Research on Intelligent Design

To put together scientific advances from the perspective of Intelligent Design.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Michael Denton - Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.

Denton, an Australian molecular biologist, provides a comprehensive critique of neo- Darwinian evolutionary theory. In a penultimate chapter, entitled “The Molecular Labyrinth,” he also develops a strong positive case for the design hypothesis based on the integrated complexity of molecular biological systems. As a religiously agnostic scientist, Denton emphasizes that this case for design is based upon scientific evidence and the application of standard forms of scientific reasoning. As Denton explains, while the case for design may have religious implications, “it does not depend upon religious premises.”

On Darwinism II, Interview with Dr. Michael Denton (Approx. 58 min., a RealPlayer video)

Michael Denton's classic book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" with more than 60 "polarized comments" at, including the bright comment by Dr. Proctor, a "christian mathematician" from San Marcos, Texas:

"Dr. Michael Denton is clearly not a creationist. That is obvious from his first chapter, "Genesis Rejected". However, he is clearly questioning the truthfulness of macroevolution in any form... Even the simplest of programs (written in C++ for example) are coded by intelligent human beings. They do not appear randomly... Human beings are infinitely more complex than these programs. Thus, it appears likely that we were created by intelligent design."
Then, Gert Korthof's review in full, chapter by chapter with links (updated: 29 July 2005):

Observations by John A. Davidson:


Anonymous johnadavison said...

Without a past Intelligent Design there would never have been an evolution., a phenomenon, in my opinion, no loger in progress. There is neither evidence nor need for supernatural intervention of any sort as everything was predetermined long ago. That is the essence of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

I now have my own web page:

Feel, free to both visit and participate.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 2:46:00 PM  
Blogger fdocc said...

Dr. Davison,

Thank you for your kind invitation.

Even if we don't agree in everything that you say or write, your observations of a similar caliber as Denton's, are not to be lightly dismissed and I have featured them elsewhere:

Some of Dr. John A. Davison's Striking Observations.

Dr. Davison, can you be considered a Theoretical Researcher on Intelligent Design or an independent sympathizer of ID?

Maybe like Art Battson's observations, compatible but independent of ID, as his conference (in RealPlayer) indicates: "On the Theory of Conservation".

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello, I am a Deist and I would like to add something to intelligent design and if you could would you please forward this to Michael Denton.

I would like to lay down a solid foundation for I.D. so critics will realize that I.D. advocates cannot identify who the designer(s) is.

First I would like to introduce the mathematical term Infinity. We all know that there is no such thing as one infinity. Infinite designer(s) can not be quantified or confined to a form or number. With this said all attempts to quantifying infinity would be rejected. If documented religions cannot put a number on Infinite designer(s) then how can they claim to have the only ONE Infinite Designer(s).

Just trying to show people that I.D. cannot identify who the designer(s) is.

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 10:43:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home