Научници - антиеволуционисти

[Guest Alefshin]

Давид Берлински

David Berlinski (born 1942 in New York City) is an educator and author of popular books on mathematics. He is a leading proponent of intelligent design, critic of evolution and author of numerous articles on the topic.[1]

Contents

* 1 Biography

o 1.1 Career

o 1.2 Intelligent design

* 2 Writings (partial list)

o 2.1 Books

o 2.2 Articles

* 3 References

* 4 External links

o 4.1 Video

Biography

Career

David Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University[2], and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has taught philosophy, mathematics, and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York, the University of Washington, the University of Puget Sound, San Jose State University, the University of Santa Clara, the University of San Francisco, and San Francisco State University.

He has also taught mathematics at the Université de Paris. He has been a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institute des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques (IHES) in France. He currently lives in Paris.

Early in his career, he worked for the elite management consulting company, McKinsey & Company, as an associate (a junior consultant) at the firm's New York City headquarters. Harvey Golub, later CEO and Chairman of the Board of American Express, and Lou Gerstner, later CEO and Chairman of IBM were young McKinsey associates at the same time. [citation needed]

He has written works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics. Berlinski is best known for his books on mathematics and the history of mathematics written for the general public. These include A Tour of the Calculus (1997) on calculus, The Advent of the Algorithm (2000) on algorithms, Newton's Gift (2000) on Isaac Newton, and Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics (2005). Another book, The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky (2003), compares astrological and evolutionary accounts of human behavior.

He is the author of several detective novels starring private investigator Aaron Asherfeld: Less Than Meets the Eye, The Body Shop and A Clean Sweep, and a number of shorter works of fiction and non-fiction.

Intelligent design

An outspoken critic of evolution, Berlinski is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement. The scientific community, however, regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3] The ruling in the 2005 Dover case held that intelligent design is a form of creationism[4] and that the intelligent design movement is a political rather than scientific movement. Berlinski denies believing in intelligent design,[citation needed], but is a scathing critic of "Darwinism", the term used in the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns for evolution. [3]

Though the Discovery Institute portrays Berlinski as a scholarly writer and "mathematician,"[5] Mark Perakh, a critic of the intelligent design movement, contends that Berlinski's writings are not scientific, but popular, and that Berlinski "has no known record of his own contribution to the development of mathematics or of any other science."[6]

Berlinski, along with fellow Discovery Institute associates Michael Behe and William A. Dembski, tutored Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism.[7] Approximately one-third of the book is devoted to polemical attacks on evolution, which Coulter, as Berlinski often does, terms "Darwinism".

Berlinski was a longtime friend of the late Marcel-Paul Schützenberger (1920-1996), with whom he collaborated on an unfinished and unpublished mathematical polemic that he described as being "devoted to the Darwinian theory of evolution."[8] Berlinski dedicated The Advent of the Algorithm to Schutzenberger.

In a 2006 DVD, Berlinski made the statement:[9]

The interesting argument about the whale, which is a mammal after all, is that if its origins where[sic] land-based originally…what do you have to do from an engineering point of view to change a cow into a whale?...Virtually every feature of the cow has to change, has to be adapted.

As a number of biologists have pointed out, whales evolved, not from cattle, but from pakicetids, hoofed carnivores.[10][11]

Writings (partial list)

Books

* The Advent of the Algorithm: The 300-Year Journey from an idea to the Computer, 2001, ISBN 0-15-601391-6

* The Advent of the Algorithm: The idea that Rules the World, 2000, ISBN 0-15-100338-6

* Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics, 2005, ISBN 0-679-64234-X

* Newton's Gift: How Sir Isaac Newton Unlocked the System of the World, 2000, ISBN 0-684-84392-7

* The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky: Astrology and the Art of Prediction, 2003, ISBN 0-15-100527-3

* A Tour of the Calculus, 1996, ISBN 0-679-42645-0

* Black Mischief, 1986, ISBN 0-688-04404-2

Articles

* A listing of David Berlinski's articles compiled by the Discovery Institute, with links to the articles online

* The End of Materialistic Science

* The Deniable Darwin

* Keeping an Eye on Evolution

* Has Darwin met his match?

* What Brings a World into Being? (role of information in creation)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski

[Guest Alefshin]

William Dembski

William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American mathematician, philosopher, theologian and proponent of intelligent design in opposition to the theory of evolution through natural selection. From 1999 to 2005, he was on the faculty of Baylor University, where he was a constant focus of attention and controversy. For the academic year 2005-6, he was briefly the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, as well as the first director of the school's new Center for Theology and Science (since taken over by the well known creationist Kurt Wise).[1] On 1 June 2006 Dembski became research professor in philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.[2] The Southern Baptist Convention operates both seminaries.

According to Dembski, the scientific study of nature reveals evidence of design, and opposes what he regards as mainstream science's commitment to "atheistic" materialism or naturalism, which he believes rules out "Intelligent Design" a priori. His main proposal is that specified complexity, a type of information, is the hallmark of an intelligent designer. His work is controversial: the mainstream scientific community largely rejects his ideas, with leading scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science describing intelligent design as pseudoscience, and voices within the science community challenging his qualifications as a commentator on science, philosophy, and mathematics.

Dembski's supporters include intelligent design proponent Robert Koons, a Fellow along with Dembski at the Discovery Institute and Dembski's International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, and University of Texas at Austin philosopher [2]. Koons has referred to Dembski as "the Isaac Newton of information theory." However, mathematician, number theorist Jeffrey Shallit has studied Dembski's work, arguing that it should not be regarded as significant.[3]

Contents

[hide]

* 1 Biography

o 1.1 Discovery Institute

o 1.2 Peer-review controversy

o 1.3 Baylor University controversy

o 1.4 Activities since 2001

* 2 Views and statements

o 2.1 Responses to critics

+ 2.1.1 Uncommon Descent

o 2.2 Dembski's role in the Mims-Pianka controversy

* 3 Bibliography

* 4 References

* 5 See also

* 6 External links

o 6.1 Defending Dembski

o 6.2 Criticising Dembski

o 6.3 Audio and video

[edit] Biography

Dembski was born in Chicago, Illinois. He was brought up as a Catholic, the only child of a college biology professor (who accepted and taught evolution). He was educated at Portsmouth Abbey School, at the time an all-male Catholic preparatory school in Rhode Island, but left the school a year early before graduating to enter the University of Chicago, which admitted exceptional students who had not graduated high school (Kurt Wise, who heads Dembski's former theology and science center at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was in the same 1977 incoming class at the University of Chicago as Dembski). In 1988, as a postdoctoral fellow at MIT, he delivered Portsmouth Abbey's Dom Luke Child's lecture for that year. After the lecture, the school awarded him his high school diploma, ten years after he would have graduated.

He struggled socially at the college level and dropped out at the age of seventeen to work in his mother's art dealership. He says that he did not initially accept the precepts of Christianity, but during this "difficult period" he turned to the Bible in an effort to understand the world around him. Later, after becoming an Evangelical Christian, he read creationist literature. He did not accept the doctrines of literal creationists, though their criticisms of evolutionary theory did strike a chord in him. He says of Young Earth creationism:

"Nonetheless, it was their literature that first got me thinking about how improbable it is to generate biological complexity and how this problem might be approached scientifically. A.E. Wilder-Smith was particularly important to me in this regard. Making rigorous his intuitive ideas about information has been the impetus for much of my research." [3]

He returned to school at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), where he studied psychology (in which he received a B.A. in 1981) and statistics (receiving an M.S. in 1983). He was awarded an S.M. in mathematics in 1985, and a Ph.D., also in mathematics, in 1988, both from the University of Chicago, after which he held a postdoctoral fellowship in mathematics at the National Science Foundation from 1988 until 1991, and another in the history and philosophy of science at Northwestern University from 1992–1993. He was awarded an M.A. in philosophy in 1993, and a Ph.D. in the same subject in 1996, both from UIC, and an M.Div from Princeton Theological Seminary, also in 1996.

Dissatisfied with the "free-swinging academic style" of the Princeton Theological Seminary, Dembski was involved in forming a group known as the "Charles Hodge Society", by and large a group concerned with resurrecting positive evaluations of Old Princeton Theology. The Society organized discussions and informal colloquia, but its primary work centered on reviving Hodge's own journal, the Princeton Theological Review. The PTR primarily wrote from a conservative angle on theological issues of the day. [4] In the Unapologetic Apologetics Dembski claims that "members of the Charles Hodge Society were threatened with two lawsuits for their work on the Princeton Theological Review, threatened with physical violence, accused of racism and sexism, denied funding that other campus groups readily received, had posted signs destroyed and removed, and were explicitly informed by faculty that membership in the Charles Hodge Society jeopardized their academic advancement."

Dembski holds that his knowledge of statistics, and general scepticism concerning evolutionary theory, led him to believe that the extraordinary diversity of life was statistically unlikely to have been produced by natural selection.[citation needed] A key turning point for him was reached at a conference on randomness at Ohio State University in 1988, where statistician Persi Diaconis concluded the event by saying, "We know what randomness isn't. We don't know what it is." Dembski cites this event as a catalyst for his subsequent work on design. [5] He concluded that randomness is a derivative notion, which can only be understood in terms of design, a more fundamental concept. He presented these thoughts in his 1991 paper "Randomness by Design", which appeared in the journal Noûs. These ideas led to his notion of specified complexity, which he developed in The Design Inference, a revision of his Ph.D. dissertation in philosophy.

Lawyer Phillip E. Johnson's first book Darwin on Trial attracted a group of "scholars" who shared his view that the exclusion of supernatural explanations by the scientific method was unfair and had led to the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling that teaching creation science in public schools was unconstitutional. Dembski was part of that group at a landmark symposium at Southern Methodist University in Dallas in March 1992, before they came to call themselves "The Wedge".[4] The phrase "intelligent design" had been introduced in 1987 in drafts of the high school textbook Of Pandas and People as a substitute for "creation science" to refer to the idea that there is scientific evidence that life was created through unspecified processes by an intelligent but unidentified designer without infringing the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, and the textbook had been published in 1989 amidst campaigning by the publisher for the introduction of "intelligent design" into school science classes. Biochemist Michael Behe, another member of "The Wedge", contributed the argument which he subsequently called "irreducible complexity" (IC) to the second edition of Pandas in 1993. The textbook already contained concepts which Dembski elaborated into his doctrine of "specified complexity" (SC) as a supporting element. Dembski's mathematical arguments rest on Behe's assertion that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve gradually. Dembski's specified complexity rides on Behe's claim, and its validity is dependent on the validity of irreducible complexity.[5]

In 1998, Dembski published his first book, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, which became a Cambridge University Press bestselling philosophical monograph. Another book, Mere Creation, echoed the book Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. Dembski has published several popular books, but has published no papers on intelligent design within the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

[edit] Discovery Institute

During the three years after completing graduate school in 1996 Dembski was unable to secure a university position and so until 1999 he received what he calls "a standard academic salary" of $40,000 a year as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Discovery Institute's, Center for Science and Culture (CSC). "I was one of the early beneficiaries of Discovery largess," says Dembski.[6]

Dembski serves now as a senior fellow at the CSC, where he plays a central role in the center's extensive public and political campaigns advancing the concept of intelligent design and its teaching in public schools through its "Teach the Controversy" campaign as part of the institute's Wedge strategy.

