In The Beginning was Information

AMAZON:  Information — it’s one of the most fundamental parts of our world, yet we don’t often think about it. This classic book, now being published by Master Books, demonstrates the importance of information to life of any kind. More to the point, it demonstrates the necessity of an Organizer and Originator of the information necessary for life.  Dr. Gitt argues that God is not bound by the laws of nature, but instead uses them for His own purposes.  He also shows that the highly complex information present in DNA mitigates a non-intelligent beginning for life. He advocates for assurance when dealing with the Bible’s information, that this collection of books is not only free of error, but that no useless information is present, as well.

Original English publication available in PDF here:

Courtesy of Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung e.V.

Here is one  of the books that started it all.  The Mystery of Life’s Origin demonstrates the frailty in origin of life theories and proposes an alternative that neatly fits the evidence, that is, design by creation.

The book is now available for dowload here.

An Interview with Dr. Jonathan Wells

By Mario A. Lopez and Eduardo Arroyo

Jonathan Wells has received two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. He has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California, and he has taught biology at California State University in Hayward.

Dr. Wells has published articles in Development, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, The Scientist and The American Biology Teacher. He is also author of Charles Hodge’s Critique of Darwinism (Edwin Mellen Press, 1988) and Icons of Evolution: Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong (Regnery Publishing, 2000).

Dr. Wells is currently working on a book criticizing the over-emphasis on genes in biology and medicine.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

This interview was originally conducted by Mario A. Lopez, with collaboration from Eduardo Arroyo Pardo for the Pro-ID Spanish website, Ciencia Alternativa (www.ciencia-alternativa.org).

Ciencia Alternativa – (CA): Can you tell us a little about how you started to question the materialistic view of life’s origin and how you arrived at your current position with ID?

Jonathan Wells – (JW): As a college undergraduate in the 1960s I was a Darwinist and a leftist, but after Marxist agitators staged violent demonstrations in Berkeley in 1969-1970 I became disillusioned with the Left and headed for the hills. I built a cabin in the mountains of Northern California, where I was struck by the design in nature all around me. I began to question Darwinism, read the Bible, and pray. In 1978 entered a Yale Ph.D. program in theology, where I did research on the 19^th century Darwinian controversies. I learned that the central theological issue in those controversies was design: According to the Christian tradition human beings are created in the image of God – by design – but according to Darwinism we are accidental by-products of unguided material processes. After receiving my Yale Ph.D. I worked for two years before going back to graduate school in 1989 to get a second Ph.D., this time in biology at Berkeley. I soon learned that the scientific evidence for Darwinism was nowhere near as strong as I had been led to believe. In 1991 I met Phillip E. Johnson, a Berkeley law professor who had just written Darwin On Trial, and through him I met other leaders of the new intelligent design (ID) movement.

It’s important to understand what ID is and isn’t. According to intelligent design theory, we can infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than by unguided processes. ID is not a substitute for ignorance: If we don’t know the cause of something, that does not mean it was designed.  We make design inferences on the basis of evidence; the more evidence we have, the more reliable our design inferences are. Since ID relies on scientific evidence rather than on Scripture or religious doctrines, it is not biblical creationism.  Intelligent design makes no claims about biblical chronology, and it does not tell us the identity of the designer.  Although most proponents of ID believe that the designer is the God of the Bible, they acknowledge that this belief goes beyond the scientific evidence. ID restricts itself to a simple question: Does the evidence point to design in nature?  The answer to this question – whether yes or no – carries implications for religious belief; but the question can be asked and answered apart from those implications.

CA: Is it your opinion that neo-Darwinism has seriously constrained research progress?  If so, can you give an example of how ID theory has been heuristically fruitful in your own work?

