Tag: Academia

^{Type
post

Author
Stuart Burgess

Date
February 18, 2026

Tagged
, Academia, bad design, biodiversity, Darwinism, ear, engineer, engineering, Evolution, Evolutionary Biology, eye, Intelligent Design, macroevolution, Materialism, Natural Selection, Neo-Darwinism, nervous system, optimal design, origin of life, suboptimal design, Ultimate Engineering, wrist joint}

Bioengineer Stuart Burgess Reads From New Book Ultimate Engineering

_{Stuart Burgess
February 18, 2026

Uncategorized

3}

A good way to evaluate scientific theories of origins is to ask what we’d expect to find if the given hypothesis were true and compare that to what we actually observe. Under a Darwinian explanation of life, we’d expect to see designs cobbled together by a blind, undirected process, substandard designs that work but that, in the words of one scientist, wouldn’t win any prizes at an engineering competition. But when we compare that expectation with the scientific evidence, they don’t match up at all. On today's ID The Future, award-winning British engineer and designer Stuart Burgess reads excerpts from his new book Ultimate Engineering. He’s going to share just enough with you today to whet your appetite for reading his book, which is chock full of evidence that humans and other organisms contain countless examples of not just so-so, not just good or very good, but optimal engineering in the design of systems and structures that keep living things alive. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Frank Tipler

Date
February 27, 2013

Tagged
, __edited, Academia, Einstein, Frank Tipler}

Frank Tipler: Could Einstein Be Published Under Today’s Peer-Review Policies?

_{Frank Tipler
February 27, 2013

Uncategorized

1}

On this episode of ID the Future, Dr. Frank Tipler discusses how leading science journals are increasingly hostile to new ideas, publishing only papers that are consistent with the dominant views of the scientific community. Tipler argues that if Einstein were to try and get a paper on his relativity theory published under today’s peer-review system, he would certainly be rejected, reminding us that academia needs to encourage scientists to challenge conformity in order to cultivate great thinkers.