[edit] Peer-review controversy

One of the common objections to intelligent design being accepted as valid science is that ID proponents have published no scientific papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in support of their conjectures. The ruling in the Dover trial, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, found that to date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.[6][7] Despite the Dover trial ruling, the Discovery Institute claims that Dembski's book The Design Inference has in fact been peer reviewed, and represents it as peer reviewed. [8]. Although the Discovery Institute touts Dembski's credentials as a mathematician and scientist, he has no peer reviewed scientific publications and no recent mathematical publications.[9]

Computer scientist and number theorist Jeffrey Shallit describes Dembski's published mathematical output as "extremely small" for a research mathematician, and remarks that "t is very unlikely that his meagre output would merit tenure at any major university."[10] Dembski insists that The Design Inference has in fact been peer reviewed.[11] Dembski states: "this book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory". Wesley R. Elsberry contacted the person in charge of the The Design Inference manuscript at Cambridge University Press, who declined to describe what a normal review process at Cambridge University Press consisted of. [citation needed] In his expert report, Shallit states "I know that book manuscripts typically do not receive the same sort of scrutiny that research articles do. ..it is not uncommon for a 10-page paper to receive 5 pages or more of comments whereas a book manuscript of 200 pages often receives about the same number..."(p.4)

[edit] Baylor University controversy

In 1999, Dembski was invited by Robert Sloan, President of Baylor University, to establish the Michael Polanyi Center at the university. Named after the Hungarian physical chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi (1891–1976), Dembski described it as "the first intelligent design think tank at a research university". Dembski had known Sloan for about three years, having taught Sloan's daughter at a Christian study summer camp not far from Waco, Texas. Sloan was the first Baptist minister to serve as Baylor's president in over 30 years, had read some of Dembski's work and liked it; according to Dembski, Sloan "made it clear that he wanted to get me on the faculty in some way."

The Polanyi Center was established without much publicity in October 1999, initially consisting of two people — Dembski and a like-minded colleague, Bruce L. Gordon, who were hired directly by Sloan without going through the usual channels of a search committee and departmental consultation. The vast majority of Baylor staff did not know of the center's existence until its website went online, and the center stood outside of the existing religion, science, and philosophy departments.

The center's mission, and the lack of consultation with the Baylor faculty, became the immediate subject of controversy. The faculty feared for the university's reputation – it has historically been well-regarded for its contributions to mainstream science – and scientists outside the university questioned whether Baylor had "gone fundamentalist". Faculty members pointed out that the university's existing interdisciplinary Institute for Faith and Learning was already addressing questions about the relationship between science and religion, making the existence of the Polanyi Center somewhat redundant. In April 2000, Dembski hosted a conference on "naturalism in science" sponsored by the broadly theistic Templeton Foundation and the pro-ID Discovery Institute, seeking to address the question "Is there anything beyond nature?". Most of the Baylor faculty boycotted the conference.

A few days later, the Baylor faculty senate voted by a margin of 27–2 to ask the administration to dissolve the center and merge it with the Institute for Faith and Learning. President Sloan refused, citing issues of censorship and academic integrity, but agreed to convene an outside committee to review the center. The committee recommended setting up a faculty advisory panel to oversee the science and religion components of the program, dropping the name "Michael Polanyi" and reconstituting the center as part of the Institute for Faith and Learning. [7] These recommendations were accepted in full by the university administration.

In a subsequent press release, Dembski asserted that the committee had given an "unqualified affirmation of my own work on intelligent design", that its report "marks the triumph of intelligent design as a legitimate form of academic inquiry" and that "dogmatic opponents of design who demanded that the Center be shut down have met their Waterloo. Baylor University is to be commended for remaining strong in the face of intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression." [8]

Dembski's remarks were criticized by other members of the Baylor faculty, who protested that they were both an unjustified attack on his critics at Baylor and a false assertion that the university endorsed Dembski's controversial views on intelligent design. Charles Weaver, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor and one of the most vocal critics of the Polanyi Center, commented: "In academic arguments we don't seek utter destruction and defeat of our opponents. We don't talk about Waterloos."

President Sloan asked Dembski to withdraw his press release, but Dembski refused, accusing the university of "intellectual McCarthyism" (borrowing a phrase that Sloan himself had used when they first tried to dissolve the center). He declared that the university's action had been taken "in the utmost of bad faith ... thereby providing the fig leaf of justification for my removal."[9] Professor Michael Beaty, director of the Institute for Faith and Learning, said that Dembski's remarks violated the spirit of cooperation that the committee had advocated and stated that "Dr. Dembski's actions after the release of the report compromised his ability to serve as director." [10] Dembski was removed as the center's director, although he remained an associate research professor until May 2005. He was not asked to teach any courses in that time and instead worked from home, writing books and speaking around the country. "In a sense, Baylor did me a favor," he said. "I had a five-year sabbatical."[11]

[edit] Activities since 2001

In December 2001, Dembski launched the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), of which he is Executive Director. Dembski is also the editor-in-chief of ISCID's journal, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID), which appears to have ceased publication with its November 2005 issue.[12]

In 2002, Dembski published his book No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. It was No Free Lunch that prompted Dembski's Discovery Institute colleague Robert C. Koons deeming of Dembski the "Isaac Newton of information theory." Dembski's work, however, was strongly criticized within the scientific community, which argued that there were a number of major logical inconsistencies and evidential gaps in Dembski's hypothesis. David Wolpert, co-creator of the No Free Lunch Theorem on which Dembski based his book, characterised his arguments as "fatally informal and imprecise", "written in jello", reminiscent of philosophical discussion "in art, music, and literature, as well as much of ethics" rather than of scientific debate.[13]

Dembski became the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky in June 2005, and established a new Center for Science and Theology. The seminary teaches creationism but its professors vary on the details, with most adhering to the Young Earth creationist viewpoint of a relatively recent creation which occurred literally as described in Genesis; Dembski does not hold to Young Earth creationism. Despite such "acceptable" differences, Dembski noted in a statement when he was hired that "this is really an opportunity to mobilize a new generation of scholars and pastors not just to equip the saints but also to engage the culture and reclaim it for Christ."

On his position at Southern, Dembski also remarked,

"Theology is where my ultimate passion is and I think that is where I can uniquely contribute ... I am looking forward to engaging students and theological students have always been my favorite to deal with because for theology students, it’s not just a job, but a passion, especially at a place like Southern, because they want to change the world."[14]

Since taking up a position within Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's (SWBTS) School of Theology in June 2006, Dembski has taught a number of courses within its Department of Philosophy of Religion.[12][13]

[Guest Alefshin]

In July and August 2007, Dembski played a central role in the short-lived and controversial[15] Evolutionary Informatics Lab, formed by Baylor University Engineering Professor Robert J. Marks. The lab was shut down and its website was deleted because Baylor's administration considered that it violated university policy forbidding professors from creating the impression that their personal views represent Baylor as an institution. Baylor have said that they will permit Marks to resume work in the informatics lab on his own time and repost his website, provided a disclaimer accompany any ID-advancing research to make clear that the work does not represent the university's position.[16][17][18] Dembski's participation was funded by a $30,000 grant from the Lifeworks Foundation, which is controlled by researcher Brendan Dixon of the Biologic Institute (which has close ties to the Discovery Institute).[19][20]

In September 2007, the SWBTS hosted a conference on 'Intelligent Design in Business Practice', presented by Dembski, Acton Institute theologian Jay Richards, and three business academics presently or formerly teaching at universities in the Southern United States.[21]

Dembski frequently gives public talks, principally to religious and pro-ID groups, and has several more books in preparation as well as producing a string of Flash animations mocking his detractors. He is also a member of American Scientific Affiliation, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, and the American Mathematical Society, and is a senior fellow of the Wilberforce Forum.

Dembski, along with fellow Discovery Institute associates Michael Behe and David Berlinski, "tutored" Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Approximately one-third of the book is devoted to polemical attacks on evolution, which Coulter, as Dembski often does, terms "Darwinism."[22]

[edit] Views and statements

Dembski's views on evolution have been a source of considerable controversy within both the mainstream scientific and creationist communities. Dembski does not accept universal common descent[23]. His mainstream scientific critics have accused him of dishonesty in his representation of scientific facts and writing [14], and he has also been criticised by some in the traditional creationist community for not supporting the "Young Earth" creationist position, [15] though he is also defended on other grounds by the same creationist community. [16] [17] [18]

For his part, Dembski has attacked the refusal of mainstream scientists to debate ID proponents in public forums which his critics regard as undeservedly presenting ID and evolution as equally worthwhile hypotheses. He has called for a "vise strategy" (illustrated with a picture of a plush Darwin doll with its head in a vise) in which supporters of evolution would be subpoenaed to appear before such forums:

"I'm waiting for the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas in which evolutionists are deposed at length on their views. On that happy day, I can assure you they won't come off looking well." --William Dembski[24]

About Dembski's "vise strategy" Barbara Forrest wrote that when presented the opportunity to put his "vise strategy" into action in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, "Dembski 'escaped critical scrutiny by not having to undergo cross-examination' when he withdrew from the case on June 10." Dembski had been scheduled to be deposed on June 13, the next business day.[25]

Like many other intelligent design advocates, Dembski regards evolution as being an undesirable ideology being promoted by an atheistic liberal elite, rather than it being a factually based scientific theory. He summarises his position (in an article in the Las Vegas City Life newspaper) thus:

"The elite in our culture are materialistic and atheistic. Intelligent design challenges their materialistic science and materialistic evolutionary theory. If you look at discipline after discipline, it's been evolutionized — medicine, business, religion, literature. [...] If we are right, all these superstructures built on evolution need to be questioned.

"Intelligent design is the only view opposed to the reductionist materialism that prevails in the academy and in the scientific view the elites of the culture. Most of the unwashed masses, and I count myself among them, believe there's a sense of purpose. We're giving a voice to those people, saying: 'The science backs you up.'" ("Evolution Revolution", Las Vegas City Life, February 24, 2005)

He has also admitted that "So long as methodological naturalism sets the ground rules for how the game of science is to be played, IDT has no chance in Hades"[19] and has made statements that encourage undermining established scientific methodological rules, "The real significance of intelligent design theory and its related movement is the success with which it undermines the materialistic and naturalistic worldview central to the theory of evolution.”[20]

Dembski's position on intelligent design's relationship with Christianity has been somewhat inconsistent. He has suggested that the "intelligent designer" was not necessarily synonymous with God: "It could be space aliens. There are many possibilities." (San Francisco Chronicle, March 17, 2002) In other forums, however, he has been very specific about linking intelligent design with a Christian revival through which Christianity can be restored to its formerly pre-eminent place in society, supplanting "materialist" science. Indeed, one of his books is entitled Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology (Dembski, 1999), and in it he states that "The conceptual soundings of the [intelligent design] theory can in the end only be located in Christ" (p. 210). He has expanded on this theme in a 2005 article for the pro-intelligent design designinference.com website:

"Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." (Dembski, "Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution", Designinference.com website, February 2005)

Dembski has also spoken of his motivation for supporting intelligent design in a series of Sunday lectures in the Fellowship Baptist Church in Waco, Texas, the last of which took place on Sunday, March 7, 2004. Answering a question, Dembski said:

"I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed. [...] And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done — and he's not getting it." ("The design revolution?" TalkReason.org 2004)

Although intelligent design proponents (including Dembski) have made little apparent effort to publish peer-reviewed scientific research to support their hypotheses, in recent years they have made vigorous efforts to promote the teaching of intelligent design in schools. Dembski is a strong supporter of this drive as a means of making young people more receptive to intelligent design:

"My commitment is to see intelligent design flourish as a scientific research program. To do that, I need a new generation of scholars willing to consider this, because the older generation is largely hidebound. So I would like to see textbooks, certainly at the college level and even at the high school level, which reframe introductory biology within a design paradigm." (Houston Press, December 14, 2000)