JW: Let’s first be clear about what Darwinism is. It is not just evolution. Evolution is a broad term that can mean simply change over time, or changes within existing species – neither of which is the least bit controversial. But Darwin didn’t write a book titled How Existing Species Change Over Time; he wrote a book titled The Origin of Species. According to his theory, all living things descended from a common ancestor by unguided material processes such as random variation and natural selection. When I look at the actual evidence for this grand claim, I find it to be surprisingly thin. For example, the anatomical and molecular evidence is not consistent with Darwin’s branching-tree picture of how living things are related to each other. A tree pattern does not emerge from the evidence, but must be imposed on it a priori. Furthermore, the evidence does not support Darwin’s claim for the creative power of natural selection. Everything we know about mutation and selection suggests that they can modify living things only in very minor ways. There are no confirmed reports that Darwin’s mechanism has produced a new species, much less new organs or body plans.

So Darwinism doesn’t fit the evidence. It is empirically false, and as a false theory it has misled scientific research. One example is “junk DNA.” When biologists in the 1970s discovered that most of the human genome does not code for proteins, Darwinists proclaimed the majority of our DNA to be garbage accumulated in the course of evolution. As a result, researchers neglected most of our DNA for decades. Now it is becoming clear that this so-called “junk DNA” is not junk at all; instead, it is absolutely essential to the proper functioning of our cells. If biologists in the 1970s had approached the human genome as a product of intelligent design rather than Darwinian evolution, genome research might be decades ahead of where it is now.

In my own work, I have used ID to guide the formulation of testable hypotheses about several aspects of living cells that have been neglected with a Darwinian framework. One example is centrioles, organelles in animal cells that look like tiny turbines. They come in pairs, with one member of the pair oriented at a right angle to the other. Although they participate in cell division, their function remains mysterious. Since they contain no DNA they have attracted comparatively little interest from Darwinists, who regard DNA as the master molecule in evolution. From a design perspective, however, it is unlikely that such intricate structures would be accidental by-products of unguided processes. Starting from an intelligent design perspective, I assumed that centrioles look like turbines because they ARE turbines, and by applying engineering principles I formulated a new hypothesis about centriole function. Of course, the hypothesis must be tested experimentally, but if it turns out to be true it could have implications for the cause of cancer.

CA: Has your work on centrioles been controversial?  If so, why?

JW: Yes, it has been very controversial. Of course, any significantly new hypothesis tends to meet with opposition, but mine has been especially controversial because of its connection to intelligent design. One science journal was about to publish it until the editor asked whether I was “the Jonathan Wells of intelligent design fame;” after that I had to find another journal.  In 2005 I presented the hypothesis at an annual meeting of my professional society, where I was ridiculed for doing so. Since then Darwinists have relied mainly on their favorite tactic, character assassination – though the only way to settle the matter scientifically is with experimental tests, which I am presently pursuing. My published hypothesis is now available online at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2680

CA: In the US, you have faced some opposition from Alan Gishlick and the National Center for Science Education concerning your work in Icons.   Would you say that they have posed formidable challenges?

JW: No. Like other Darwinists, those at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) exaggerate and misrepresent the scientific evidence, and they ultimately rely on personal attacks. None of the NCSE’s criticisms of my book Icons of Evolution stand up under close examination, and I have not seen the need to modify or retract anything I wrote. For my response to published reviews of the book, see “Critics Rave Over Icons of Evolution,” available online at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1180

CA: Why are scientists so reluctant in simply accepting that much of what is being taught in schools is outdated and often wrong?

JW: That’s difficult to say. Many scientists (perhaps the majority) simply can’t be bothered; they just want to be left alone to do their research. But some are ideologically committed to defending Darwinism and they want to hold onto their cultural power, even if it means denying the truth. Unfortunately, Darwinists hold so much power in the sciences right now that anyone who dares to speak out about textbook falsehoods or otherwise criticize the reigning orthodoxy – at least in the U.S. – risks losing his or her career. This is now happening with alarming frequency, as the forthcoming movie “Expelled” shows. See the movie’s trailer online at http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php

CA: How has your work influenced the way textbooks are currently written? 

