Articles and materials offered by the EPS

EPS Article Library

Atheists Against Darwinism


Back to Article[1]Phillip E. Johnson, Testing Darwinism: An Easy-To-Understand Guide (Leicester: IVP, 1997), 92.

Back to Article[2]ARN, "Top Ten Darwin and Design News Stories for 2008" Cf. Intelligent Design The Future, "Top Ten Darwin and Design News Stories for 2008"

Back to Article[3]

Back to Article[4]ARN, "Top Ten Darwin and Design News Stories for 2008". Cf. David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions (New York: Crown Forum, 2008); David Berlinski, "The Scientific Embrace of Atheism"; Intelligent Design The Future, "David Berlinski on The Devil's Delusion; Peter S. Williams, "Atheist Philosopher Bradley Monton Defends Intelligent Design Theory"; Steve Fuller, Dissent Over Descent: Intelligent Design's Challenge to Darwinism (Icon, 2008); Caspar Melville, "The Darwin Wars: Still Raging";

Thomas Nagel, "Public Education and Intelligent Design", Philosophy & Public Affairs 36, no. 2 (2008) On the constitutionality of teaching ID in America, Cf. Jay D. Wexler, "Kitzmiller and the 'Is It Science?' Question," 5 First Amendment Law Review 90, 93 (2006).

Back to Article[5]Cf. Jerry Fodor, "Why Pigs Don't Have Wings", London Review of Books, 18th October 2007,

Back to Article[6]Steve Fuller, Science vs Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution (Cambridge: Polity, 2007), 116 & 83.

[7] cf. A.N. Wilson, "Why I Believe Again"; A.N. Wilson, "Religion of Hatred: Why we should no longer be cowed by the chattering classes ruling Britain who sneer at Christianity"; William Lane Craig, "A.N. Wilson"

Back to Article[8]A.N. Wilson, "Can you love God and agree with Darwin?"

Back to Article[9]Cf.

Back to Article[10]For example, in the course of discussing physiological systems like the heart, Le Fanu writes: "when, as here, the purposive efforts of brilliant bioengineers employing the most sophisticated modern technology fall so far short of nature's model, it seems merely perverse to suggest that the undirected processes of nature, acting on numerous small, random genetic mutations, could give rise to this or any other of those 'masterpieces of design.' This is not to suggest that there must be a Creator after all . . .", Why Us? How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves (Harper Press, 2009), 122. Cf. James Le Fanu, "Why 'Why Us?'"

Back to Article[11]James Le Fanu, Why Us? How Science rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves, 23, 58 & 88. Cf. Christopher Booker, "Mind Over Matter", The Spectator, Wednesday, 28th January 2009

Back to Article[12] Cf. Monton explains: "even though I'm an atheist, I'm of the opinion that the arguments for intelligent design are stronger than most realize. . . I maintain that it is legitimate to view intelligent design as science, that there are somewhat plausible arguments for the existence of a cosmic designer, and that intelligent design should be taught in public school science classes."

Back to Article[13]Phillip E. Johnson, The Firing Line Creation-Evolution Debate (1997) Cf. Cornelius G. Hunter, Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion Over Science (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2003); Cornelius G. Hunter, Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2007); Intelligent Design The Future, "Dr Cornelius Hunter and Science's Blind Spot"

Back to Article[14]Cf. William A. Dembski, ed., Darwin's Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2006).

Back to Article[15]Phillip E. Johnson, The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning & Public Debate (Downers Grove: IVP, 2002),  27.

Back to Article[16]Phillip E. Johnson, The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism (Downers Grove: IVP, 2000),  14.

Back to Article[17]Bradley Monton, "Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision", 1, 2 & 9-10

Back to Article[18]Fuller, Science vs Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution,  116 & 162.

