On this episode of ID the Future, host Eric Anderson speaks again with medical engineer Rob Stadler, co-author with molecular biologist Change Laura Tan of the new book Stairway to Life: An Origin of Life Reality Check. Here in Part 2 of their conversation, Stadler says that following the Miller-Urey experiments in the mid-twentieth century, researchers were optimistic that a purely naturalistic explanation for the origin of the first life was just around the corner, but since then the field has run into one obstacle after another. The challenge to mindless origin-of-life scenarios is now far greater than it was 60-70 years ago. And yet many in the field still cling to the belief that life must have arisen by Read More ›
On this episode of ID the Future, philosopher of science Paul Nelson continues sharing with host Andrew McDiarmid about pursuing intelligent design theory in a science culture committed to naturalism. Or as Nelson puts it this time, it’s about trying to communicate with scientists who are trapped in a naturalistic parabola. That parabola sets the rule and defines the boundaries for science: naturalistic answers only. And it extends to infinity, so no finite number of objections or counter-examples can force naturalistic scientists out of it. Nelson, however, offers an alternative strategy for drawing them out of the parabola.
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 ›
On this episode of ID the Future, host Sarah Chaffee talks with Center for Science and Culture Research Coordinator Brian Miller about the growing ID underground, based on his recent Evolution News article on the subject. As many as one-quarter of Harvard post-docs in relevant fields privately express sympathy for ID. More and more scientists who don’t agree with ID are at least standing up against common “sound-bite” misrepresentations. Compared to other major paradigm shifts in science history, ID is right on track. Please consider donating to support the IDTF Podcast.
On this episode of ID the Future, author, speaker, and radio talk show host Greg Koukl, president of Stand to Reason, talks through a review of Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design. It’s the autobiographical story, co-written by Jonathan Witt, of distinguished Finnish bioengineer Matti Leisola. His whole perspective on science changed when he asked himself the question Koukl likes to ask: “Do you want the right answers, or do you demand the right kinds of answers — those answers that comport with naturalism, materialism, and physicalism?” Please consider donating to support the IDTF Podcast.Read More ›
On this episode of ID the Future, Father Michael Chaberek, author of the books Catholicism and Evolution and Aquinas and Evolution, explains why the theory of intelligent design meshes well with the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. In his conversation with host Jay Richards, Chaberek, creator of the site Aquinas.Design, notes that some Thomists complain about ID, but he argues that they misunderstand what ID is and isn’t. As for criticism that ID is a “God of the Gaps” argument, Chaberek urges Thomists to consider where that complaint leads: For Catholics, and Christians generally, that complaint proves way too much, he argues.Read More ›
On this episode of ID the Future historian Michael Flannery continues discussion of his new book Nature’s Prophet: Alfred Russel Wallace and His Evolution from Natural Selection to Natural Theology. Flannery tells how Wallace became convinced of some “overruling intelligence” in nature — not because of “gaps” in what he knew, but because so many human attributes demand a better explanation than Darwin’s own “utility principle.” They called for a cause adequate to the effects. Please consider donating to support the IDTF Podcast.