Dembski sees intelligent design as being a popular movement as well as a scientific hypothesis and claims that it is in the process of dislodging evolution from the public imagination. At the Fourth World Skeptics Conference, held on June 20–June 23, 2002 in Burbank, California, he told the audience that "over the next twenty-five years ID will provide the greatest challenge to skepticism". He asserted that "ID is threatening to be mainstream", and that polls show 90 percent support for the hypothesis, indicating that it has "already becom[e] mainstream within the public themselves". "The usual skeptical retorts are not going to work against ID" and ID "turns the tables on skepticism". Evolution, in his view, "is the ultimate status quo" and "squelches dissent". Young people, who "love rebellion". see that and are attracted to ID as a result. "The public supports intelligent design. The public is tired of being bullied by an intellectual elite". He contends that skeptics resort to rhetoric and "artificially define ID out of science," allowing in only material matters. ID "paints the more appealing world picture", whereas skepticism works by being negative, which "doesn't set well with the public... To most people evolution doesn't provide a compelling view". (Skeptical Inquirer, September 1, 2002)

Dembski has so far failed to explain the origin of the intelligent designer that created the universe, something he argues as unnecessary since such an intelligent designer is likely outside the dimensions of space and time, or to have any of his pro-intelligent design articles published in the peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals. While this is often claimed to be due to a pro-evolution conspiracy, Dembski himself has said that he prefers to disseminate his ideas in non-peer-reviewed media: "I've just gotten kind of blase about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print. And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more." (The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 21, 2001)

Dembski has also indicated an interest in the discredited Bible code[21][22][23][24]. In a favorable book review [25].of Jeffrey Satinover's Cracking the Bible Code Dembski noted

At the same time that research in the Bible Code has taken off, research in a seemingly unrelated field has taken off as well, namely, biological design. These two fields are in fact closely related. Indeed, the same highly improbable, independently given patterns that appear as the equidistant letter sequences in the Bible Code appear in biology as functionally integrated ("irreducibly complex") biological systems, of the sort Michael Behe discussed in Darwin’s Black Box.

In that review Dembski also suggested "The philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked why he didn’t believe in God. He replied, "Not enough evidence." Satinover’s fascination with the Bible Code is that it may provide evidence for God’s existence that would have convinced even a Bertrand Russell."

[edit] Responses to critics

Dembski has stated he employs various strategies to deal with objections to his work before it gets published:

"Critics and enemies are useful. The point is to use them effectively. In our case, this is remarkably easy to do. The reason is that our critics are so assured of themselves and of the rightness of their cause. As a result, they rush into print their latest pronouncements against intelligent design when more careful thought, or perhaps even silence, is called for. The Internet, especially now with its blogs (web logs), provides our critics with numerous opportunities for intemperate, indiscreet, and ill-conceived attacks on intelligent design. These can be turned to advantage, and I’ve done so on numerous occasions. I’m not going to give away all my secrets, but one thing I sometimes do is post on the web a chapter or section from a forthcoming book, let the critics descend, and then revise it so that what appears in book form preempts the critics’ objections. An additional advantage with this approach is that I can cite the website on which the objections appear, which typically gives me the last word in the exchange. And even if the critics choose to revise the objections on their website, books are far more permanent and influential than webpages." -- William Dembski [26]

Dembski's style in response to his critics (particularly of his mathematical papers) is polemical.[27] For instance, in reply to a critique of the "law of conservation of information" posted on talkreason.org [28], Dembski states: "I'm not and never have been in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity", adding later:

"Here's a prediction. Erik is a close reader of my work and, despite all his protestations against it, is actually researching its ramifications. I expect he'll be publishing something in the peer-reviewed literature inspired by the ideas of No Free Lunch, though no doubt with the requisite sneers in my direction — if only to help it through the peer-review process." -- If Only Darwinists Scrutinized Their Own Work as Closely: A Response to "Erik"

Another critic, Mark Perakh, is a frequent target of Dembski's:

"Mark Perakh, the Boris Yeltsin of higher learning, has weighed in with yet another screed against me (go here). The man is out of his element. I’m still awaiting his detailed critique of "Searching Large Spaces" — does he even understand the relevant math?" -- [29]

Dembski has also shown a hostility for providing a mechanistic explanation for intelligent design theory. In one ISCID exchange Dembski remarked:

"You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC [irreducibly complex] systems that is what ID is discovering." -- Dembski, ISCID messageboard, September 18 2002

Dembski's critics maintain that he has yet to provide a means of determining if ID is correct.[citation needed]

In late 2006 Dembski created and published a Flash animation, The Judge Jones School of Law at his intelligent design website, OverwhelmingEvidence.com. [30] [31][32][33] In it he originally depicted John E. Jones III, the presiding judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, as a flatulent mouthpiece of the ACLU. In an email Dembski, after it was published that he provided the voiceover, offered to let Judge Jones provide his own voice for the animation and to reduce the frequency of flatulence in the animation if Jones agreed to participate. [34] This prompted critics, among them Richard Dawkins, to question Dembski's motive and the scholarliness of such tactics. [35][36][37]

On having lent expertise to Ann Coulter for her polemic Godless: The Church of Liberalism on the topics of evolution and intelligent design, Dembski said "I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters." [38] Subsequently, James Downard in reviewing and debunking the representation of science in Godless criticized Coulter's favoring of secondary sources over primary sources, saying "she compulsively reads inaccurate antievolutionary sources and accepts them on account of their reinforcement of what she wants to be true."[39] [40] Downard approached Dembski to account for what Downard called "Coulter’s remarkable unfamiliarity with the range of the ID controversy and apparent unawareness of the biogeographical underpinning of speciation, as well as a consistent inattention to any of the available fossil information." Dembski's response was not to take responsibility for the apparent errors made by Coulter but to publish both of Downard's e-mails to his blog, characterizing them as "sheer smarminess" and "entertainment."[41][42]

[edit] Uncommon Descent

Dembski has been accused of censoring his critics on his personal blog, uncommondescent.com. One of them, Ed Brayton, said that Dembski as a matter of course removed reasonable criticisms and questions as well as "trackback" links to other blogs where his claims were discussed.[43] Posts by Dembski supporters from the uncommondescent blog have been called trolling at blogs and forums critical of Dembski, notably Dispatches from the Culture Wars.[44] At Dembski's blog those whose comments are in opposition to Dembski's own views but not disruptive have been blocked by Dembski from contributing [45] [46]. Dembski maintained that his blog was not intended as an open forum.[47][48][49]

Dembski shut down his blog on December 26, 2005, six days after the conclusion of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where it was ruled that presenting intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.[50]

On January 4, 2006 Dembski announced that the blog would be restarted and run largely by supporters with limited participation from himself and renamed from "Bill Dembski" to "Bill Dembski and Friends" thus becoming a group blog. [51] Many participants at the most notable weblog of intelligent design's critics, The Panda's Thumb, said one of the moderators of Dembski's blog censored any discussion critical of intelligent design. [52]

Personal attacks are not atypical of Dembski's responses to opponents on his blog.[53][54] For example, Dembski described Jerry Coyne as "The Herman Munster of Evolutionary Theory," citing a purported physical resemblance of the noted biologist to the television character,[55][56], while responding to an argument the former had made.

[edit] Dembski's role in the Mims-Pianka controversy

Main article: Mims-Pianka controversy

On 2 April 2006, Dembski stated on his blog that he reported Eric Pianka to the Department of Homeland Security because he and fellow Discovery Institute Fellow Forrest Mims felt that Pianka's speech while accepting the Texas Academy of Sciences Distinguished Scientist of the Year award in 2006 fomented bioterrorism.[57] This resulted in the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewing Pianka in Austin.[58]

On 5 April Dembski offered a wager concerning Pianka:

"I'm willing to wager $1000 with David Hillis that sympathy not just nationally but at UTAustin for Pianka will take a nose dive once his TAS speech goes public. Of course, we need to set the terms of this wager more precisely. But it's a wager easily settled -- Pianka needs merely to make his speech before the TAS public (the actual speech -- not a bowdlerized version of it)." --William Dembski, Uncommon Descent[26]

[Guest Alefshin]

Bibliography

* Are We Spiritual Machines?: Ray Kurzweil vs. the Critics of Strong A.I. by Jay W. Richards, George F. Gilder, Ray Kurzweil, Thomas Ray, John Searle, William Dembski, Michael Denton. Discovery Institute. ISBN 0-9638654-3-9

* "The Chance of the Gaps". In Neil Manson, ed., God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. (London: Routledge, 2002), 251–274.

* Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA. William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse (eds) ISBN 0-521-82949-6

* The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. ISBN 0-521-62387-1

* The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems. (biology textbook co-authored with Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Percival Davis, and Dean Kenyon). Dallas: Foundation for Thought and Ethics, expected 2007.

* The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design. Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004. ISBN 0-8308-2375-1

* "Fourth World Skeptics Conference in Burbank a lively foment of ideas: Scams, intelligent design, urban legends, fringe psychotherapies get critical attention", Skeptical Inquirer, September 1, 2002

* "Inconvenient Facts: Miracles and the Skeptical Inquirer", Philosophia Christi 13, 1990: 18-45.

* "In God's Country". Houston Press (Texas), December 14, 2000

* Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology. Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999. ISBN 0-8308-2314-X

* Mere Creation. Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998. ISBN 0-8308-1515-5

* Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists ISBN 0-8308-2666-1

* "Nature's diversity beyond evolution", San Francisco Chronicle, March 17, 2002

* No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.

* "Not Even False? Reassessing the Demise of British Natural Theology", Philosophia Christi, Series 2, 1 (1), 1999: 17-43.

* "Randomness". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward Craig. London: Routledge, 1998.

* "Randomness by Design", Nous 25(1), 1991: 75-106.

* Science and Design, First Things 86, October 1998.

* "Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe", Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute, vol. 9 (coauthored with Michael J. Behe and Stephen C. Meyer). San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000. ISBN 0-89870-809-5

* "Seminary site to explore cosmic designer concept; Scholar contends Darwin was wrong", The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY) February 20, 2005

* Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design. William A. Dembski, James M. Kushiner, 2001. ISBN 1-58743-004-5

* Testimony of William Dembski before Texas State Board of Education, September 10, 2003 (Adobe PDF)

* Unapologetic Apologetics: Meeting the Challenges of Theological Studies. William A. Dembski, Jay Wesley Richards. Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001. ISBN 0-8308-1563-5

* What Darwin Didn't Know (2004) ISBN 0-7369-1313-0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dembski

[Guest Alefshin]

William Dembski at the University of Oklahoma-Part 1

William Dembski and Stephen Meyer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j_SD1EgcUI

[Guest Alefshin]

Phillip E. Johnson

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/faculty/facultyPhoto.php?cn=Phillip+E.+Johnson

Phillip E. Johnson (born 1940) is a retired UC Berkeley American law professor and author. He became a born-again Christian as a tenured professor. He is considered the father of the intelligent design movement, which criticizes the theory of evolution, and promotes intelligent design, as an alternative. Johnson also denies the predominant scientific view that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the sole cause of AIDS (see AIDS reappraisal).[1][2] The scientific community dismisses both notions as pseudoscience.[3][4][5]

Contents

[hide]

* 1 Biography

* 2 Ideas

o 2.1 Intelligent design

o 2.2 HIV and AIDS

* 3 Criticisms

* 4 Bibliography

* 5 References

* 6 External links

o 6.1 Audio and Video

[edit] Biography

Johnson was born in Aurora, Illinois in 1940. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in English literature, from Harvard University in 1961. He studied law at the University of Chicago. He served as a law clerk for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Earl Warren. He is an emeritus professor of law at Boalt School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, where he served on the active faculty from 1967-2000. Johnson became a born-again Christian following a difficult divorce according to Barbara Forrest.[6]

Despite having no formal background in the biological sciences, Johnson has become a prominent critic of evolutionary theory. Johnson popularized the term "intelligent design" in its current sense in his 1991 book, Darwin on Trial. He remains one of the best known advocates for intelligent design, and is considered the founder of the intelligent design movement.

