Comments on: There He Goes Again: Another Response to John West

By: John G. West

John G. West — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:44:45 +0000

I have posted my response to Dr. Barr’s comments about me on Evolution News and Views:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/07/clarity_and_confusion_stephen.html

Suffice to say, I think Dr. Barr’s description of what I wrote is inaccurate in key respects, and I encourage readers to read my posts for themselves rather than simply rely on his presentation of my views.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:11:02 +0000

I cannot understand the animosity towards ID. Dawkins insults the God of the bible, along with the very concept of God as being a relic of superstitious, pre-scientific thought. Was it Gaylord who said evolution is an undirected process that did not have man in mind? Many ordinary people have lost their faith in God because to them evolution has proven God had nothing to do with our creation. I have read Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” and Myer’s “The Signature in the Cell.” I am not a scientist but they seem to make powerful arguments. Instead of encouraging this many believers have chosen to attack ID, not Dawkins and those like him. I wonder if ID’s critics have even read Behe or Dawkins. Do you have any idea how many have rejected God because of the way evolution is taught? It seems in the scientific community a statement like Crick’s “Molecular machines appear designed but are not” gets a pass, but saying these molecular machines appear designed, perhaps they are, is regarded as unscientific. What gives?

By: Mark Brumley

Mark Brumley — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:31:11 +0000

Well said, Dr. Barr. Again.

By: John Farrell

John Farrell — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:38:29 +0000

Every time John G. West attempts to argue against my views, he misrepresents them.

This is not surprising. It seems to be a deliberate strategy on the part of Discovery Institute flaks to isolate and alienate Christians who are distinguished scientists and accept Darwinian theory. Ken Miller. Francis Collins. And now Stephen Barr.

By: First Thoughts — A First Things Blog

First Thoughts — A First Things Blog — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:26:47 +0000

[...] Barr, in the entry below, expresses a frustration, that some of us have faced, and continue to face, with ID advocates, many [...]

By: Christopher Cobb

Christopher Cobb — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:17:54 +0000

Barr: Third, not all design arguments based on biology are of the kind made by the Intelligent Design movement, and not all of them presuppose that Darwinian evolution is false.

I would be interested in knowing what these arguments are. “Unguided” is usually considered to be mutually exclusive with “designed”.

By: Mike Flynn

Mike Flynn — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:27:08 +0000

It seems to me that lawful behavior is a better argument for design than apparently chance events. To the extent that Darwinian theory correctly describes the “common course of nature,” it is a better argument for God’s design than the apparent exceptions. Supposedly, God looked on all that He created and saw that it was good; so why should there be gaps not covered by natural law? Why should complexity be an argument, but s=0.5gt^2 is not?

Perhaps if we stopped thinking of “design” as a product specification and resumed thinking of it as a plan or intention, matters would not be so tangled.