NCSE’s Joshua Rosenau on Abortion and Murder

Joshua Rosenau — the National Center for Science Education’s Program and Policy Director– and I have had a spirited discussion abort human rights and abortion. On abortion Rosenau hews to the materialist/Darwinist code of ethics: human rights belong to the autonomous and to the strong. Not to children in the womb. But even Rosenau is […]

New Peer-Reviewed Paper Challenges Darwinian Evolution

Over recent months, papers challenging key elements of Darwinian theory — the kind of papers which are supposed not to exist — have increasingly been slipping through the net and finding their way into the peer-reviewed literature. One such paper, “Is gene duplication a viable explanation for the origination of biological information and complexity?,” authored […]

Peer-Reviewed Research Paper on Plant Biology Favorably Cites Intelligent Design and Challenges Darwinian Evolution

A new original research paper on mutagenesis comprising 240,000 plants in the journal Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology favorably cites to “intelligent design proponents,” including Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen Meyer, as advocating one of various legitimate “scientific theories on the origin of species.” The paper was authored by Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a recently […]

William Dembski and Robert Marks Publish (Another) Peer-Reviewed Scientific Paper Supporting No Free Lunch Theorems

A peer-reviewed scientific paper published in 2010 by William Dembski and Robert Marks of the Evolutionary Informatics Lab supports no free lunch theorems. Published in Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics and titled “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” the paper’s abstract states that unless one […]

In Which I Answer Tantalus Prime’s Queries About Abortion

Tantalus Prime is a graduate student in neuroscience. He’s been following my debate about abortion with Joshua Rosenau of the NCSE. He asks some questions about my views on the right to life that are worth answering. Tantulus: Egnor asserts that humanity is a discrete, not a continuous variable. If so, then would he kindly […]

Pro-Intelligent Design Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper Argues for an “Engineered World”

A pro-intelligent design peer-reviewed scientific paper has been published in the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics by Dominic Halsmer, a signer of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism and Dean of the College of Science and Engineering at Oral Roberts University. Titled “The Coherence of an Engineered World,” the review article looks at […]

Eugenie Scott Endorses Discrimination Against Darwin-Doubting Scientists

We’ve previously reported on the case of Martin Gaskell (here, here, here), an astronomer who was denied a job at the University of Kentucky (UK) due to perceived sympathy for “creationism.” In reality. Gaskell is no creationist, and calls himself an “old earth theistic evolutionist” who has “no trouble with the natural selection process.” Gaskell […]

More From Jerry Coyne

At his blog University of Chicago professor of evolutionary biology Jerry Coyne has commented on my reply to his analysis of my new review in the Quarterly Review of Biology. This time he has involved two other prominent scientists in the conversation. I’ll discuss the comments of one of them in this post and the […]

Praised be Darwin! Do Fruit Flies Bust Behe?

Jerry Coyne is leading the Darwin Tabernacle Choir in expressions of gratitude and relief for a new article in Science that supposedly knocks down the implications of Michael Behe’s current review essay in Quarterly Review of Biology. The Science article seeks to show with what amazing rapidity scads of new genes may arise and become […]

BIO-Complexity Publishes Article Answering Critics Who Promote Tom Schneider’s “ev” Simulation

Over the years William Dembski’s critics have accused him of allegedly not doing research. A few years back, Wesley Elsberry and Jeff Shallit published a response to Dembski which charged that “intelligent design advocates have produced many popular books, but essentially no scientific research.” Given how much peer-reviewed research Dembski himself has published in the field of evolutionary computation, these criticisms are not credible and hardly worth mentioning. On the other hand, some of Dembski’s harshest critics, such as Jeffrey Shallit, are smart guys that have published extensively in mathematics journals but have not cracked into the literature relevant to this field of evolutionary computation. Is it appropriate for Shallit to posture himself as a prestigious academic critic of Dembski when he has not published in the relevant scientific literature?