More Recent Comments

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

A Course on Intelligent Design in the Natural Sciences

Want to learn more about Intelligent Design Creationism? The Center for Science & Culture in Seattle, Washington (USA) is offering a course next summer: The CSC Seminar on Intelligent Design in the Natural Sciences.

It sounds really interesting. Here's the description.
he CSC Seminar on Intelligent Design in the Natural Sciences will prepare students to make research contributions advancing the growing science of intelligent design (ID). The seminar will explore cutting-edge ID work in fields such as molecular biology, biochemistry, embryology, developmental biology, paleontology, computational biology, ID-theoretic mathematics, cosmology, physics, and the history and philosophy of science. The seminar will include presentations on the application of intelligent design to laboratory research as well as frank treatment of the academic realities that ID researchers confront in graduate school and beyond, and strategies for dealing with them. Although the primary focus of the seminar is science, there also will be discussion of the worldview implications of the debate over intelligent design. Participants will benefit from classroom instruction and interaction with prominent ID researchers and scholars. Past seminars have included such speakers as Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson, Jay Richards, Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, Richard Sternberg, Robert Marks, Scott Minnich, and Bruce Gordon. The seminar is open to students who intend to pursue graduate studies in the natural sciences or the philosophy of science. Applicants must be college juniors or seniors or already in graduate school.

Do you have a commitment to truth and to following the evidence where it leads? Do you have the desire, the vision and the determination necessary to breathe new purpose into the scientific enterprise and influence its self-understanding in ways that will benefit both science and humanity? Apply to become one of a select group of students participating in this exciting workshop.
This is your chance to get up-to-date information on biochemistry and population genetics from Michael Behe and Ann Gauger! You can learn about evolution from Young Earth Creationist Paul Nelson and anti-evolutionist Jonathan Wells.

What an opportunity! I'm sure there are many Sandwalk readers who would welcome the chance to learn about Intelligent Design directly from its main proponents. This is bound to be a marvelous course, even if you're a skeptic.

The application process seems pretty straightforward. It looks like they're open to all points of view so they can have a healthy debate in a critical thinking environment.
Admission Requirements: You must be currently enrolled in a college or university as a junior, senior, or graduate student. Required application materials include (1) a resume/cv, (2) a copy of your academic transcript, (3) a short statement of your interest in intelligent design and its perceived relationship to your career plans and field of study, and (4) either a letter of recommendation from a professor who knows your work and is friendly toward ID, or a phone interview with the seminar director.
Just ignore the fact that you need a letter from a professor who's ID-friendly. I'm sure they don't mean that as way of eliminating skeptics and evolutionists. I'm sure that the phone interview is just a way of confirming that you are really interested in learning about Intelligent Design Creationism no matter what your religion.

I'm sure that any organization promoting critical thinking and "teach the controversy" would never choose their students based on whether they are already proponents of Intelligent Design Creationism.

Same goes for any organization that would support a movie like Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed ("Big science has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom.") Especially since Richard Sternberg might be one of the lecturers.


  1. thank you! I could not stop laughing while reading this announcement :) What a great bunch of oxymorons: "the growing science of ID", "cutting-edge ID work", "ID-theoretic mathematics"... I wonder what are they smoking when they claim this:)

  2. It sure as hell isn't the legal drugs in Washington... LOL!

  3. In the blue corner, Intelligent Design Creationism.
    In the red corner, Dumb Luck Evolutionism.

    1. and natual (particularly sexual) selection is the referee of this fight! will the IDiots/Creationists survive?

    2. In the blue corner, Intelligent Design Creationism.
      In the red corner, Dumb Luck Evolutionism.

      Yep, when you squint real hard from the blue corner, your man looks huge and the 'dumb-luck' opposition looks tiny. Whereas they are actually just really far away.

    3. In the blue corner, Intelligent Design Creationism.

      Well, there you go. See, if you take the course then you'll learn that ID isn't creationism. Nosiree, Bob. It's completely different. Not at all the same thing. Not a bit.

    4. Pepe wrote:
      Ok, what is it then?

      Jeez, do your own reseach.

  4. They don't require a statement about your personal relationship with god?

  5. this is one way to create a new generation of Wedgelings when you can't do it in public schools

  6. There is some report on the 2009 available at stand to reason whith a picture of the pre-course material the participants received. Back then I've published the following list of items at ATBC:

    M. Behe: Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe
    J. West: Darwin Day in America
    D.S. Goodsell: The Machinery of Life
    W.A. Dembski: The Design Revolution
    R. Stark: For the Glory of God
    L. Smolin: Trouble with Physics
    J.A. Campbel and S.C. Meyers (eds): Darwinism Design and Public Education
    J. Wells: The Politcal Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
    R. Stannard: Relativity - A very short introduction
    J.C. Polkinghorne: Quantum Theory - A very short introduction
    S.C. Meyer, S. Minnich, J. Moneymaker, and P.A. Nelson: Explore Evolution
    Course Packet for the Seminar on ID in the Natural Sciences
    The Theory of Intelligent Design - A Briefing Packet for Educators

    D. A. Axe: "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds," Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295-1315
    (the other three articles in the picture cannot be identified)

    Unlocking the Mystery of Life
    Icons of Evolution
    The Priviledged Planet

    They may have added new articles from their own Bio-Complexity "journal" and books they have published since then. I am still wondering why they included something on relativity and quantum physics.

