“Regardless of one's point of view, it's quite easy to see that Darwinism is not in the same league as the hard sciences. For instance, Darwinists will often compare their theory favorably to Einsteinian physics, claiming that Darwinism is just… — William A. Dembski Copy Share
The problem with merely writing so that you can be understood is that the wrong people, in advancing their agendas, are only too ready… — William A. Dembski Copy Share Image
Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God. — William A. Dembski Copy Share Image
“Science must not degenerate into applied materialistic philosophy. But this is exactly what it does at the hands of today's alchemists, namely, the materialistic… — William A. Dembski Copy Share Image
As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood… — William A. Dembski Copy Share Image
The young earth-solution to reconciling the order of creation with natural history makes good exegetical and theological sense. Indeed, the overwhelming consensus of theologians… — William A. Dembski Copy Share Image
The scientific picture of the world championed since the Enlightenment is not just wrong but massively wrong. Indeed entire fields of inquiry, especially in… — William A. Dembski Copy Share Image
Precisely because intelligent design does not turn the study of biological origins into a Bible-science controversy, intelligent design is a position around which Christians… — William A. Dembski Copy Share Image
“ Johnson is a radical skeptic, insisting, in the best Socratic tradition, that everything be put on the table for examination. By contrast, most skeptics opposed to him are selective skeptics, applying their skepticism to the things they dislike (notably religion) and refusing to apply their skepticism to the things they do like (notably Darwinism). On two occasions I’ve urged… — William A. Dembski Copy Share
“Yet, unlike the causal specificity that obtains for microevolutionary processes, origin-of-life researchers have yet to specify the chemical pathways that supposedly originated life. For instance, Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, admits that “no serious scientist would currently claim that a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is at hand.”5 Self-organizational theorist Stuart Kauffman is bolder… — William A. Dembski Copy Share
There is an immediate payoff to intelligent design: it destroys the atheistic legacy of Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an… — William A. Dembski Copy Share Image
The positive evidence for Darwinism is confined to small-scale evolutionary changes like insects developing insecticide resistance…Evidence like that for insecticide resistance confirms the Darwinian selection mechanism for small-scale changes, but hardly warrants the grand extrapolation that Darwinists want. It is a huge leap going from insects developing insecticide resistance via the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation to… — William A. Dembski Copy Share
How a designer gets from thought to thing is, at least in broad strokes, straightforward: (1) A designer conceives a purpose. (2) To accomplish that purpose, the designer forms a plan. (3) To execute the plan, the designer specifies building materials and assembly instructions. (4) Finally, the designer or some surrogate applies the assembly instructions to the building materials. What… — William A. Dembski Copy Share
