Tag Archives: Intelligent Design

What’s Wrong and What’s Right With Intelligent Design (Re-posted)

Yesterday Tom Woodward sent me an encouraging email about this article, which I originally posted just over three years ago, and I’ve decided to re-post it today. What follows is the same material, with half a sentence added on Stephen Meyer’s recent work and some dead links removed. Update 6:50 pm: when I first posted …

April 16, 2010 – 2:05 pm | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , , | Comments (10)

Not The End of Intelligent Design

The end of Intelligent Design is not where Stephen Barr thinks it is. Though I hesitate to contest anything written in First Things, a journal I hold in highest esteem, it seems to me Barr has missed several crucial distinctions in his recent article there pronouncing ID’s end. The thrust of his piece is theological, …

March 22, 2010 – 6:00 am | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , , , | Comments (111)

The Evolutionists’ Complaint: It’s Wrong to Argue For ID By Arguing Against Evolution (Part 1 of 3)

This entry is part 1 of 3 in the series The Evolutionist's Complaint

Last week I posted an article in which I attempted to show that evidence against evolution can legitimately be evidence in favor of Intelligent Design. I ran into some serious opposition on that, and even though my interlocutors’ objections there were often mis-aimed, they did lead me to think through the matter more deeply. I …

January 29, 2010 – 2:05 pm | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , | Comments Off

The Evolutionists’ Complaint: It’s Wrong to Argue For ID By Arguing Against Evolution (Part 2 of 3)

This entry is part 2 of 3 in the series The Evolutionist's Complaint

This is the second stage of an argument responding to what I have called The Complaint: that Intelligent Design’s (ID’s) negative argumentation against naturalistic evolution (NE; defined here as the development of life and its complexity through undirected random variation coupled with natural selection) is somehow illegitimate, unscientific, or otherwise weak or wrong. If you …

January 29, 2010 – 2:02 pm | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , | Comments (4)

The Evolutionists’ Complaint: It’s Wrong to Argue For ID By Arguing Against Evolution (Part 3 of 3)

This entry is part 3 of 3 in the series The Evolutionist's Complaint

This is the third post in a series exploring The Complaint of evolutionists: that Intelligent Design’s (ID’s) negative argumentation against naturalistic evolution (NE; defined here as the development of life and its complexity through undirected random variation coupled with natural selection) is somehow illegitimate, unscientific, or otherwise weak or wrong. (This is not the place …

January 29, 2010 – 2:00 pm | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , | Comments (76)

Signature in the Cell: A View of Its Reviewers

I have a telephone interview scheduled with Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, author of Signature In the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, this afternoon (update: find that interview here). Part of my preparation has been reading through reviews of the book on Amazon, where I noticed some patterns that I decided to quantify. …

January 11, 2010 – 12:05 pm | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , , , | Comments (13)

More evidence for miscommunication

Thank you, Larry Fafarman, for answering this, written by Nick Matzke at Panda’s Thumb: Just last week over at the Thinking Christian blog there was a huge stink raised over the alleged inappropriateness of linking ID to creationism. After much argument the anti-linkage people more or less conceded that there were some good reasons to …

October 30, 2009 – 10:52 am | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , | Comments (55)

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

This entry is part 8 of 8 in the series Is ID Creationism?

Commenter John on one of the recent Intelligent Design threads said that science never interprets results after bringing them in. I think there’s truth in that as a general principle, though its extreme nature makes it subject to frequent exceptions, and not the absolute truth he seemed to want it to be. Anyway, I’m about …

October 19, 2009 – 5:20 pm | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , | Comments (32)

Who Defines ID?

This entry is part 7 of 8 in the series Is ID Creationism?

In my earlier post this morning I covered definitions of creationism quite thoroughly but I didn’t include a definition of Intelligent Design. There was one in the post I wrote last Sunday, but not all readers would know that. I wrote: ID sees phenomena like the high information content in biological organisms, instances of apparent …

October 16, 2009 – 10:40 am | By Tom Gilson | Posted in The Faith | Tagged , | Comments (76)

“ID Creationism:” The Communication Question

This entry is part 6 of 8 in the series Is ID Creationism?

Cameron said this morning, in the thread, “Maybe They Really Can’t Tell the Difference,” The relevant purpose here, per the OP, is to determine if ID shares enough similarities with creationism to justify using the term “ID creationism.” That’s an excellent clarifying point, so thank you, Cameron. The answer is quite simple. The point of …

October 16, 2009 – 7:12 am | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , | Comments (24)