ID the Future Podcasting on Intelligent Design and Evolution
Topic

Fred Hoyle

Violinist tuning a violin

Dr. Michael Denton on Evidence of Fine-Tuning in the Universe

On this year 2012 episode of ID the Future from the vault, Australian biochemist Michael Denton discusses various ways the universe is uniquely fit for carbon-based life, and perhaps even human life. Denton argues that when it comes to evidence of fine-tuning in the universe, the more you look, the more you find. Tune in to discover what he has found that has led him to the inference that our world is intelligently designed. Denton is author of the new book The Miracle of the Cell, where he brings his fine-tuning arguments up to date with a fascinating dive into the extraordinary fine tuning of the chemical elements of life.

chemistry overlay plant.jpg
Biology.

James Tour and Stephen Meyer on the Origin of Life, Pt. 1

On this episode of ID the Future,  James M. Tour and Stephen C. Meyer begin a discussion about the hard problems facing researchers trying to discover how the first life could have come about naturalistically. Meyer is the director of the Center for Science and Culture; Tour is a world-renowned synthetic organic chemist with over 700 research publications and multiple major recognitions, including TheBestSchools.org naming him one of the 50 most influential scientists in the world today. Though he doesn’t sign on to ID theory, he says he’s sympathetic with the idea, and certainly not impressed with any naturalistic explanations for the origin of life. In this first of a three-part series, they explore problems ranging from the extreme improbabilities associated with protein assembly, Read More ›

Fractal multiverse.jpg
Fractal multiverse - astract illustration for topics such as physics and astronomy

The Modern-Day Phlogiston: Darwinism Explains Everything and Nothing

On this episode of ID the Future, Andrew McDiarmid reads an excerpt from Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design by Finnish bioengineer Matti Leisola and Jonathan Witt. It makes the case that modern neo-Darwinism is today’s “phlogiston,” a theory that explains everything but nothing, faces mounting contrary evidence, and survives only with ever more ancillary hypotheses. In the excerpt Leisola and Witt also discuss the well-documented pattern of scientists defending an existing scientific paradigm even after fresh discoveries have turned against it, with the obsolete dominant paradigm dying only very slowly. An especially dramatic and tragic example gave the name to this all-too-human tendency — the Semmelweis reflex. Listen in to learn more.

distant planet by NASA.jpg
Distant planet system in space with exoplanets 3D rendering elements of this image furnished by NASA

Bijan Nemati on Finding Another Earth

On this episode of ID the Future, Bijan Nemati, formerly of CalTech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and now at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, tells what science is learning about how hard it is to find a planet like Earth. Anywhere. The more we learn about the conditions necessary for a planet to host life, the more we see we may need to search at least tens of thousands of Milky Way galaxies to expect to find another one — at least if it all depends on blind luck. This talk is part of bonus material included with the new, thought-provoking series Science Uprising.

Frank Tipler on the Singularity Atheists Keep Trying To Evade

On this episode of ID the Future we hear commentary on the singularity from Frank Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University and co-author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.

Read More ›
NonsenseAverick

Averick Takes on the “God of the Gaps” Objection

On this episode of ID the Future, Rabbi Moshe Averick, author of Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused World of Modern Atheism, responds to the objection that intelligent design is a feeble “God of the Gaps” approach, an argument from ignorance. Provocative and entertaining, Averick describes the attack as “less than feeble.” He says it isn’t because of what we don’t know, but because of what we do know. He offers as an illustration the widespread skepticism in the physics community toward the possibility of anyone ever building a perpetual motion machine. Their skepticism is not driven by ignorance of how to build such a machine, Averick notes. It’s driven by their knowledge of the fundamental laws of physics. Read More ›