How Michael Behe Was Pulled from Bloggingheads.tv

Christianity Today gives the story behind this incident, which seems to reveal a selective intolerance toward dissenting ideas.

An online clearinghouse for intellectual debate has discovered the apparent boundary for its controversial conversations: Intelligent Design.

Bloggingheads.tv posted a video interview between journalist John McWhorter and Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe in late August focused on the Lehigh University biochemistry professor’s 2007 book The Edge of Evolution. It was taken down the same day after the website received a barrage of online criticism for not asking tougher questions of Behe and for hosting him at all.

The explanation given for pulling the interview: “John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable.”

Bloggingheads editor-in-chief Robert Wright reposted the interview four days later upon discovering the incident, but Behe says that action didn’t erase what happened . . . (Continue)

image

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Bookmark and Share

Atheists Against Darwinism

Some fascinating work here on Intelligent Design by Peter Williams, from the EPS blog.

Allow me to draw attention to this paper recently published on the EPS website:

Atheists Against Darwinism: Johnsons’ “Wedge” Breaks Through

Abstract

Intelligent design theory claims that 1) empirical evidence warrants 2) a scientific design inference using 3) reliable design detection criteria. Philosophia Christi published my paper “The Design Inference from Specified Complexity Defended by Scholars Outside the Intelligent Design Movement: A Critical Review” (Philosophia Christi, Vol 9, Number 2), which defended the third of these claims by reviewing the work atheists and theistic evolutionists. This paper defends the second of these claims, likewise by reviewing work by agnostics and atheists.

Hence this paper rounds off a two-part defence of the philosophical elements of Intelligent Design Theory (claims 2 & 3), and does so in two phases. Phase one focuses upon the growing acceptance of Phillip E. Johnsons’ analysis of the role played by methodological naturalism in buttressing Darwinism, while phase two focuses upon Thomas Nagel’s positive interaction with Michael J. Behe’s argument in The Edge of Evolution (Free Press, 2008). I argue that Nagel’s reticence about embracing ID is philosophically inconsistent.

image

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Bookmark and Share