He is a critic of methodological naturalism, the basic principle of science that restricts it to the investigation of natural causes for observable phenomena, and espouses a philosophy he has coined theistic realism. He is the author of several books on intelligent design and related topics, as well as textbooks on criminal law.

Johnson is an elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Since 2001, Johnson has suffered a series of minor right brain strokes. His rehabilitations have limited his public activities and participation in the debate over Intelligent Design, both because of their physical effects as well as Johnson's belief that they were signs from God urging him to spend more time with his faith and family and less in "prideful debate."[7]

In 2004 he was awarded the inaugural "Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth"

[edit] Ideas

The cover of the book shows Charles Darwin

The cover of the book shows Charles Darwin

[edit] Intelligent design

Johnson is best known as one of the founders of the intelligent design movement, principal architect of the Wedge Strategy, author of the Santorum Amendment, and one of the ID movement's most prolific authors. Johnson is co-founder and program advisor of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC).

Johnson has advocated strongly in the public and political spheres for the teaching of intelligent design in favor of evolution; which Johnson characterizes as "atheistic," "falsified by all of the evidence" and whose "logic is terrible." In portraying the philosophy of science, and by extension its theories like evolution as atheistic, Johnson argues that a more valid alternative is "theistic realism". Theistic realism asserts that science, by relying upon methodological naturalism, demands an a priori adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that wrongly dismisses out of hand any explanation that contains a supernatural cause. These concepts are a common theme in his many books, including "Darwin on Trial," "Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education," "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds," and "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism."

Working through the Center for Science and Culture Johnson wrote the early draft language of the Santorum Amendment, which encouraged a "Teach the Controversy" approach to evolution in public school education, a theme now common to the intelligent design movement.

Nancy Pearcey, a Center for Science and Culture fellow and Johnson associate, acknowledges Johnson's leadership of the intelligent design movement in two of her most recent publications. In an interview with Johnson for World magazine, Pearcey says, "It is not only in politics that leaders forge movements. Phillip Johnson has developed what is called the 'Intelligent Design' movement..." [8] In Christianity Today, she reveals Johnson's religious beliefs and his criticism of evolution and affirms Johnson as "The unofficial spokesman for ID"[9]

In his 1997 book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds Johnson summed up the underlying philosophy of his advocacy for intelligent design and against methodological and philosophical naturalism:

"If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this,...We call our strategy the "wedge." pg. 91-92, "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds" Phillip Johnson, 1997

Johnson acknowledges that the goal of the intelligent design movement is to promote a theistic agenda cast as a scientific concept [10][11][12]

Johnson rejects common descent and does not take a position on the age of the Earth.[13][14]

Johnson is one of the authors of the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document and its Teach the Controversy campaign, which attempts to cast doubt on the validity of the theory of evolution, its acceptance within the scientific community, and reduce its role in public school science curricula while promoting intelligent design. The Teach the Controversy campaign portrays evolution as "a theory in crisis."

Johnson has been explicit about the Christian principles underlying his philosophy and agenda and that of the intelligent design movement. In speaking at the "Reclaiming America for Christ Conferences" Johnson has described the movement thus:

* "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science." ..."Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?" ..."I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." [15]

* "In summary, we have to educate our young people; we have to give them the armor they need. We have to think about how we're going on the offensive rather than staying on the defensive. And above all, we have to come out to the culture with the view that we are the ones who really stand for freedom of thought. You see, we don't have to fear freedom of thought because good thinking done in the right way will eventually lead back to the Church, to the truth-the truth that sets people free, even if it goes through a couple of detours on the way. And so we're the ones that stand for good science, objective reasoning, assumptions on the table, a high level of education, and freedom of conscience to think as we are capable of thinking. That's what America stands for, and that's something we stand for, and that's something the Christian Church and the Christian Gospel stand for-the truth that makes you free. Let's recapture that, while we're recapturing America." [15]

* "What I am not doing is bringing the Bible into the university and saying, "We should believe this." Bringing the Bible into question works very well when you are talking to a Bible-believing audience. But it is a disastrous thing to do when you are talking, as I am constantly, to a world of people for whom the fact that something is in the Bible is a reason for not believing it." ... "You see, if they thought they had good evidence for something, and then they saw it in the Bible, they would begin to doubt. That is what has to be kept out of the argument if you are going to do what I to do, which is to focus on the defects in their [the evolutionist's] case—the bad logic, the bad science, the bad reasoning, and the bad evidence."[16]

The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[17] as pseudoscience[18][19][20] or as junk science.[21][22]

[edit] HIV and AIDS

Johnson is involved in a movement challenging the scientific consensus that HIV is the cause of AIDS.[23] This group asserts, broadly, that there is no scientific evidence that HIV actually causes AIDS, and that while HIV and AIDS are correlated, they are not universally correlated, as (it is argued) there are people who have AIDS symptoms without HIV and people with HIV who have no AIDS symptoms. The majority of the scientific community consider that the AIDS dissident arguments are the result of cherry-picking of scientific data[24] as dissidents selectively ignore evidence in favour of HIV's role in AIDS and endanger public health by dissuading people from utilizing proven treatments.[25][26]

[edit] Criticisms

The most serious specific allegation leveled by a number of critics is that Johnson, like most proponents of intelligent design, is often intellectually dishonest in his arguments advancing intelligent design and attacking the scientific community.[27][28] For example, he has been accused of numerous equivocations, particularly involving the term naturalism which can refer either to methodological naturalism or to philosophical naturalism.[29][30]

In fact-checking Johnson's books Darwin on Trial and Defeating Darwinism, one reviewer has argued that almost every scientific source Johnson cited had been misused or distorted, from simple misinterpretations and innuendos to outright fabrications. The reviewer, Brian Spitzer, a professor of Biology, described Darwin on Trial as the most deceptive book he had ever read.[28]

Since Johnson is considered by those both inside and outside the movement to be the father and architect of the intelligent design movement and its strategies, Johnson's statements are often used to validate the criticisms leveled by those who allege that the Discovery Institute and its allied organizations are merely stripping the obvious religious content from their anti-evolution assertions as a means of avoiding the legal restrictions of the Establishment Clause, a view reinforced by the December 2005 ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial which found that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. They argue that ID is simply an attempt to put a patina of secularity on top of what is a fundamentally religious belief and thus that the "Teach the Controversy" exhortation is disingenuous, particularly when contrasted to his statements in the Wall Street Journal and other secular media. Critics point out that contrary to the Discovery Institute's and Johnson's claims, the theory of evolution is well-supported and widely accepted within the scientific community; there is little controversy on a scientific level. Popular disagreement with evolutionary theory should not be considered as a reason for challenging it as a scientifically valid subject to be taught, they contend.

In making their case, critics of Johnson commonly point to his central role in the Discovery Institute's carefully-orchestrated campaign known as the Wedge Strategy. The Wedge Strategy, as envisioned by the Discovery Institute, is designed to leave the science establishment looking close-minded in the short term with a long-term goal being a redefinition of science that centers on the removal of methodological naturalism from the philosophy of science and the scientific method, thereby allowing for supernatural explanations to be introduced as science (see Theistic realism). This would have the net effect of bringing a religious orientation into the public schools via science classrooms. Critics note that Johnson, as a principal officer of the Discovery Institute, often cites an overall plan to put the United States on a course toward the theocracy envisioned in the Wedge Strategy, and that the Discovery Institute as a matter of policy intentionally obfuscates its agenda. According to Johnson, "The movement we now call the wedge made its public debut at a conference of scientists and philosophers held at Southern Methodist University in March 1992."[31]

Johnson describes the wedge strategy thusly:

* "We are taking an intuition most people have (the belief in God) and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator." Johnson, Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator. The Los Angeles Times. March, 2001.

* "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."[10]

* "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."[11]

* "So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do."[32]

* The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.' [33]

[edit] Bibliography

* Darwin on Trial. InterVarsity Press, (Nov. 1993) ISBN 0-8308-1324-1

* Reason in the Balance. InterVarsity Press (May 1998) ISBN 0-8308-1929-0

* Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. InterVarsity Press (July 1997) ISBN 0-8308-1360-8

* The Wedge of Truth. InterVarsity Press (August 2002) ISBN 0-8308-2267-4

* Objections Sustained. InterVarsity Press (April 2000) ISBN 0-8308-2288-7

* The Right Questions. InterVarsity Press (October 2002) ISBN 0-8308-2294-1

* Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?. Foundation for Thought & Ethics (July 1994) ISBN 0-9642104-0-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson

Phillip E Johnson On Darwinism

[Guest Alefshin]

Michael Behe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Have questions? Find out how to ask questions and get answers. •

Jump to: navigation, search

Michael J. Behe (born January 18, 1952, in Altoona, Pennsylvania) is an American biochemist and intelligent design advocate. Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. He advocates the dobrodosli that some structures are too complex at the biochemical level to be adequately explained as a result of evolutionary mechanisms. He has termed this concept "irreducible complexity".

Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of key cellular structures are strongly contested by the scientific community. The Department of Biological Sciences, at Lehigh University, published an official position statement which says "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific." [1] His ideas about intelligent design have been classified as pseudoscience.[2][3][4]

Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is extensively cited by the judge[5][6][7][8] in his ruling that intelligent design is not science but essentially religious in nature.[9]

Contents

* 1 Academics

* 2 Personal life

* 3 Controversy: irreducible complexity & intelligent design

o 3.1 Behe & Snoke (2004)

o 3.2 Popular writing

* 4 Dover testimony

o 4.1 Other cases

* 5 Published material

o 5.1 Books

o 5.2 Videos

* 6 References

* 7 External links

Academics

Behe grew up in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where he attended grade school at St. Margaret Mary's Parochial School and later graduated from Bishop McDevitt High School.[10][11] He graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science in chemistry. He got his PhD in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978 to 1982, he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982 to 1985, he was assistant professor of chemistry at Queens College in New York City, where he met his wife, Celeste. In 1985 he moved to Lehigh University and is currently a Professor of Biochemistry. Due to Behe's views on evolution, Lehigh University exhibits the following disclaimer on its website:

“ While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific.[12] ”

Personal life

Behe is married and has nine children.[13]

Controversy: irreducible complexity & intelligent design

Main articles: Irreducible complexity and Intelligent design

Behe claims he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution.[14] Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures.

After the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court barred the required teaching of creation science from public schools but allowed the theory on the grounds of scientific advancement of all possible sources of life, many former critics of evolution as well as a new generation felt that new strategies and language was necessary. The books of lawyer Phillip E. Johnson on intelligent design, which strayed away from direct statements about a Young Earth and stuck to criticisms of evolutionary theory and purported biased "materialist" science, provided such a model. New organizations devoted to the study of what they called intelligent design sprung up, among them the Discovery Institute. In 1996 Behe became a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (later renamed the Center for Science and Culture) the then newly-formed institution to promote intelligent design.