Back to Article[19]Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trail, second edition (Downers Grove: IVP, 1993), 14. Creationist Dr Jonathan Sarfati writes: "The authority of the Bible is the main emphasis of Answers in Genesis. We don't try to 'prove' the Bible with science; rather, we accept the Bible's propositions as true without proof, i.e. as axioms or presuppositions. . . it's important to realize that all 'facts' of science do not speak for themselves, but are interpreted within a framework. Evolutionists start with the axiom of naturalism or materialism. . . Biblical creationists interpret the same facts and observations, but within the framework outlined above." - Refuting Evolution 2 (Green Forrest AR: Master Books, 2002), 211-212.

Back to Article[20]Johnson, Darwin on Trail, 14.

Back to Article[21]Ibid., 28.

Back to Article[22]Ibid., quoting the National Academy of Science, 28.

Back to Article[23]Ibid., 28.

Back to Article[24]Cf. Stuart Burgess, Hallmarks of Design: Evidence of purposeful design and beauty in nature, revised edition (Surrey: DayOne, 2002); David Rosevear, Creation Science: Confirming that the Bible is Right (Chichester: New Wine Press, 1991); Sarfati, Refuting Evolution 2;

Back to Article[25]Johnson, Darwin on Trail, 28.

Back to Article[26]Ibid., 3.

Back to Article[27]Ibid., 3-4.

Back to Article[28]Ibid., 14.

Back to Article[29]Ibid., 157.

Back to Article[30]Johnson, The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning & Public Debate,  80.

Back to Article[31]Alvin Plantinga, "When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible", Christian Scholar's Review XXI:1 (September 1991), 8-33; re-printed in David L. Hull & Michael Ruse, ed.'s, The Philosophy of Biology (Oxford University Press, 1998),

Back to Article[32]Alvin Plantinga, "Evolution, Neutrality, and Antecedent Probability: a Reply to Van Till and McMullen"

Back to Article[33]Johnson, The Wedge of Truth, 14.

Back to Article[34]Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons", New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.

Back to Article[35]ibid, my italics.

Back to Article[36]Fodor, "Why Pigs Don't Have Wings".

Back to Article[37]Thomas Nagel, "Public Education and Intelligent Design", Philosophy & Public Affairs 36, no. 2 (2008),  202

Back to Article[38]Franklin Harold, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms, and the Order of Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003),  254.

Back to Article[39]Ibid.

[40] Cf. Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origins of Life (London: Penguin, 1998); Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life (Cambridge University Press, 2005); David Berlinski, "On the Origins of Life"; Stephen C. Meyer, "DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification, and Explanation" in Darwin, Design and Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003); Leslie E. Orgel, "The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth", PLoS Biol 6(1),  January 22, 2008; Robert Shapiro, "A Simpler Origin for Life", Scientific American, February 12, 2007; J.T. Trevors & D.L. Abel, "Chance and Necessity do not explain the origin of life", Cell Biology International, Volume 28, Issue 11, (2004), 729-739; J.T. Trevors & D.L. Abel, "Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information", Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, (2005, 2: 29);

David Tyler, "Ribonucleotides and the revival of the 'warm little pond' scenario"; Øyvind Albert Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solutions and Fractals, Volume 28, Issue 4, May 2006, 1000-1004; Intelligent Design The Future, "Ed Pelzer: The Current State of Origins of Life Studies"

Back to Article[41]Davies, The Fifth Miracle, 64-65.

Back to Article[42]Paul Davies, New Scientist, November 2006, 35. Kenneth Miller states: "the most profound unsolved problem in biology is the origin of life itself." (New Scientist, 31 January 2009, 41.)

Back to Article[43]Gregg Easterbrook, Wired, February 2007, 108.

Back to Article[44]Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (Dent, 1981),  24-148.

Back to Article[45]Ibid., 130.

Back to Article[46]Michael Ruse, quoted from the Journal of Theoretical Biology by Michael Behe in The Firing Line Creation-Evolution Debate

Back to Article[47]Michael Ruse, "Nonliteralist Antievolution," AAAS Symposium: "The New Antievolutionism," February 13, 1993, Boston, MA (1993) Cf. Tom Woodward, "Ruse Gives Away the Store"

Back to Article[48]Nagel, "Public Education and Intelligent Design", 195. Cf. Alvin Plantinga, "Whether ID Is Science Isn't Semantics"

Back to Article[49]Monton, "Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision", 1.

