Intelligent Design Links
Mike Gene has a long and interesting look into the beliefs of ardent darwinist, Edward O. Wilson. Another case of an atheist thinking that his belief is not a belief but merely the truth by default. Repeat after me. There is no neutral belief!

Stephen Meyer has a good rap up of the recent Dover Trial and highlights 5 issues with the testimony of expert R Pennock. These points are worth repeating here.
1) Pennock Provides No Criterion to Determine What Constitutes Religion (To do so would be to highlight a materialistic bias)
2) Metaphysical Implications Are Not Unique to the Theory of Intelligent Design
3) Theistic Implications No More Make Intelligent Design a Religion than the Religious (or Anti-religious) Implications of Neo-Darwinism (evolution often suffers from the very thing its supporters accuse ID/creationists of)
4) The Theory of Intelligent Design Does Not Affirm Narrow Sectarian Doctrines (It is a broad theory that is compatible with many possible intelligent agents)
5) Religious Motivations of Scientists Do Not Disqualify the Scientific Theories They Advocate (see point 1. All scientists have metaphysical motivations)

Of course, don't expect evolutionists to stop spouting the same nonsense, even though they have been corrected time and time again.

Casey Luskin has a good overview of how the plaintiff's attorney in the Dover case against ID has made all of ID's points for them. It's worth reading the whole thing.

On the more subtle front, it seems the University of California is discriminating against people who have gone to Christian schools because some of the subjects they do may not agree with what the elites at UC believe. This of course, will backfire as quality candidates go elsewhere.
- posted by Alan Grey @ Tuesday, November 08, 2005