By this time, Behe had published his ideas on irreducible complexity in a book called Darwin's Black Box, which was popular with the public[citation needed] but found wanting by the scientific community. Scientists argued that Behe's comments and examples were based only on a refined form of "argument from ignorance", rather than any demonstration of the actual impossibility of explanation by natural processes. Furthermore, they asserted that he deliberately aimed the publication of this book at the general public in order to gain maximum publicity while avoiding any peer-review from fellow scientists or performing new research to support his statements.[15][16]

Nevertheless, Behe's more secular arguments and credentials as a published biochemist gave the intelligent design movement its first major mainstream proponent. Behe's refusal to identify the nature of any proposed intelligent designer frustrates scientists, who see it as a move to avoid any possibility of testing the positive claims of ID while allowing him and the intelligent design movement to distance themselves from some of the more overtly religiously motivated critics of evolution.[15]

Unlike William A. Dembski [17] and others in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the common descent of species,[18] including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe.

In a November 8, 1996 interview Richard Dawkins said of Behe:

"He's a straightforward creationist. What he has done is to take a standard argument which dates back to the 19th century, the argument of irreducible complexity, the argument that there are certain organs, certain systems in which all the bits have to be there together or the whole system won't work...like the eye. Darwin answered (this)...point by point, piece by piece. But maybe he shouldn't have bothered. Maybe what he should have said is...maybe you're too thick to think of a reason why the eye could have come about by gradual steps, but perhaps you should go away and think a bit harder." Richard Dawkins on Evolution and Religion

In the March/February 1997 issue of Boston Review, Prof. Russell F. Doolittle wrote a rebuttal to the statements about irreducibly complexity of certain systems, in particular he mentioned the issue of the blood clotting in his "A Delicate Balance". [1]. Later on, in 2003, Doolittle's lab published a paper in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, [19] which demonstrates that the pufferfish lacks at least three blood clotting factors, and still is a workable system, defeating Behe's statements.

Behe & Snoke (2004)

He published a paper, together with David Snoke, in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Protein Science,[20] which he states supports the , based on the calculation of the probability of mutations required for evolution to succeed. However, it does not mention intelligent design nor irreducible complexity, which were removed, according to Behe, at the behest of the reviewers. Nevertheless, The Discovery Institute lists it as one of the "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design".[21]

Michael Lynch authored a response,[22] to which Behe and Snoke responded.[23] Protein Science discussed the papers in an editorial.[24]

Scientists were again highly critical of the statements made about the research, pointing out that it not only had been shown that a supposedly irreducibly complex structure could evolve, but that it could do so within a reasonable time even subject to unrealistically harsh restrictions. They also objected to it being stated as published evidence for design given that it offered no design theory or attempt to model the design process, and also failed to offer an alternative to evolution.[25]

Many of Behe's challenges to evolution have been addressed by biologist Kenneth Miller in his book, Finding Darwin's God. Behe has subsequently addressed Miller's points in an essay.[26]

Popular writing

Behe has written editorial features in the Boston Review, American Spectator, and The New York Times. Behe, along with fellow Discovery Institute associates William A. Dembski and David Berlinski, "tutored" Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism.[27] Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to polemical attacks on evolution, which she terms "Darwinism".[28]

Dover testimony

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense, and asked to support the that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges that they say further undermine his statements about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".[29] During this testimony Behe conceded that definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[30] Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.[31] [32]

The judge in his final ruling relied heavily upon Behe's testimony for the defense, citing:

* "Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."[5]

* "As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."[5]

* "First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."[6]

* "What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."[7]

* "We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[8]

* "ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."[33]

* "Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."[34]

* "Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex."[35]

* "...proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. ...

Other cases

Behe testified as an expert witness in 2007 on behalf of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by Association of Christian Schools International, a group representing a number of Christian schools against the University of California. The 2005 filing claimed that University of California's rejection of several of their courses was illegal "viewpoint discrimination." He received $20,000 for his testimony in Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Sterns.[36] Behe's expert witness report claimed that the Christian textbooks are excellent works for high school students and defended that view in a deposition.[37][38]

Published material

Books

* Darwin's Black Box. Free Press, 1996. ISBN 0-684-83493-6

* The Edge of Evolution. Free Press, June 2007. ISBN 0-743-29620-6

* Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute), September 25, 1999. ISBN 0-89870-809-5

Videos

* Intelligent Design: From the Big Bang to Irreducible Complexity

* Unlocking the Mystery of Life

* Irreducible Complexity: The Biochemical Challenge to Darwinian Theory

* Where Does the Evidence Lead?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

[Guest Alefshin]

Cornelius G. Hunter

Cornelius G. Hunter, Ph.D., is an adjunct professor of biophysics at Biola University and is a proponent of intelligent design. Hunter is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute, hub of the intelligent design movement.

He is the author of Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil and Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion Over Science, and Science's Blindspot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism.

His research has mainly been in nonlinear systems and molecular biophysics.

In Darwin's God Hunter argues that Darwin was trying to distance God from natural evil, by distancing or removing God from his creation. Hunter argues that in this sense, Darwin could be viewed as a deist, rather than an atheist.

[Guest Alefshin]

Michael Denton

(born 25 August 1943) is a British-Australian biochemist who is Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Otago in New Zealand.

Denton is the author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Nature's Destiny, the former book was instrumental in starting the intelligent design movement.

Denton has been a strong proponent of intelligent design and is a former Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute, hub of the intelligent design movement. Though Denton asked his name be removed from their website, the institute continues to cite his work in support of its campaign,[1] and his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis was cited in the appendix of the controversial intelligent design textbook, Of Pandas and People. The title of Denton's book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis was adopted by the institute as the slogan for their teach the controversy campaign.[citation needed]

Bibliography

* Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Adler & Adler, 1985

* Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe Free Press: New York, 1998

References

1. ^ Bibliography of Supplementary Resources For Science Instruction Discovery Institute staff

External links

* Are We Spiritual Machines? Ray Kurzweil Vs. the Critics of Strong A.l. with an essay by Michael Denton

* Review of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Mark I. Vuletic, Talk Origins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton

Intelligent Design - Miracle Of The Cell - Biochemistry

[Guest Alefshin]

Anthony O'Hear

Anthony O'Hear is Professor of Philosophy at the only private University in England, the University of Buckingham, where he is also Head of the Department of Education, which trains many teachers.

He is the editor of the journal Philosophy and Honorary Director of the Royal Institute of Philosophy.

O’Hear was a Government special adviser on education for approximately ten years and was especially influential during the time of Margaret Thatcher and John Major as Prime Minister. He continues to be active in Conservative circles, especially in advocating social conservatism.

Bibliography

His publications include:

* Karl Popper (1980)

* The Element of Fire (1989)

* An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (1990)

* Beyond Evolution (1997)

* After Progress (1999)

* Philosophy in the New Century (2001)

* Plato's Children (2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_O'Hear

Beyond Evolution

Human Nature and the Limits of Evolutionary Explanation

Anthony O'Hear

Description

In this controversial book O'Hear takes a stand against the fashion for explaining human behavior in terms of evolution. He contends that while the theory of evolution is successful in explaining the development of the natural world in general, it is of limited value when applied to the human world. Because of our reflectiveness and our rationality we take on goals and ideals which cannot be justified in terms of survival-promotion or reproductive advantage. O'Hear examines the nature of human self-consciousness, and argues that evolutionary theory cannot give a satisfactory account of such distinctive facets of human life as the quest for knowledge, moral sense, and the appreciation of beauty; in these we transcend our biological origins. It is our rationality that allows each of us to go beyond not only our biological but also our cultural inheritance: as the author says in the Preface, "we are prisoners neither of our genes nor of the ideas we encounter as we each make our personal and individual way through life."

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Philosophy/HumanNature/?view=usa&ci=9780198250043

[Guest Alefshin]

Nancy Pearcey

Nancy Randolph Pearcey (born 1952) is an American author who is a prominent intelligent design proponent, a Christian activist, and currently the Francis A. Schaeffer Scholar at the World Journalism Institute.

Contents

* 1 Education and Career

* 2 Intelligent design

* 3 Bibliography

* 4 References

* 5 External links

* 6 See also

Education and Career

In 1971 and '72, she studied at L'Abri in Switzerland under Francis Schaeffer, and much of her writing reflects that formative period. Later she graduated from Iowa State University with a Distributed Studies degree (philosophy, German, music). She earned a MA from Covenant Theological Seminary in Biblical Studies and pursued further graduate work in philosophy at the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto (with an emphasis on ancient philosophy and Dutch neo-Calvinism).

In 1977, Pearcey became a contributing editor for the Bible-Science Newsletter, where she remained for 13 years. In 1991, she became the founding editor of "BreakPoint", a daily radio commentary program, and served as its executive editor for nearly nine years, training and heading up a team of staff and contract writers. During that time, she was also a senior fellow at the Wilberforce Forum and coauthored a column in Christianity Today.

Pearcey is editor-at-large of The Pearcey Report.

In September 2007, Pearcey was named Scholar for Worldview Studies at the Center for University Studies at Philadelphia Biblical University, Langhorne, Pennsylvania.[1]

Intelligent design

Pearcey is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the center of the intelligent design movement. Pearcey has played a role in a number of controversies surrounding the institute's campaign to challenge and ultimately unseat the teaching of evolution. Although Pearcey is now an intelligent design advocate, she was previously a young-earth creationist.[2] As editor of the young-earth creationist Bible-Science Newsletter from 1977-1991 Pearcey often wrote monthly articles. Several of Pearcey's Bible-Science Newsletter articles became part of the text of the controversial pro-intelligent design schoolbook Of Pandas and People. In the course of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial it was shown in testimony by Barbara Forrest that the draft Overview chapter of Of Pandas and People, written by Pearcey, shows the same changes from "creation/creationist" to "intelligent design/design proponent" that the six "excursion" chapters Of Pandas and People show. The expedient substitution of patently creationist language in favor of putatively secular intelligent design language in Of Pandas and People figured significantly in the judge's ruling that intelligent design is religious in nature and not actual science.[3]

She also contributed the foreword to The Right Questions, as well as chapters in Mere Creation, Pro-Life Feminism, Genetic Ethics, Signs of Intelligence, Reading God's World, Uncommon Dissent, and a Phillip E. Johnson Festschrift titled "Darwin's Nemesis". Pearcey has served as a visiting scholar at Biola University's Torrey Honors Institute, an editorial board member for Salem Communications Network, and a commentator on Public Square Radio. Her articles have appeared in numerous journals and magazines, including the Washington Times, Human Events, First Things, Books & Culture, World, Pro Rege, Human Life Review, The American Enterprise, The World & I, Homeschool Enrichment, Christianity Today, and the Regent University Law Review.

Pearcey is a frequent public lecturer and has appeared on NPR and C-SPAN.

Bibliography

* Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Crossway, 2004; study guide edition 2005; winner of a Christianity Today Award of Merit and of the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association Gold Medallion Award for best book of 2005 in the Christianity & Society category), foreword by Phillip E. Johnson

* The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy (Crossway, 1994) ISBN 0-89107-766-9, coauthored by Charles B. Thaxton

* How Now Shall We Live? (1999) ISBN 0-8423-1808-9, coauthored by Harold Fickett and Charles Colson.