Back to Article[50]Cf. David Dewolf, John West, Casey Luskin & Jonathan Witt, Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2006); David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin "Intelligent Design will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover," 68 Montana Law Review 7 (Winter, 2007)

Back to Article[51] Monton, "Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision", 10.

Back to Article[52]Michael Ruse in Robert B. Stewart, ed., Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007),  34 & 39-40.

Back to Article[53]Garrett J. DeWeese & J.P. Moreland, Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult (Downers Grove: IVP, 2005), 146.

Back to Article[54] Jeffrey Koperski, "Two Bad Ways to Attack Intelligent Design and Two Good Ones", Zygon, 43 (2),  June 2008,433-449. According to Larry Laudan: "If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like "pseudo-science" and "unscientific" from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us." - "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem" in Michael Ruse, ed., But is it Science? (Amherst: Prometheus, 1983), 349. Lauden explains: "There is no demarcation line between science and non-science, or between science and pseudoscience, which would win assent from a majority of philosophers." - Beyond Positivism and Relativism (Westview Press, 1996), 210. Philip Kitcher states: "Even postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientific than postulating unobservable particles." - Abusing Science (MIT Press, 1983), 125. Willard Quine agrees: "If I saw indirect explanatory benefit in positing… spirits, a Creator, I would joyfully accord them scientific status too, on a par with such avowedly scientific posits as quarks and black holes." - "Naturalism; or, Living within One's Means", Dialectica 1995, vol. 49. Keith M. Parsons comments: "I can see no reason why, in principle, supernatural hypotheses might not be rigorously tested vis-à-vis natural ones. . . Darwin did not define creationism out of science, but devastated it by repeatedly demonstrating its failure as an empirical hypothesis. . . Such hypotheses fail and have failed for centuries, which failure - rather than atheistic prejudice - justifies the refusal of scientists to take them seriously." - Review of Michael Ruse, Can a Darwinian be a Christian? (2001)

Back to Article[55]Monton, "Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision," 1-2.

Back to Article[56]Fuller, Science vs Religion?, 102-103.

Back to Article[57]Ibid., 117.

Back to Article [58] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (London: Bantam, 2006), 50 & 59. Dawkins also endorses specified complexity as a design detection criterion, Cf. Peter S. Williams, "The Design Inference from Specified Complexity Defended by Scholars Outside the Intelligent Design Movement – A Critical Review", Philosophia Christi, Vol 9, Number 2 Cf. William Lane Craig, "Naturalism and Intelligent Design" in Robert B. Stewart, ed., Intelligent Design, 70-71.

Back to Article[59]Michael Ruse, "Nonliteralist Antievolution," AAAS Symposium: "The New Antievolutionism," February 13, 1993, Boston, MA (1993)

Back to Article[60]Nagel, "Public Education and Intelligent Design," 198.

Back to Article[61]Ibid., 201-202.

Back to Article[62]Ibid., 195 & 197.

Back to Article[63]Ibid., 189.

Back to Article[64]Ibid., 188-189.

Back to Article[65]Ibid., 189.

Back to Article[66]Ibid., 189.

Back to Article[67] Fuller, Science vs Religion?, 83. Dawkins discusses SETI in The God Delusion: "It is a non-trivial question . . . what kind of signal would convince us of its intelligent origin . . . Metronomic rhythms can be generated by many non-intelligent phenomena. . . . Nothing simply rhythmic . . . would announce our intelligent presence to the waiting universe," 71. The regular, specified but uncomplicated pattern of a pulsar does not require an explanation in terms of design. Neither, of course, does the irregular, unspecified complexity of static. So what sort of signal would do the job? Dawkins notes: "Prime numbers are often mentioned as the recipe of choice, since it is difficult to think of a purely physical process that could generate them" (43). Dawkins affirms that there is a type of pattern, in principle discoverable by empirical, scientific investigation, for which it is difficult to account in purely physical terms and which would rightly trigger a design inference. Cf. Peter S. Williams, "The Design Inference from Specified Complexity Defended by Scholars Outside the Intelligent Design Movement – A Critical Review"; Peter S. Williams, "If SETI Is Science and UFOlogy Is Not, Which Is Intelligent Design Theory?"

