History
Icon-add-to-playlist Icon-download Icon-drawer-up
Share this ... ×
...
By ...
Embed:
Embedded player size:
Embedded player preview:

On this episode of ID the Future, learn about some of scientists’ latest attempts to copy sophisticated designs found in the natural world. This emerging science of imitating nature, known as biomimetics, has attracted extensive research and led to new technologies. As uniform experience has shown, such good design comes not from blind processes, but from a good mind.

[PLAY]

On this episode of ID the Future, hear the second segment of William Dembski's recent appearance on the Gilmore and Glahn radio show. Dembski and Gilmore discuss whether or not intelligent design is science, and what the theory's current status is among scientists.

[PLAY]

On this episode of ID the Future, William Dembski is on the Gilmore & Glahn show, where he talks with John Gilmore about the theory of, and science behind, his latest book, Being as Communion. Dembski also discusses what he views as the greatest weakness of Darwinian evolution: the information problem.

[PLAY]

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin discusses some findings on convergent evolution that conflict with typical evolutionary thinking. Darwinian evolution is supposed to have no goal, but convergent evolution implies that, against all odds, species are evolving the same complex traits — over and over again. Is this “surprising” conclusion best explained within Darwinian theory, or the intelligent design paradigm? Listen in and decide.

[PLAY]

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin concludes his series discussing the top 10 problems with biological and chemical evolution. This series is based upon Casey Luskin’s chapter in the volume More than Myth, edited by Paul Brown and Robert Stackpole (Chartwell Press, 2014). In this segment, Casey discusses a bonus eleventh problem: that humans display many behavioral and cognitive ability that offer no apparent survival advantage.

[PLAY]

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin continues his series discussing the top 10 problems with biological and chemical evolution. This series is based upon Casey Luskin’s chapter in the volume More than Myth, edited by Paul Brown and Robert Stackpole (Chartwell Press, 2014). In this segment, Casey discusses the tenth problem: how neo-Darwinism has a long history of inaccurate predictions about vestigial organs and "junk DNA."

[PLAY]

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin continues his series discussing the top 10 problems with biological and chemical evolution. This series is based upon Casey Luskin’s chapter in the volume More than Myth, edited by Paul Brown and Robert Stackpole (Chartwell Press, 2014). In this segment, Casey discusses the ninth problem: how neo-Darwinism struggles to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species.

[PLAY]

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin finishes up his review of Karl Giberson and Francis Collins’ The Language of Science and Faith. In this sixth and final part of Luskin’s review, he delves into a discussion about the contradictions, irony, and appeals to authority that permeate the book. Listen to this podcast to hear why Giberson and Collins resort to such tactics. Is the evidence for Darwinian evolution really as strong as they would have you believe?

[PLAY]

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin exposes how evidence given for macroevolution in The Language of Science and Faith is too weak to hold any weight. In their book, Francis Collins and Karl Giberson make the all-too-common claim that macroevolution is merely microevolution over a prolonged period of time. Are the proposed mechanisms really as simple as they sound? Luskin discusses the insufficiency of Collins and Gibersons’ argument in Part 5 of his continued review of The Language of Science and Faith.

[PLAY]

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin tackles another neo-Darwinian assertion made by Karl Giberson and Francis Collins in The Language of Science and Faith. In their book, Giberson and Collins capitalize on the popular notion of Neanderthals as brutish, non-human, cavemen like beasts in order to bolster their claims about common ancestry. Is this view of Neanderthals accurate? Do experts agree that Neanderthals are drastically different from early humans? What does this mean for the notion of common ancestry. Luskin explores the connection between Neanderthals and humans and sets Giberson and Collins straight.

[PLAY]

Previous Page  |  Next Page