* With Charles Colson A Dance With Deception: Revealing the Truth Behind the Headlines ISBN 0-8499-3521-0

* With Charles Colson A Dangerous Grace: Daily Readings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pearcey

http://vodpod.com/watch/707272-beyond-expelled

[Guest Alefshin]

Jonathan Wells

John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells is an author, a prominent promoter of intelligent design and an opponent of evolution[1], which Wells and other intelligent design proponents often refer to as "Darwinism."[2][3][4]

In his book, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, Wells says that evolution conflicts with the evidence, and argues against its teaching in public school science classes[5] However, his views on evolution, as well as AIDS, run counter to scientific consensus on evolution and the causal link between HIV and AIDS, skeptics of which are known as the AIDS reappraisal movement.[6][7] Wells rejects evolution in favor of intelligent design[1] and denies the causal link between the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).[8][9][10][6] The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts evolution[11] and considers the causative role of HIV to be well proven and dissident arguments are the result of ideologically-driven cherry-picking and misrepresentation of predominantly outdated scientific data, with the potential to endanger public health by dissuading people from utilizing proven treatments.[12][13][14][15] Both intelligent design and AIDS reappraisal are viewed within the scientific community as pseudoscience.[16][17]

Contents

* 1 Background

* 2 Opposition to evolution

o 2.1 Icons of Evolution

o 2.2 Theory of Organismal Problem-Solving

o 2.3 Centrioles

o 2.4 Kansas evolution hearings

o 2.5 The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design

* 3 AIDS reappraisal

* 4 Publications

o 4.1 Articles in peer-reviewed journals

o 4.2 Books

* 5 External links

* 6 References

Background

After dropping out of college (where he was majoring in geology) and working as a taxi driver in New York City, Wells was drafted into the United States Army, serving from 1964 to 1966. After returning to college at UC Berkeley, he was ordered to reserve duty. Being by that time a critic of the Vietnam War, he refused to report for duty and was incarcerated for 18 months.[18]

In the 1970s Wells joined Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. He graduated from the church's Unification Theological Seminary in 1978 with a Masters in Religious Education.[19] He has since written extensively on Unification theology and since 1981 has taught from time to time at the Unification Theological Seminary.[20]Wells worked for the Unification Theological Seminary until 1996 and is an ordained cleric in the Unification Church.[21] The president of the school, David S.C. Kim, said Wells had made a great contribution to the school's development.[22] He has also written on the subject of marriage within the Unification Church [23] and has been called a "Unification Church marriage expert" by church sources. [24] He is married and has two children. [25]

In 1986 Wells earned a PhD in Religious Studies at Yale University.[26] He then returned to UC Berkeley where in 1994 he was awarded a PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology.[26] Shortly after completing his doctorate, Wells joined former UC Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson, father of the intelligent design movement, at the Discovery Institute.[27][26] After receiving his doctorate, he worked as a post-doctoral researcher in developmental biology;[28] however it is alleged that this was an unpaid position arranged[27] by Johnson.

Wells now serves as a fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, hub of the intelligent design movement, and at the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design,[29] an organization that promotes intelligent design.

Opposition to evolution

Of his early student days at Unification Theological Seminary (1976-78), Wells said, "One of the things that Father [Reverend Sun Myung Moon] advised us to do at UTS was to pray to seek God's plan for our lives." He later described that plan: "To defend and articulate Unification theology especially in relation to Darwinian evolution."[30]

Wells stated that his religious doctoral studies at Yale focused on the "root of the conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christian doctrine" and encompassed the whole of Christian theology within a focus of Darwinian controversies. He said, "I learned (to my surprise) that biblical chronology played almost no role in the 19th-century controversies, since most theologians had already accepted geological evidence for the age of the earth and re-interpreted the days in Genesis as long periods of time. Instead, the central issue was design."[31]

Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church paid for Wells's education.[32][33] Wells said that learning how to "destroy Darwinism," the term he and intelligent design proponents use to mean evolution[2][3][4] which is opposed by Moon's Unification Church,[34][35][36][37] was his motive for seeking his second Ph.D. at Berkeley:

"Father's [sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle." --Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D. [38]

Wells's statement and others like it are viewed by the scientific community as evidence that Wells lacks proper scientific objectivity and mischaracterizes evolution by ignoring and misrepresenting the evidence supporting it while pursuing an agenda promoting notions supporting his religious beliefs in its stead.[39][40][41][42][43] Massimo Pigliucci, having debated Wells, said Wells "clearly lied" during his debates and misrepresented his agenda and science.[44] Moreover, Pigliucci wrote Wells simply does not understand some of the theories Wells tries to attack. The Discovery Institute responded that "Darwinists have resorted to attacks on Dr. Wells’s religion"[45].

Wells has written a large number of articles attacking evolution and defending Intelligent Design.[46] He was one of the contributors to Natural History Magazine's 2002 debate between ID advocates and evolution supporters.[47]

Icons of Evolution

Main article: Icons of Evolution

Icons of Evolution

Icons of Evolution

Wells is best known [48][49][50] for his 2002 book Icons of Evolution, in which he discusses ten examples which he says show that many of the most commonly accepted arguments supporting evolution are invalid. Icons of Evolution has been called an "influential intelligent-design book."[51]

The book's title is a reference to the famous picture "March of Progress." This drawing, by Rudolph Zallinger, was published in the Time-Life book Early Man in 1970 and shows a sequence of primates walking from left to right, starting with an ape on the left, progressing through a series of hominids, and finishing with a modern Cro-Magnon male on the right. A version of the drawing is on the cover of the book, and Wells describes it as the "ultimate icon" of evolution.

Wells's assertions and conclusion in this book, as well as in his other writings, are rejected by the scientific community.[52] Scholars quoted in the work have accused Wells' of purposely misquoting them and misleading readers. Biology Professor Jerry Coyne wrote of Icons, "Jonathan Wells' book rests entirely on a flawed syllogism: ... textbooks illustrate evolution with examples; these examples are sometimes presented in incorrect or misleading ways; therefore evolution is a fiction."[53]

Theory of Organismal Problem-Solving

In a 2004 paper in the intelligent design journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, Wells proposed his "Theory of Organismal Problem-Solving" (TOPS), which was intended to provide a mechanism by which intelligent design "could lead to new hypotheses and scientific discoveries". The is based on two fundamental assumptions, that "Darwinian evolution" is false, and that intelligent design is true. Rather than seeking experimental verification for intelligent design, TOPS "explore what happens when ID rather than evolutionary theory is used as a framework to ask research questions".[54]

In the paper, Wells sought to apply this to cancer and centrioles. Wells stated that "cancer is not correlated with any consistent pattern of DNA mutations, but it is correlated with abnormalities at the chromosomal level -- a phenomenon called "chromosomal instability", and that many researchers see cancer as a "centrosomal disease" rather than a DNA disease. This led him to centrioles. Since centrioles look like turbines under electron microscopy, Wells used the TOPS metholody to conclude that "if centrioles look like turbines they might actually be turbines".[54]

In response to Wells's assertion that cancer was a disease of chromosomal instability and not genes, Ian Musgrave, writing in the The Panda's Thumb replied that "this knowledge seems to have eluded most researchers in the field" and pointed out that where chromosomal translocations underlie cancer, "chromosomal instability can be traced to a mutation in a single gene".[55]

Centrioles

Using the TOPS methodology, which assumes that intelligent design is true and "Darwinian evolution" is false, Wells revisited the issue of centrioles in a 2005 paper entitled "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?" in Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum.[56] Wells's paper "assumes that [centrioles] are holistically designed to be turbines", and goes on to develop a hypothesis of how they work.[57] The Discovery Institute lists this paper as a "featured article" on their list of "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design."[58] This has been challenged by History and Philosophy of Science professor John M. Lynch, who points out that Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum is edited by Italian creationist Giuseppe Sermonti, whose own book Why Is a Fly Not a Horse? is published by the Discovery Institute,[59] and largely publishes only research outside the general scientific consensus. Lynch said of Rivista: "While there may be interesting ideas here, there is no indication that they represent mainstream thought in biology. And while this might be an 'internationally respected biology journal' within certain (anti-Darwinian) communities, it cannot be considered so among the majority." and "the influence of Rivista, we see that - as one would expect from the above - the journal is of negligible importance at best ... in the case of Rivista could not reasonable be called 'internationally respected'."[60] The Discovery Institute's statement that Wells's paper is a peer reviewed article published in scientific journal runs counter to the testimony of intelligent design proponent Michael Behe in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and the judge's findings and ruling.[61]

Kansas evolution hearings

Main article: Kansas evolution hearings

In 2005, Wells attended the Kansas evolution hearings, which were boycotted by mainstream scientists. There Wells testifed, "I became convinced that the Darwinian theory is false because it conflicts with the evidence." When questioned about the age of the earth, he replied, "I think the earth is probably four-and-a-half billion or so years old. ... But the truth is I have not looked at the evidence. And I have become increasingly suspicious of the evidence that is presented to me and that's why at this point I would say probably it's four-and-a-half billion years old, but I haven't looked at the evidence."[62]

Prior to the evolution hearings, in December 2000 after the Pratt County, Kansas school board revised its tenth-grade biology curriculum at the urging of intelligent design proponents to include material that encourages students to question the theory of evolution, the Pratt Tribune published a letter from Jerry Coyne challenging Wells's characterization in an article of his work on peppered moths, saying that his article appended to the Pratt standards was misused and being mischaracterized:[63]

"Creationists such as Jonathan Wells claim that my criticism of these experiments casts strong doubt on Darwinism. But this characterization is false. ... My call for additional research on the moths has been wrongly characterized by creationists as revealing some fatal flaw in the theory of evolution. ... It is a classic creationist tactic (as exemplified in Wells's book, "Icons of Evolution") to assert that healthy scientific debate is really a sign that evolutionists are either committing fraud or buttressing a crumbling theory." -- Jerry Coyne, letter to the editor, Pratt Tribune.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design

Main article: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design

In 2006 Wells published his second major book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. The book was praised by Tom Bethell, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science[64], but was described by Reed Cartwright of Panda's Thumb as being "not only politically incorrect but incorrect in most other ways as well: scientifically, logically, historically, legally, academically, and morally."[65]

AIDS reappraisal

Main article: AIDS reappraisal

Wells denies[10] the consensus of the scientific community that HIV has been conclusively proved to be the sole cause of AIDS. In 1993 he signed the The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis petition calling for a "reappraisal of the evidence" for the connection between HIV and AIDS.[8]

Publications

Articles in peer-reviewed journals

* Wells J (1985). "Inertial force as a possible factor in mitosis". Biosystems 17 (4): -15. PMID 3902112.

* Larabell CA, Rowning BA, Wells, J, Wu M, Gerhart JC (1996). "Confocal microscopy analysis of living Xenopus eggs and the mechanism of cortical rotation". Development 122 (4): 1281-9. PMID 8620855.

* Rowning BA, Wells J, Wu M, Gerhart JC, Moon RT, Larabell CA. link Microtubule-mediated transport of organelles and localization of beta-catenin to the future dorsal side of Xenopus eggs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Feb 18;94(4):1224-9.

Books

* Charles Hodge's Critique of Darwinism: An Historical-Critical Analysis of Concepts Basic to the 19th Century Debate. Edwin Mellen Press, April 1988. ISBN 0889466718 and ISBN 978-0889466715

* Icons of Evolution. Regnery Publishing. 2000. ISBN 0-89526-276-2

* The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Regnery Publishing. 2006. ISBN 1-59698-013-3

External links

* Jonathan Wells biography from the Discovery Institute

* Articles by Wells from the Discovery Institute

* Collection of Wells essays

* Wells hits a home run at Harvard

* Panelists Discuss Validity Of Evolutionary Theory at Harvard University

* FAQ on Wells

* Icons of Evolution? - Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong

* Answers to Wells's 10 questions from National Center for Science Education

* A response to Wells hits a home run at Harvard

* Pandas Thumb's Chapter by Chapter analysis of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design

* New Mexicans for Science and Reason debate Jonathan Wells

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28intelligent_design_advocate%29

http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=45ea15a3096c765bf392

[Guest Alefshin]

Stephen Meyer

Stephen C. Meyer is an American theologian. Meyer, along with Bruce Chapman and George Gilder, is a founder of the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture, which advocates the controversial concept of intelligent design, and a leading proponent and lobbyist in the intelligent design movement. Meyer is a Vice President and Senior Fellow at the institute's Center for Science and Culture.