Back to Article [68] Cf. Thomas Nagel, Mortal Questions (Cambridge: Canto, 1996); Thomas Nagel, What Does It All Mean? (Oxford University Press, 1987); Mario Beauregard & Denyse O'Leary, The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul (Harper One, 2007); James Le Fanu, Why Us? How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves (Harper Press, 2009); Edward Fesser, Philosophy of Mind: A Short Introduction (Oxford: OneWorld, 2005); Stewart Goetz & Charles Taliaffero, Naturalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008); William Hasker, The Emergent Self (Cornell Univeristy Press, 2001); Angus Menuge, Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004); J.P. Moreland, Consciousness and the Existence of God (Routledge, 2008); Victor Reppert, C.S. Lewis" Dangerous Idea: In Defence of the Argument from Reason (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003); William Hasker, "How Not to be a Reductivist"; William Lycan, "Giving Dualism its Due" @; Dallas Willard, "Non-Reductive and Non-Eliminative Physicalism?"; Peter S. Williams, "Nothing More than Blood and Bones?"

Back to Article[69]Nagel, "Public Education and Intelligent Design", 189-190.

Back to Article[70]A proposal I first made in "Reviewing the Reviewers: Pigliucci et al on Darwin's Rotweiller & the public understanding of science"

Back to Article[71]Nagel, "Public Education and Intelligent Design", 188.

Back to Article[72]Ibid., 201.

Back to Article[73]Ibid.

Back to Article[74]Ibid., 196.

Back to Article[75]Nagel, "Public Education and Intelligent Design", 188. Cf. Beckwith, Law, Darwinism, And Public Education; Casey Luskin, "Is Intelligent Design Theory Really an Argument for God?"

Back to Article[76]Beckwith, Law, Darwinism, and Public Education, xiii.

Back to Article[77]Marcus Ross & Paul Nelson, "A Taxonomy of Teleology", in Dembski, ed., Darwin's Nemesis, 274.

Back to Article[78]Michael J. Behe, "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis", Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Volume 3, Number 1, 2001,165.

Back to Article[79]Monton, "Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision", 9.

Back to Article[80]Nagel, "Public Education and Intelligent Design", 188.

Back to Article[81]Ibid.

Back to Article[82]Cf. Plantinga, "When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible".

Back to Article[83]If ID is a legal ruse tailor-made for the American legal situation, why does it garner support in other countries? Cf. Intelligent Design Network Australia; Progetto Cosmo; Ondrej Hejma, "Intelligent Design Supporters Gather"

Back to Article[84]Stephen C. Meyer, "A Scientific History and Philosophical Defence of Intelligent Design Theory" Cf. Thaxton, Bradley & Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin; Intelligent Design The Future, "The Mystery of Life's Origin: An Interview with Dr Charles Thaxton: Part One" & "The Mystery of Life's Origin: An Interview with Dr Charles Thaxton: Part Two"

Back to Article[85]Cf. Casey Luskin, "Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why Intelligent design Doesn't Identify the Designer"; Casey Luskin, "Is Intelligent Design Theory Really an Argument for God?"

Back to Article[86]Michael J. Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism (Free Press, 2007), 228-229.

Back to Article[87]Cf. William A. Dembski, "On the very possibility of intelligent design" in J.P. Moreland, ed., The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 1994).

Back to Article[88]Monton, "Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision", 4.

