On this ID the Future, ID biologist Michael Behe continues fielding tough questions from philosophers Pat Flynn and Jim Madden. Here in Part 3 of 3, Behe responds to the claim that some designs in biology are bad designs and to criticisms leveled at ID from some Thomists. Also in the mix, the issue of academic pressure to distance oneself from ID, even before those involved understand what the theory of intelligent design actually is. Madden also asks Behe what reforms he’d pursue if he suddenly found himself in charge of the National Academy of Sciences. Tune in to hear Behe’s response, and much more. This three-part series is borrowed, with permission, from Flynn’s podcast, which can be found on his YouTube channel.
On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin responds to emails from students who want to know the scientific evidence for intelligent design....
How is the job of a scientist similar to the job of an attorney? And how do you define evidence? On this ID The...
On this episode of ID the Future, biologist Richard Sternberg continues his presentation evidence that refutes the myth that the human genome is full...