Contents

* 1 Biography

* 2 Peer review controversy

* 3 Political controversy

* 4 Debates and discussions

* 5 Bibliography

o 5.1 Books

o 5.2 Scientific paper

o 5.3 Film

* 6 References

* 7 External links

o 7.1 Pro-ID

o 7.2 Anti-ID

Biography

Meyer graduated with a degree in geology in 1980 from Whitworth College and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company. After attending a creationist conference he became increasingly interested in origins and rejected the evolutionary creationism in which he had previously believed.

Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991. His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes : a methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."

After graduating, Meyer taught at Whitworth College, which has links to the Presbyterian Church (USA) in Spokane, Washington, and then at Palm Beach Atlantic University, a Christian university. As of 2006, Meyer works full-time at the Discovery Institute.

In 1990, Meyer, Bruce Chapman and George Gilder, formed the Discovery Institute as a non-profit educational foundation and think tank based upon the Christian apologetics of C.S. Lewis and opposed to materialism. It was founded as a branch of the Hudson Institute, an Indianapolis-based, conservative think tank and named for the HMS Discovery, which explored Puget Sound in 1792.

In 1993, Chapman secured seed money in the form of a grant from Howard Ahmanson, Jr. and $450,000 from the MacLellan Foundation, which underwrote the earliest nucleus of intelligent design authors who titled themselves "The Wedge".[1][2] Meyer had previously tutored Ahmanson's son in science, and Meyer recalls being asked by Ahmanson "What could you do if you had some financial backing?" It is from these beginnings that the intelligent design movement grew.

Meyer has recently co-written or edited two books: Darwinism, Design, and Public Education with Michigan State University Press and Science and Evidence of Design in the Universe (Ignatius 2000). He has published over 70 articles and papers.

Meyer has been described as "the person who brought ID (intelligent design) to DI (Discovery Institute)" by historian Edward Larson, who was a fellow at the Discovery Institute prior to it becoming the center of the intelligent design movement.

Peer review controversy

Main article: Sternberg peer review controversy

On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.[1] On 7 September, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards and not peer reviewed. [2] The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID. [3]

The journal's reasons for disavowing the article were denied by Richard Sternberg, the managing editor at the time.[4] Critics believe that Sternberg's personal and ideological connections to Meyer suggest at least the appearance of conflict of interest in allowing Meyer's paper to be published. [5][6] As evidence they cite that Sternberg is a fellow of International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a group dedicated to promoting intelligent design, [7] and presented a lecture on intelligent design at the Research And Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference. [8]

A critical review of the article is available on the Panda's Thumb website. [9] In January 2005, the Discovery Institute posted its response to the critique on their website. [10]

Meyer alleges that those who oppose "Darwinism" are persecuted by the scientific community: "The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast. This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series' attempt to stigmatize all critics--including scientists--as religious 'creationists' is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination." [11] The American Society for Clinical Investigation says that the claim that there is a community of intelligent design scientists undergoing persecution by the science establishment for their revolutionary scientific ideas is a hoax oft repeated by ID proponents to further their cause, which has failed to produce a legitimate body of science. [12]

Political controversy

A "teach the controversy" strategy was announced by Meyer [13] following a presentation to the Ohio State Board of Education in March 2002. The presentation included submission of an annotated bibliography of 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles that were said to raise significant challenges to key tenets of what was referred to as “Darwinian evolution” [14]. In response to this claim the National Center for Science Education, an organisation that works in collaboration with National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the National Science Teachers Association that support the teaching of evolution in public schools [15], contacted the authors of the papers listed and twenty-six scientists, representing thirty-four of the papers, responded. None of the authors considered that their research provided evidence against evolution [16].

On March 11, 2002 during a panel discussion on evolution Meyer publicly told the Ohio Board of Education that the "Santorum Amendment" was part of the Education Bill, and therefore that the State of Ohio was required to teach alternative theories to evolution as part of its biology curriculum. A Brown University Professor of Biology, Kenneth R. Miller, showed that the Santorum Amendment is not in the body of the Education Bill itself. [17] Meyer and others rebutted that the language, while not in the bill itself is in the Conference Report to the bill and pointed out what they believe are misrepresentations by Miller.[18] Miller replied that Conference Reports do not carry the weight of law and that in implying that they do, Meyer factually mistated the nature and gravitas of the Santorum Amendment.[19]

Debates and discussions

* On May 6, 2005 Meyer debated Eugenie Scott, on The Big Story with John Gibson. During the debate, Meyer argued that Intelligent Design is critical of more than just evolutionary mechanisms like natural selection that lead to diversification, but of common descent itself. [20]

* In April 2006, Dr. Meyer and Peter Ward, a paleontologist from the University of Washington held an open online discussion on the topic of Intelligent Design in the Talk of the Times forum in Seattle, WA.[21]

Bibliography

Books

* David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, Mark E. DeForrest (1999) Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curriculum: A Legal Guidebook ISBN 0-9642104-1-X

* Michael J. Behe William A. Dembski and Stephen C. Meyer (2000) Science and Evidence of Design in the Universe ISBN 0-89870-809-5

* Campbell and Meyer (2003) Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, Michigan State University Press. ISBN 0-87013-675-5

Scientific paper

* Meyer, S.C. (2004) The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2):213-239. online version This paper was withdrawn by the publisher because the editor, fellow intelligent design proponent Richard Sternberg, went outside the usual review procedures in allowing Meyer's article to be published in his last issue as editor. see:Sternberg peer review controversy

Film

* Unlocking the Mystery of Life

References

1. ^ The Wedge Breaking the Modernist Monopoly on Science Phillip E. Johnson. Touchstone. July/August, 1999.

2. ^ The Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999.

External links

Pro-ID

* ARN page

* Discovery Institute biography

o Discovery Institute articles

* website for Darwinism Design and Public Education

Anti-ID

* evowiki

* Meyer's hopeless monster Review of Meyer, Stephen C. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2):213-239

* the antievolutionists - Meyer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer

Stephen Meyer explains intelligent design

[Guest Alefshin]

Duane Gish

Duane Tolbert Gish (born February 17, 1921) is an American biochemist, a young Earth creationist, former vice-president of the Institute for Creation Research, and debator of evolutionary scientists. Gish is one of the most prominent and outspoken members of the creationist movement.[1]

Contents

* 1 Biography

* 2 Debates

* 3 Controversy and criticism

* 4 Quotes

* 5 Trivia

* 6 Citations

* 7 References

* 8 Bibliography

* 9 External links

Biography

Gish, a twin, was born in White City, Kansas, the youngest of nine children. He received a BS degree from UCLA in 1949 and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley in 1953. He is the author of several books and articles espousing the tenets of creationism.

Gish was an Assistant Research Associate at Berkeley, and an Assistant Professor at Cornell University Medical College, before joining the Upjohn Company as a Research Associate in 1960. He joined the faculty at San Diego Christian College (originally called Christian Heritage College) in 1971, one year after its inception, and worked for its research division, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). The ICR became independent in 1981.

Gish initially regarded the Earth's age as irrelevant,[2] but later became convinced of a Young Earth, in line with other ICR members.[3]

Debates

Gish relished scientific debates, and has been called "the T.H. Huxley of creationism."[4] Gish has frequently debated prominent and well-known evolutionary scientists.

At a debate at the University of Sydney with Professor Ian Plimer from the University of Newcastle in 1985, Plimer refused to argue genteelly, and instead viewed the debate as political and not scientific.[5] Gish described the debate as "the most disgusting performance I've ever witnessed in my life."[5] According to observers, Plimer debated in a street-fighting manner.[5]

“ For more than 20 blistering minutes, Professor Plimer mocked, ridiculed, and challenged every tenet the movement holds dear, and made a string of blunt personal allegations about some of its more prominent members. At one point he even donned insulating gloves, took a live electric wire and offered Dr. Gish the opportunity to electrocute himself.[5] ”

Gish responded to the electrocution challenge by contrasting the testability of electricity with the "untestability" of evolution.[citation needed] Plimer claimed victory.[citation needed]

Critics object to the often unstructured nature of the debates, what they call a "shotgun" approach to presenting many arguments, bouncing from one issue to another by continually throwing out new claims without bothering to answer previous objections, each of which would require considerable time and information to refute, a technique which has been referred to as the "Gish gallop." [1] [2] [3] Another criticism is that creationists "load" the audience with supporters, although Gish has debated in front of hostile university audiences too.[citation needed]

Gish publicly stated he would never debate Professor Plimer again because of Plimer's concentration on abusive ad hominem arguments.[citation needed]

Controversy and criticism

Though his critiques of chemical evolution[6] are viewed favorably among fellow creationists,[citation needed] they have not found acceptance within the scientific community.

Richard Trott wrote an article rebutting many of the arguments Duane Gish made during a presentation at Rutgers University in 1994.[7] Trott wrote that "if Gish is one of the world's leading experts" on creation science then "evolutionary scientists have nothing to fear from [creation] science."

Trott has pointed out that Gish has "stated that there are no fossil precursors to the dinosaur Triceratops... for at least 12 years now," but this is absolutely untrue. In fact, ceratopsian precursors of Triceratops include, "for example, Monoclonius and Protoceratops."[7] Furthermore, "this lineage appears in proper sequence in the fossil record" and "shows the expected developmental change in body size, size of the bony frill, and number of horns." Trott concludes "unfortunately, it is likely that none of Gish's audience was aware that his statement was completely contrary to fact. Gish promulgated similar falsehoods about the fossil record all night long."[7]

Trott also claimed that Gish "emphasized that there were no 'transitional forms' in the fossil record but he did not explain what characteristics he would accept as 'transitional' (with the exception of a ludicrous gloss on what one would expect to see in the horns of Triceratops)."[7] With bird fossils "Gish has, for example, declared that the reptile-bird transition Archaeopteryx was not a transition because it had feathers and flew and was, therefore, a bird." Trott noted "to make the absurd assertion that Archaeopteryx did not show features of a reptile, Gish must conceal from his audience facts about Archaeopteryx such as that it possessed a pubic peduncle and a long bony tail. These are features found in reptiles that are never found in birds."

Gish also claimed "Lord Solly Zuckerman, writing in 1970 that Australopithecus was probably not an ancestor of Homo sapiens, had more or less all the evidence that we have today."[7] Trott noted that this statement "showed either incredible ignorance or a stunning lack of integrity" because "the field of physical anthropology underwent a revolution in the 1970s due to new discoveries." Indeed, Zuckerman wrote that his conclusions on Australopithecines were made at least three years before Lucy was discovered, and that he "didn't work with any of the original Australopithecine fossils. His conclusions were based on a cast of one half of the pelvis of a single specimen)."[7]

Gish claims "that Neanderthals are now accepted as 'fully human Homo sapiens just like you and me.')."[7] Yet, Trott wrote "Neanderthals were not 'just like you and me,' A Neanderthal had a longer and lower skull, a larger face and larger teeth, no chin or a slight chin, and a massive brow ridge in front of a differently shaped brain, as well as a distinctive skeletal structure."