Back to Article[89]This said, design detection criteria used within intelligent design theory can be applied to data that includes propositional communication within the field of historical apologetics. Cf. Gregory Koukl, "Prophecy and People: Both Designed to Fit"; John A. Bloom, "Is Fulfilled Prophecy of Value for Scholarly Apologetics?"; Robert C. Newman, "Fulfilled Prophecy as Miracle," In Defence of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God's Action in History, ed. R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas (Leicester: Apollos, 1997); Robert C. Newman, "On Fulfilled Prophecy as Miracle" Philosophia Christi 3 (2001): 63-7; Hugh Ross, "Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible,"

Back to Article[90] Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (Bantam Press, 2007), 73.

Back to Article[91]Monton, "Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision", 9. One could attribute design to: Plato's Demiurge, the gods of polytheism, angels, demons, time-travelling humans, or the sort of observer-created self-caused loop apparently favoured by Paul Davies in The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is The Universe Just Right For Life? (London: Penguin, 2007). Scientists who accept Fred Hoyle's theory of directed-panspermia might subscribe to ID. Directed Panspermia is accepted by members of the naturalistic Raelian UFO Cult. Of course, this interpretation of intelligent design theory faces an awkward explanatory regress in explaining the origin of the aliens. Cf. Lee Elliot Major, "Big Enough to Bury Darwin",9836,541468,00.html; Michael J. Behe, "The God of Science"; Peter S. Williams, "Raelians Successfully Clone Naturalism"

Back to Article[92] ARN guide to Evolution.

Back to Article[93]Dembski, "Preface", Darwin's Nemesis, 20.

Back to Article[94]Michael Behe, "Whether Intelligent Design is Science"

Back to Article[95]Monton, "Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision", 3-4.

Back to Article[96]Nagel, "Public Education and Intelligent Design", 199.

Back to Article[97]Michael Ruse, The Firing Line Creation-Evolution Debate.

Back to Article[98]Nagel, "Public Education and Intelligent Design", 202.

Back to Article[99]Ibid.

Back to Article[100]Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 2nd edition (Free Press, 2006), 265-266. Cf. Robert C. Koons, "The Check is in the Mail: Why Darwinism Fails to Inspire Confidence" in William A. Dembski, ed., Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing (ISI Books, 2004).

Back to Article[101]Fuller, Dissent Over Descent, 146-147.

Back to Article[102]As Richard Swinburne argues: "If it seems. . . to S that x is present, that is good reason for S to believe that it is so, in the absence of special considerations – whatever x may be." – The Existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 260.

Back to Article[103] Harold, The Way of the Cell, 205.

Back to Article[104]Cf. Koons, "The Check Is in the Mail: Why Darwinism Fails to Inspire Confidence".

Back to Article[105] Fodor observes: "it's important to see that the phylogeny could be true even if the adaptationism isn't . . . the classical Darwinist account of evolution as primarily driven by natural selection is in trouble on both conceptual and empirical grounds." He castigates those who assert "We can't do without biology and biology can't do without Darwinism": "The biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky said that nothing in biology makes sense without Darwinism, and he is widely paraphrased . . . Shake a stick at a Darwinist treatise and you're sure to find, usually in the first chapter, claims for the indispensability of adaptationism. Well, if adaptationism really is the only game in town, if the rest of biology really does presuppose it, we had better cleave to it warts and all. What is indispensable therefore cannot be dispensed with, as Wittgenstein might have said. The breaking news, however, is that serious alternatives to adaptationism have begun to emerge; ones that preserve the essential claim that phenotypes evolve, but depart to one degree or other from Darwin's theory that natural selection is the mechanism by which they do. There is now far more of this sort of thing around than I am able to survey." - "Why Pigs Don't Have Wings". Fuller thinks Dobzhansky is wrong: "Neo-Darwinism could be abandoned tomorrow, and most research programs in genetics – and other biological disciplines – would continue apace. Of course, this is not an argument against the validity of neo-Darwinian knowledge claims, but it does argue against their indispensability." - Fuller, Science vs Religion?, 132. In Dissent Over Descent Fuller writes: "The vast majority of published research in the biomedical sciences makes little or no reference to evolution . . . it may be that public professions of faith in evolution by scientists are best interpreted as simply making solidarity with the reigning orthodoxy . . . Much of the biology that currently flies under the banner of 'Darwinism' relies little, if at all, on the bone of contention between evolutionists and ID theorists; namely, whether life has developed over a very extended time-frame through purely self-organizing natural processes." (32 & 231.)

Back to Article[106] Behe, The Edge of Evolution, 3.

Back to Article[107]Fuller, Science vs Religion?, 132. Cf. Koons, "The Check Is in the Mail: Why Darwinism Fails to Inspire Confidence".

Back to Article[108]Behe, The Edge of Evolution, 10.

Back to Article[109]Nagel, "Public Education and Intelligent Design", 192.

Back to Article[110] Ibid. Fodor reports: "an appreciable number of perfectly reasonable biologists are coming to think that the theory of natural selection can no longer be taken for granted. This is, so far, mostly straws in the wind; but it's not out of the question that a scientific revolution – no less than a major revision of evolutionary theory – is in the offing . . . Darwinists have been known to say that adaptationism is the best idea that anybody has ever had. It would be a good joke if the best idea that anybody has ever had turned out not to be true . . . The high tide of adaptationism floated a motley navy, but it may now be on the ebb. If it does turn out that natural selection isn't what drives evolution, a lot of loose speculations will be stranded high, dry and looking a little foolish." - "Why Pigs Don't Have Wings".

Back to Article[111]Nagel, "Public Education and Intelligent Design", 192 & 199.

Back to Article[112]Ibid., endnote 11.

Back to Article[113]Behe, The Edge of Evolution, 146.

Back to Article[114]Ibid., 101 & 135. Cf. Prof. Ralph Seelke, "What Can Evolution Really Do?"; Intelligent Design The Future, "Micro or Macro? Microbiologist Ralph Seelke on Evolution"; Stuart Pullen, Intelligent Design or Evolution? Why the Origin of Life and the Evolution of Molecular Knowledge Imply Design (Raleigh, NC: Intelligent Design Books, 2005); Dr J.C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (New York: Elim Publishing, 2005); David Swift, Evolution under the microscope (Stirling: Leighton Acadmeic, 2002); John C. Lennox, God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? 2nd edition, (Oxford: Lion, 2009).

Back to Article[115]Nagel, "Public Education and Intelligent Design", 199.

Back to Article[116]Cf. Rick Durrett & Deena Schmidt, "Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution", Genetics 180: 1501-1509 (2008); Michael J. Behe, "Waiting Longer for Two Mutations: Published Letter in Response to Durrett & Schmidt", Genetics 181: 819-820, (2009); Durrett and Schmidt, "Reply to Michael Behe",
Genetics 181: 821-822 (2009); Michael J. Behe, "Waiting Longer for Two Mutations"; Michael J. Behe's Amazon Blog

Back to Article[117]Nagel, "Public Education and Intelligent Design", 202.

Back to Article[118]Ibid.

Back to Article[119]Ibid.

Back to Article[120]Ibid., 188. Note that to displace design is not that same as contradicting design.

Back to Article[121]Ibid., 202.

Back to Article[122]Ibid., 202-203.

Back to Article[123]Ibid., 199.

Back to Article[124]Ibid., 202-203. As Nagel candidly comments in The Last Word (Oxford University Press, 1997): 'I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't that I don't believe in god and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time.', 130-131.

Back to Article[125]Ibid.

Back to Article[126]Johnson, The Wedge of Truth, 16-17.

Back to Article[127]Monton, "Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision", 6.

Back to Article[128]Cf. The closing interview of Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media/Vivendi Entertainment, 2008).

Back to Article[129]Phillip E. Johnson, "Intelligent Design in Biology: The Current Situation and Future Prospects", Think (The Royal Institute of Philosophy), February 19, 2007

<<Back to article

Sketches of Christian Virtues for Everyday Life Christ-Shaped Philosophy Project EPS Apologetics MP3s