  7. Courses like this will expanding a expanding universe of exciting criticism of old ideas.
    Truth will prevail over error where the same evidence is being investigated.
    Its creationism that is uniquely censored in the present establishment.

    By the way.
    The very fact that scientists question the evidence claims behind a theory claiming to be based on using the scientific methodology is already made it unlikely the critics will fail.
    Scientific criticism of a scientific theories credibility as having come from scientific methodology is already succeeded.
    The only options is to say the critics are idiots or incompentent.
    This must be said .
    otherwise scientists are saying other scientists have a theory , claimed to be scientific, that is in fact not scientific but only a open hypothesis.
    The odds are already against evolutionary biology being around, as is, 15 years from now.
    Make sure you are on the right and perhaps these evolutionists flirting with criticisms of evolution are smelling out the right wind.
    A sly suspicion of a impending collapse.

    1. "The very fact that scientists question the evidence claims behind a theory claiming to be based on using the scientific methodology is already made it unlikely the critics will fail."

      ALL scientists should question the evidence behind every theory.

      This is actually one of the functions of peer review (but I know that you imagine it's just to keep the creationists out).

      The problem is, you have to (a) know something about the actual science that you are criticizing and (b)include all of the relevant evidence, not just cherry-picked pieces. (Another function of peer review, to ascertain that the author has not left out critical papers or information.)

      All the people I've seen critiquing evolutionary theory fail on either (a) or (b), usually on both

      Christine Janis

    2. I didn't mean that.
      I meant scientists are criticizing , finding not true, evolutionary biology as not a scientific theory. Only a open hypothesis.
      ID/YEC scientists are not just saying evolution is wrong but its not based on evidence from the scientific methodology.
      When this happens either the critics are dumb or if not dumb its most likely they are rights.
      The odds here are already predicting the demise of evolution ,as is now portrayed, within a short time.
      Real statistics.
      In fact it must be stressed that the critics are IDiots because otherwise its unlikely scientists would be wrong about scientific methodology.
      The ID people are scientists and this is a bigger problem beyond the merits of the criticisms.
      Just as evolutionists try to stress they are right because they are scientists so it does matter about the issue of credibility.

      How can scientists disagree with other scientists about conclusions from scientific investigation??
      Either dumb or the conclusions are not from scientific investigation but something mimicking it.
      ID scientists are credible scientists and so by deduction its very unlikelyt evolutionary biology as a theory will be around much longer.
      As a open hypothesis it also likely will not be around.
      Thats the math here.

    3. "How can scientists disagree with other scientists about conclusions from scientific investigation??"

      Go and read any science journal. No, not just evolutionary biology, try medical sciences. How do you imagine that we make progress in medicine?

    4. ID scientists are credible scientists and so by deduction its very unlikelyt evolutionary biology as a theory will be around much longer.

      Ann Gauger used to work as a "credible scientist" -- she's got something like three pretty serious journal articles to her credit as a co-author -- alas, the last of them appeared almost twenty years ago. Needless to say, ID is not mentioned or alluded to in any of those articles, and they don't contain any criticism of evolutionary theory. Since Dr. Gauger became a full-time ID "researcher" she has not published any research results in any peer-reviewed journal (BIO-Complexity is a cargo-cult imitation of one). At this rate, ID scientists won't bury mainstream biology soon.

    5. Robert B wrote:
      Truth will prevail over error where the same evidence is being investigated.

      Ahh yes, the truth. I asked you a question about the truth in another topic, which truth is in fact *the* truth.
      If I ask my muslim neighbour, or aboriginals, or native americans, or descendants of vikings, or a buddist who created life, I get many different answers, many different truths.

      So please explain, why should your truth be the only truth?

      Its creationism that is uniquely censored in the present establishment
      You can post on this blog, I can read your writing in Urup. Do explain, this censorship you are talking about, where is it?

    6. By censorship I mean state actions in state institutions.

      Are you saying truth will not prevail over error?
      Its about seeking the truth and not my saying what it is.
      I am confident truth will prevail and it will be YEC.

  8. Found a fun quote from our friend Robert Byers, "This is why creationism wins in any fight. Its smarter and knows its opponents best stuff better then the other side knows our stuff.

    If the bible was wrong it shouldn't be difficult to show why with modern evidence.

    Yet here I am on this forum doing fine and bringing creativity to how to discuss these matters.

    I gave the pro-evolution folk here a chance to falsify creationist geology and after a effort they changed subjects. Its always this way. Someones right and someones wrong. One can tell by the conversation who is getting pressed."

    So many years of irrelevant comments... Nice work.

    1. They hold up as good points!!
      Its all about the theme that right overcomes error.
      The error can be discovered and smelled acoming before the full investigation of the merits has been completed.

    2. Right overcoming error can take thousands of years it seems.