In 1997 Michael Shermer devoted a partial chapter of his book Why People Believe Weird Things to Gish's arguments. Regarding research Shermer made for a public debate with Gish, Shermer noted that in every debate "Gish delivered the same automated presentation- same opening, same assumptions about his opponent's position, same outdated slides, and even the same jokes." In the debate itself, Shermer opened his argument by explaining at length that he was not an atheist and that he was willing to accept the existence of a divine creator, but Gish's rebuttal concerned itself primarily with proving that Shermer was an atheist and therefore immoral.[8]

In 2002 Massimo Pigliucci, who debated Gish five times, noted Gish ignores evidence that is contrary to Gish's religious beliefs.[9] Moreover, Pigliucci criticized the organizations Gish runs, the personal attacks Gish makes, the pseudoscience Gish teaches, and even Gish's claim that Adam in Genesis 1 had a belly button.[10]

In 2004, Gish appeared on Penn and Teller's Showtime television show Bullshit! on the episode "Creationism." On the show Gish explained that "neither creation nor evolution are scientific theories. Evolution is no more scientific than creation." The scientific proof Gish offered for creationism was that the Grand Canyon was created in one day when a natural dam burst and the resulting floodwaters cut through layers that had been deposited during the Biblical flood that involved Noah's Ark. As for Gish's claim that there are no fossils to demonstrate evolution, Dr Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education noted "part of the problem is Dr. Gish hasn't kept up with the scientific literature." The host, Penn Jillette, concluded that "Duane doesn't want to find anything that will shake up his world view" and "his God lives only in the margins of science and he wants to keep those margins wide."

Scott also noted Gish has done no professional research in his field since his work at Upjohn, instead producing only creationism-related work for a popular audience.

Gish is also one of the creationists most responsible for propagating the false assertion that evolution by natural selection is rendered impossible by the second law of thermodynamics. In addition to the usual scientists' criticisms, this has also received criticism from the comedian Dave Gorman, who personally met Gish during 2003 (see also Trivia below).

Quotes

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:

Duane Gish

* "God used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to divine creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by God." (Evolution: The Fossils Say No, page 42)

* "Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory." (Creation, Evolution, and Public Education)

* "Intelligent Design is Creationism" April 20th, 2007, at Grace Bible Church in Bozeman, MT.

* "If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at other certain proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee." - Source - Gish has failed to show any evidence or documentation supporting this claim, which has been proven false.

[edit] Trivia

Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines.

The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones.

* Duane Gish is mentioned in the best selling non-fiction book Dave Gorman’s Googlewhack Adventure by the British comedian Dave Gorman. In the book, Gorman had been challenged to find 10 googlewhacks in a row. This journey led him to the googlewhack "Dripstone Ingles," AKA Dr. Gish. However, after Gorman met him, Gish could not comprehend the concept of a googlewhack and that chain ended with Gish:

"Imagine trying to telephone your grandmother, and over the telephone explain to your grandmother how to set the video recorder if you knew that she didn't have a video recorder, but she did have a cake."

Coincidentally, Gorman met another Googlewhack, "Hydroids Souvlaki," AKA Dr. M. Dale Stokes, who is a prominent and vocal critic of Dr. Gish. Stokes had even written a paper which debunked a pamphlet which Gish had given Gorman when they met.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish

The Origin of Man by Dr. Duane Gish

[Срећко Петровић]

Duane Gish

Duane Tolbert Gish (born February 17, 1921) is an American biochemist, a young Earth creationist, former vice-president of the Institute for Creation Research, and debator of evolutionary scientists. Gish is one of the most prominent and outspoken members of the creationist movement.[1]

Contents

* 1 Biography

* 2 Debates

* 3 Controversy and criticism

* 4 Quotes

* 5 Trivia

* 6 Citations

* 7 References

* 8 Bibliography

* 9 External links

Biography

Gish, a twin, was born in White City, Kansas, the youngest of nine children. He received a BS degree from UCLA in 1949 and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley in 1953. He is the author of several books and articles espousing the tenets of creationism.

Gish was an Assistant Research Associate at Berkeley, and an Assistant Professor at Cornell University Medical College, before joining the Upjohn Company as a Research Associate in 1960. He joined the faculty at San Diego Christian College (originally called Christian Heritage College) in 1971, one year after its inception, and worked for its research division, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). The ICR became independent in 1981.

Gish initially regarded the Earth's age as irrelevant,[2] but later became convinced of a Young Earth, in line with other ICR members.[3]

Debates

Gish relished scientific debates, and has been called "the T.H. Huxley of creationism."[4] Gish has frequently debated prominent and well-known evolutionary scientists.

At a debate at the University of Sydney with Professor Ian Plimer from the University of Newcastle in 1985, Plimer refused to argue genteelly, and instead viewed the debate as political and not scientific.[5] Gish described the debate as "the most disgusting performance I've ever witnessed in my life."[5] According to observers, Plimer debated in a street-fighting manner.[5]

“ For more than 20 blistering minutes, Professor Plimer mocked, ridiculed, and challenged every tenet the movement holds dear, and made a string of blunt personal allegations about some of its more prominent members. At one point he even donned insulating gloves, took a live electric wire and offered Dr. Gish the opportunity to electrocute himself.[5] ”

Gish responded to the electrocution challenge by contrasting the testability of electricity with the "untestability" of evolution.[citation needed] Plimer claimed victory.[citation needed]

Critics object to the often unstructured nature of the debates, what they call a "shotgun" approach to presenting many arguments, bouncing from one issue to another by continually throwing out new claims without bothering to answer previous objections, each of which would require considerable time and information to refute, a technique which has been referred to as the "Gish gallop." [1] [2] [3] Another criticism is that creationists "load" the audience with supporters, although Gish has debated in front of hostile university audiences too.[citation needed]

Gish publicly stated he would never debate Professor Plimer again because of Plimer's concentration on abusive ad hominem arguments.[citation needed]

Controversy and criticism

Though his critiques of chemical evolution[6] are viewed favorably among fellow creationists,[citation needed] they have not found acceptance within the scientific community.

Richard Trott wrote an article rebutting many of the arguments Duane Gish made during a presentation at Rutgers University in 1994.[7] Trott wrote that "if Gish is one of the world's leading experts" on creation science then "evolutionary scientists have nothing to fear from [creation] science."

Trott has pointed out that Gish has "stated that there are no fossil precursors to the dinosaur Triceratops... for at least 12 years now," but this is absolutely untrue. In fact, ceratopsian precursors of Triceratops include, "for example, Monoclonius and Protoceratops."[7] Furthermore, "this lineage appears in proper sequence in the fossil record" and "shows the expected developmental change in body size, size of the bony frill, and number of horns." Trott concludes "unfortunately, it is likely that none of Gish's audience was aware that his statement was completely contrary to fact. Gish promulgated similar falsehoods about the fossil record all night long."[7]

Trott also claimed that Gish "emphasized that there were no 'transitional forms' in the fossil record but he did not explain what characteristics he would accept as 'transitional' (with the exception of a ludicrous gloss on what one would expect to see in the horns of Triceratops)."[7] With bird fossils "Gish has, for example, declared that the reptile-bird transition Archaeopteryx was not a transition because it had feathers and flew and was, therefore, a bird." Trott noted "to make the absurd assertion that Archaeopteryx did not show features of a reptile, Gish must conceal from his audience facts about Archaeopteryx such as that it possessed a pubic peduncle and a long bony tail. These are features found in reptiles that are never found in birds."

Gish also claimed "Lord Solly Zuckerman, writing in 1970 that Australopithecus was probably not an ancestor of Homo sapiens, had more or less all the evidence that we have today."[7] Trott noted that this statement "showed either incredible ignorance or a stunning lack of integrity" because "the field of physical anthropology underwent a revolution in the 1970s due to new discoveries." Indeed, Zuckerman wrote that his conclusions on Australopithecines were made at least three years before Lucy was discovered, and that he "didn't work with any of the original Australopithecine fossils. His conclusions were based on a cast of one half of the pelvis of a single specimen)."[7]

Gish claims "that Neanderthals are now accepted as 'fully human Homo sapiens just like you and me.')."[7] Yet, Trott wrote "Neanderthals were not 'just like you and me,' A Neanderthal had a longer and lower skull, a larger face and larger teeth, no chin or a slight chin, and a massive brow ridge in front of a differently shaped brain, as well as a distinctive skeletal structure."

In 1997 Michael Shermer devoted a partial chapter of his book Why People Believe Weird Things to Gish's arguments. Regarding research Shermer made for a public debate with Gish, Shermer noted that in every debate "Gish delivered the same automated presentation- same opening, same assumptions about his opponent's position, same outdated slides, and even the same jokes." In the debate itself, Shermer opened his argument by explaining at length that he was not an atheist and that he was willing to accept the existence of a divine creator, but Gish's rebuttal concerned itself primarily with proving that Shermer was an atheist and therefore immoral.[8]

In 2002 Massimo Pigliucci, who debated Gish five times, noted Gish ignores evidence that is contrary to Gish's religious beliefs.[9] Moreover, Pigliucci criticized the organizations Gish runs, the personal attacks Gish makes, the pseudoscience Gish teaches, and even Gish's claim that Adam in Genesis 1 had a belly button.[10]

In 2004, Gish appeared on Penn and Teller's Showtime television show Bullshit! on the episode "Creationism." On the show Gish explained that "neither creation nor evolution are scientific theories. Evolution is no more scientific than creation." The scientific proof Gish offered for creationism was that the Grand Canyon was created in one day when a natural dam burst and the resulting floodwaters cut through layers that had been deposited during the Biblical flood that involved Noah's Ark. As for Gish's claim that there are no fossils to demonstrate evolution, Dr Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education noted "part of the problem is Dr. Gish hasn't kept up with the scientific literature." The host, Penn Jillette, concluded that "Duane doesn't want to find anything that will shake up his world view" and "his God lives only in the margins of science and he wants to keep those margins wide."

Scott also noted Gish has done no professional research in his field since his work at Upjohn, instead producing only creationism-related work for a popular audience.

Gish is also one of the creationists most responsible for propagating the false assertion that evolution by natural selection is rendered impossible by the second law of thermodynamics. In addition to the usual scientists' criticisms, this has also received criticism from the comedian Dave Gorman, who personally met Gish during 2003 (see also Trivia below).

Quotes

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:

Duane Gish

* "God used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to divine creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by God." (Evolution: The Fossils Say No, page 42)

* "Neither evolution nor creation qualifies as a scientific theory." (Creation, Evolution, and Public Education)

* "Intelligent Design is Creationism" April 20th, 2007, at Grace Bible Church in Bozeman, MT.

* "If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at other certain proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee." - Source - Gish has failed to show any evidence or documentation supporting this claim, which has been proven false.

[edit] Trivia

Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines.

The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones.

* Duane Gish is mentioned in the best selling non-fiction book Dave Gorman’s Googlewhack Adventure by the British comedian Dave Gorman. In the book, Gorman had been challenged to find 10 googlewhacks in a row. This journey led him to the googlewhack "Dripstone Ingles," AKA Dr. Gish. However, after Gorman met him, Gish could not comprehend the concept of a googlewhack and that chain ended with Gish:

"Imagine trying to telephone your grandmother, and over the telephone explain to your grandmother how to set the video recorder if you knew that she didn't have a video recorder, but she did have a cake."

Coincidentally, Gorman met another Googlewhack, "Hydroids Souvlaki," AKA Dr. M. Dale Stokes, who is a prominent and vocal critic of Dr. Gish. Stokes had even written a paper which debunked a pamphlet which Gish had given Gorman when they met.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish

The Origin of Man by Dr. Duane Gish

Oce Gorane, zasto preskacete i precutkujete detalje iz biografija ovih kreacionista koje ste ovde izlistali?

D. Gish, ciju ste biografiju upravo postavili, je fundamentalni baptista, kako i stoji recimo u clanku na Wiki koji ste preneli ovde, sa izuzetkom tog pasusa, koji je na neki nacin nestao iz vase poruke.

>>> A Methodist from age ten, and later a fundamentalist Baptist, Gish has long held that the Biblical creation story is a historical fact.[4]

Lako je snaci se, to je recenica koja se zavrsava fusnotom 4 u clanku na engleskoj Vikipediji - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish