Debates between different perspectives at DI site
differ from each other, and whether they can all be right.
Photos all from Wikimedia. I would be happy to add photos of the other 6 folks if they give permission.
Today, April 1, the Discovery Institute’s “Science and Culture Today” site will host a number of debates between leading figures in the Intelligent Design movement, highlighting their diverse perspectives, filling in the missing steps in their previous arguments, and giving an opportunity for readers of that site to leave comments on those posts, comments that will be as lively, instructive and stimulating as comments there usually are:
-
William Dembski, Winston Ewert, Robert Marks, and George Montañez will explain how having a large value of their Algorithmically Specified Complexity measure cannot have happened by natural selection making the value gradually larger. And why high functional information requires that the “description” of the phenotype (or is it genotype?) needs to be short.
-
Eric Hedin and Granville Sewell will explain what law of physics prevents any favorable mutation that improves functional information from increasing in frequency in any population.
-
Casey Luskin and Michael Behe will debate whether or not there is good evidence for common ancestry of primates, common ancestry of cercopithecoid monkeys, and common ancestry of apes (including humans).
-
John West and David Klinghoffer will explain why any scientific result that seems to them to make organisms behave immorally must therefore be scientifically invalid.
These discussions will be accompanied, as usual, by comments supplied by the enthusiastic and knowledgable S&CT readers, who appreciate the lively, honest and informative back-and-forth that signals the intellectual vitality of the “cdesign proponensist” movement.
Explanation here:
April Fools!