Comments from Toronto-based journalist David Warren: Intelligent design gets science out of the face of religion

Warren e-mailed his hack friends and other friends recently to say:

What impresses me about the American people, is that even though they do not have the intellectual means to confute the Darwinian priesthood in the academy, they smell a rat in Darwinism, & will not be intimidated into accepting its presumptions. They just know that Darwinism is a rival religious faith, & they will even embrace Creationism to resist it.

The growing popularity of "Intelligent Design" is because it offers a way for science to get out of the face of religion. This is why the Darwinoids hate it so passionately: because the whole point of their Darwinism is to be in the face of religion. "ID" uses exactly the same fact-sets as all the biological disciplines; it merely leaves God to open minds, rather than insisting upon a causative sequence designed expressly to exclude a Creator.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Intelligent design in the Muslim world: A thoughtful Muslim speaks out

That young fellow I told you about earlier, Mustafa Akyol, continues to publish interesting essays on the relationship between intelligent design and science education:

In a furious New Republic cover story, "The Case Against Intelligent Design," Jerry Coyne joined in this hype and implied that all non-Christians, including Muslims, should be alarmed by this supposedly Christian theory of beginnings that "might offend those of other faiths." Little does he realize that if there is any view on the origin of life that might seriously offend other faiths — including mine, Islam — it is the materialist dogma: the assumptions that God, by definition, is a superstition, and that rationality is inherently atheistic.

That offense is no minor issue. In fact, in the last two centuries, it has been the major source of the Muslim contempt for the West. And it deserves careful consideration.

Yes indeed. I think the Darwinists may have bitten off more than they can chew in trying to take on all the peoples of the world and convert them to atheistic materialism, according to which all humans are merely mindless robot vehicles (Dawkins, Dennett) for genes, memes, or whatever.

They know they are not.

If you like this blog, check out my award-winning book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Catholicism vs. Darwinism:Cardinal Schoenborn follows up

Christoph, Cardinal Schoenborn (the bearer of bad news from the Catholic Church to Catholics who think they can also be Darwinists)
has weighed in again at First Things:

What frequently passes for modern science—with its heavy accretion of materialism and positivism—is simply wrong about nature in fundamental ways. Modern science is often, in the words of my essay, "ideology, not science." The problems caused by positivism are especially acute in the broad anti-teleological implications drawn from Darwin's theory of evolution, which has become (in the phrase of Pope Benedict XVI, writing some years ago) the new "first philosophy" of the modern world, a total and foundational description of reality that goes far beyond a proper grounding in the descriptive and reductive science on which it is based. My essay was designed to awaken Catholics from their dogmatic slumber about positivism in general and evolutionism in particular. It appears to have worked.

Schoenborn's essay was a response to physicist Stephen Barr, who will follow in turn with a response.

Hey, if you are interested in the intelligent design controversy, buy yourself the print edition of First Things for Christmas (Hanukkah, Kwanza, the Great Midwinter Freakout, your "Friends" whatever). Look, FT offers top quality ideas on these subjects.

I promise, if you have the brains you were born with, you'll never go back to your favorite village atheist, holy moonbat, or media barfly again.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

The Pope using the term "intelligent design" to describe the Catholic view of origins, go here.

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams attacked by Darwinist, hits back. Will he now cartoon on the subject?

"Academic Freedom Watch : Here's the real, ugly story behind the claim that 'intelligent design isn't science'?".

Roseville, California, lawyer Larry Caldwell is suing over the use of tax money by Darwin lobby groups to promote religious views that accept Darwinian evolution (as opposed to ones that don’t). I’m pegging this one as the next big story. See also the ruling on tax funds. Note the line that the “free speech” people take.
How to freak out your bio prof? What happened when a student bypassed the usual route of getting frogs drunk and dropping them down the chancellor’s robes, and tried questioning Darwinism instead.

Christoph, Cardinal Schonbon is not backing down from his contention that Darwinism is incompatible with Catholic faith, and Pope Benedict XVI probably thinks that’s just fine. Major US media have been trying to reach rewrite for months, with no success.

Museum tour guides to be trained to "respond" to those who question Darwinism. Read this item for an example of what at least one museum hopes to have them say.

World class chemist dissed at Catholic university because he sympathizes with intelligent design.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated before they appear.

First Thigns