Eric Rasmusen’s Weblog

Richard von Sternberg, the Smithsonian associate who was persecuted by the institution for having merely been the editor of a journal that published a pro-intelligent-design article, has published the result of the official investigation by the Office of Special Counsel into his persecution. It confirms his claims—and more, since he didn’t know how bad it was. A lot of scientists are seriously opposed any open-minded discussion of Intelligent Design. (more…)

This is a post about evolution— about two criticisms one might make of the theory : (a) the fossil record has big gaps where we ought to be finding fossils of intermediate forms, creatures halfway along an evolutionary path, and (b) we have observed no examples of actual new species arising. I think criticism (b) is wrong, but criticism (a) is correct (though by no means fatal to the theory, especially if we can invoke intelligent design). (more…)

In an earlier post I talked about intelligent design and had a dialog with Dr. Pimple in the comments. One theme that came up was a common one in ID discussions– what is scientific? I find that theme misleading, actually, because it seems to me to be all about semantics, or perhaps rhetoric (if “scientific arguments” are supposed to be “good arguments”). What we are after is the truth, not science, if the two differ.

A prime example is this. Suppose you believe that God exists, believing this as firmly as that the earth is round. If you do, then you should rely on both of those facts in understanding the world. In particular, you should find the intelligent design argument irresistable. (more…)

This post responds to a few common misconceptions about evolution and intelligent design well expressed in a response to my post, Intelligent Design– Dennett Space Alien Example by Dr. Kenneth Pimple: (more…)

The naked anger at the idea of intelligent design is one of the best signs that it’s plausible. As you can see from the links on Christianity Today’s weblog, the critics typically equate it with creationism and then attack that straw man, or sputter about the credentials of ID people without coming to grips with the argument. It isn’t helped, of course, by the habit of many ID advocates of talking about “Darwinism” as if their own theory weren’t mostly Darwinist. A good example of a critic, because he is smart but make a confused attack anyway, is Daniel Dennett in the New York Times. In coming up with what he thinks is a devastating example against ID, he actually supports it: (more…)