I sent Afarensis a link to this post by Casey Luskin at the DI blog about human evolution, hoping that he would write up a critique of it. And indeed he has. It's very much worth reading. And it's another example of why most of the arguments made by ID advocates are not at all consistent with Jeremy Pierce's claim that ID is consistent with theistic evolution or the "fully gifted creation" position. If ID only means that a designer set up the initial conditions and natural laws that make the evolution of life possible, likely or inevitable (take your pick), then of what possible use would it be to argue against human evolution?
More like this
Last month's issue of Evolution (aka Evolution Int J Org Evolution, aka Evolution (Lawrence Kansas), aka some other confusing way of referring to the journal published by the Society for the Study of Evolution) contains two articles on teaching evolution.
Hofstra University solicits submissions for an interdisciplinary conference titled "Darwin’s Reach: A Celebration of Darwin’s Legacy across Academic Disciplines," to be held March 12-14, 2009.
Today is Darwin Day. But, more than that, it is a very special Darwin Day in that it is the 200th anniversary of the birth of evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin.
Over at the Raving Atheist's forum, contributors have compiled a list of 50 evolution myths. It's actually at 51 right now—I could have told them there are a lot more than 50—but it's entertaining.
I'll be doing this one sometime in the next few days...
Bizarre. Just exactly where does Luskin believe human beings came from if they didn't evolve? Mars? Venus? How anyone (outside of the YEC camp) can deny our common ancestry with other primates these days is simply unbelievable.
This is an obvious "human beings are special" post and perhaps a sop to the creationist boosters of ID.
It wouldn't. That's why the creationists are getting off the ID bandwagon. The ID arguments are consistent with creationism (meaning anti-evolution), but the chief architects of the ID movement aren't themselves anti-evolution, if evolution just means common descent and the long time periods of contemporary science. When they say they're anti-Darwinism, that's not what they're opposing. They're opposing the view that there are no discerniblly intelligent causes in nature.