On this episode of ID the Future we hear bonus material on the mind from the Discovery Institute’s new Science Uprising video series. Materialist philosophy says we’re no more than our brains; that we’re wet robots, in essence. Also, scientism, rooted in materialism, holds that science is the only path to knowledge. Here, a distinguished research neuroscientist take on those dogmatic claims and discusses some clinical evidence that mind is not reducible to the brain.
On this episode of ID The Future from the vault, we’re featuring clips of questions and answers with Wesley J. Smith and John West from the premiere of The War on Humans documentary. Smith and West briefly answer questions about the threat of the fringe element of the radical animal rights movement; the advance of animal rights proponents' political agenda; and the regulatory process that is creeping towards scientism.
On this episode of ID the Future, philosopher and Discovery Institute senior fellow Jay Richards shows how materialism is an acid that eats itself along with the self. Richards argues that it also eats all the immaterial things that make science work--all while posing as objective science. The interview is taken from Discovery Institute’s new Science Uprising initiative, featuring high-concept short YouTube videos and single-expert interviews touch on a wide range of subjects related to intelligent design, philosophical materialism, theism, atheism and modern Darwinism. Richards and other familiar faces are among the experts, along with two or three distinguished scientists who may be new to followers of ID the Future. Check it out here.
On this episode of ID the Future, Dr. Cornelius Hunter, author of Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism, talks about new findings on so-called “junk” DNA. Evolutionary theory predicts lots of such “Darwinian detritus” that does nothing for organisms. That prediction keeps coming up false. “Satellite DNA” was one form of DNA thought to be junk, and left on the back burner by researchers. But now it’s been found to be both crucial — for the fertility of male fruit flies — and species-specific. Evolutionary theory expected none of this, though it gamely accommodate it, Hunter explains. How? By moving the goalposts.
On this episode of ID the Future from the vault, Dr. Brian Miller examines evolutionary explanations for the development of the eye. What is needed to build a complex eye? And how long would it take to get the necessary coordinated mutations? Miller argues the eye presents multiple insurmountable problems for evolution.
On this episode of ID the Future, philosopher and Biola University Distinguished Philosopher J.P. Moreland talks with Michael Keas about the intelligent design implications of his new book Finding Quiet: My Story of Overcoming Anxiety and the Practices that Brought Peace. As Moreland explains, Darwin in essence said, in the beginning were the particles. But the evidence of design in nature and of a cosmic beginning from nothing, taken together, suggests instead, in the beginning was the Logos, was mind or organizing thought. And what we see in mental health treatments — or even in science itself, as Moreland has also written — only makes sense if we can trace reality back to an intelligent, purposeful cause. At the same time, Keas and Moreland stress, this is a call not to ignore the material but to rightly regard both the material and immaterial dimensions of the human person when pursuing mental health.
On this episode of ID the Future, Nancy Pearcey, professor and scholar in residence at Houston Baptist University, tells more of the political history of Darwinism, and how the same troubling issues persist today. Darwin was one of the first to say, if it isn’t purely naturalistic, it isn’t science. Others said, then and now, suggested that we keep Darwinian evolution and just trust that God is at work behind the scenes. Pearcey, co-author of The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy, says the effect, then and now, is to render our understanding of God as something that is largely private and subjective.
On this episode of ID the Future from the vault, CSC Research Coordinator Dr. Brian Miller discusses micro and macro evolution in terms of fitness terrains. Can we compare design principles in human engineering to life? Listen in as Miller shares how the process of optimization unravels the explanatory power of neo-Darwinism.
On this episode of ID the Future, Nancy Pearcey, author of numerous books including Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality, challenges the common belief that Darwin persuaded everyone of his theory’s scientific validity right from the start. The 19th century was ready to accept a theory of evolution, but not necessarily by natural selection. Some of his chief supporters believed in God or a “vital force” guiding evolution. But Darwin would have none of it. And what do evolutionary scientists say today? In private, among themselves? The controversies still aren’t over.
On this episode of ID the Future, Andrew McDiarmid reads from Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose by distinguished Brazilian scientist Marcos Eberlin. In this excerpt, Eberlin introduces the necessity of foresight and planning in nature by showing how every cell needs a sophisticated barrier around it that knows how to keep harmful substances out and let helpful ones in. That membrane’s job is complicated by the fact that oxygen, like many other substances, can be harmful or helpful depending on when, where, and how much. So even the very first cells’ success could only be explained by a designer’s foresight. Foresight, it’s worth noting, has been endorsed by three Nobel Laureate scientists. It’s available for purchase at Amazon and other stores.