century began with numerous suggestions of wide variability, but after Francesco Redi helped to falsify spontaneous generation, scholars began to view species as essentially fixed. Published in Origins, n. 62.
The idea that different types of organisms were created and commanded to reproduce "after their kinds" seems widely believed among creationists. It may therefore come as a surprise to many to learn the idea is not stated in the Bible. Published in Origins n. 60.
Reactions comprising the nitrogen cycle are catalyzed by complex protein machines, some of which may be Irreducibly Complex (IC). Published in Origins n. 60.
A review of the book, Beginnings: Are Science and Scripture Partners in the Search for Origins? Published in Origins n. 60.
A review of the book Why Is a Fly Not a Horse? Published in Origins n. 60.
A review of the book The Privleged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. Published in Origins n. 60.
A review of the book Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. Published in Origins n. 60.
A review of the book The Evolution-Creation Struggle. Published in Origins n. 60.
The debate raging around ID is not one of scientific fact versus religious faith. The real clash is an ideological one in which scientists are seeking to maintain the intellectual and cultural dominance of the humanist/atheist worldview.
The words kind and kinds that are mentioned in the Creation narrative of Genesis 1:21, 24, and 25. How are we to understand these terms in a modern context? How do they relate to current terms and classifications in biology?
In this article, we will review the contemporary status of the design theory and examine some of the major criticisms leveled against it.
This article explores the usefulness of the idea of intelligent design in the context of modern (scientific) efforts to understand nature. Among the questions to be considered are whether intelligent design is a necessary inference from the properties of nature, and whether its incorporation into science would improve our ability to explore and understand nature.
Poor design in Rubisco can now be added to the growing list of failed Darwinian arguments from ignorance.
There is more to design than complexity. I am proposing that it is time to advance beyond an analysis of complexity, fruitful though that has been. We are able to expand the scope of design arguments to include the existence of beauty, which points to design of a different kind.
In this discussion I propose to present a scientific and a biblical model of origins and explore how these can be brought into harmony with each other. I also hope to show that the differences between the statements made by these two disciplines are largely a result of differing interpretations based on different paradigms.
If microorganisms are indeed ubiquitous and indispensable, it is reasonable to expect to find evidences of their activities in the biblical record. Such an approach may enrich our grasp of the sacred text. This paper intends to show that there is more microbiology in the Bible than meets the eye!
Creationism is a robust paradigm, fully capable of undergirding the scientific enterprise in the new millennium. Wider acceptance of creationism by the scientific community in the future will depend, in part, on how well theologians can convince scientists of the priceless value of revealed information.
While Christians may be convinced that design in nature points to a Creator-God, the general scientific community has not been persuaded. Perhaps more scientifically respectable work on intelligent design of the kind done by Behe and Dembski will encourage evolutionary scientists to look beyond purely naturalistic mechanisms to explain the complexity and meaning of life.