JW: Some textbooks have removed the more egregious icons in recent editions. For example, few recent textbooks mention the now-discredited peppered moth story, and most have taken out Haeckel’s faked embryo drawings. But the standard biology textbooks are still committed to promoting Darwinism, so many continue to exaggerate or misrepresent evidence from the fossil record, anatomical similarities, molecular comparisons, the Galápagos finches, and antibiotic resistance.

CA: How is your work being viewed in other countries?  Are you getting the same sort of opposition as you have here in the U.S.?

JW: Opposition to me (and to intelligent design in general) has been strongest in the U.S. In some parts of Europe and Asia, criticism of Darwinism – and interest in intelligent design – is more widespread than it is in the U.S. Elite American scientists tend to be rather arrogant, and it wouldn’t surprise me if they are among the last to acknowledge the evidence against Darwinism and for intelligent design.

CA: It has been some time since the original publication of Icons of Evolution; is there anything in the works that might identify the more current “icons” of Darwinism (i.e. gene duplication, junk DNA, chromosomal fusion, the Tiktaalik fossil, etc.)?

JW: Because Darwinism is really materialistic philosophy masquerading as empirical science, its adherents ignore counterevidence and continue to churn out new icons. Of course we can criticize the new icons and show that the evidence does not support them, but only when people see Darwinism for what it really is will the icons loose their mesmerizing power.

CA: Your last project with Dr. Dembski, The Design of Life, is supposed to be the definitive volume on intelligent design.  What do you anticipate from your critics?

JW: I wouldn’t call our book “the definitive volume on intelligent design” (though I’m flattered by your suggestion) – just a very useful and readable summary of what we know so far. Since intelligent design is still in its infancy, however, the best is yet to come. As for critics: I expect more of the same, especially character assassination. But I’m confident the truth will eventually prevail. For more information about the book, go to http://www.thedesignoflife.net

An Interview with Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez

By Eduardo Arroyo Pardo & Mario A. López

Guillermo Gonzalez is an Assistant Professor of Astronomy at Iowa State University. He received his Ph.D. in Astronomy in 1993 from the University of Washington. He has done post-doctoral work at the University of Texas, Austin and at the University of Washington and has received fellowships, grants and awards from such institutions as NASA, the University of Washington, the Templeton Foundation, Sigma Xi (scientific research society) and the National Science Foundation.

Gonzalez has extensive experience in observing and analyzing data from ground-based observatories, including work at McDonald Observatory, Apache Point Observatory and Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory. He is a world-class expert on the astrophysical requirements for habitability and on habitable zones and a co-founder of the “Galactic Habitable Zone” concept, which captured the October 2001 cover story of Scientific American. Astronomers and astrobiologists around the world are pursuing research based on his work on exoplanet host stars, the Galactic Habitable Zone and red giants.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

*This interview was originally conducted in two parts by Mario A. Lopez, with collaboration from Eduardo Arroyo Pardo for the Pro-ID Spanish website, Ciencia Alternativa.

Gonzalez has also published nearly 70 articles in refereed astronomy and astrophysical journals including The Astrophysical Journal, The Astronomical Journal, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Icarus and Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. He also is the co-author of the second edition of Observational Astronomy, an advanced college astronomy textbook.

In 2004 he co-authored The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery with Jay W. Richards.

CA: Dr. Gonzalez, can you explain with the easiest words your field of expertise within astronomy and physics? In your opinion, which of all these matters is the most controversial one?

GG: I have expertise in two general fields within astronomy: quantitative stellar spectroscopy and astrobiology. The first involves the use of high resolution spectra to determine the basic properties of stars, such as surface temperature and chemical composition. The second is a multidisciplinary research program which attempts to detemine which conditions are necessary for habitability.

In addition to these two conventional research areas, I also do Intelligent Design (ID) research in the physical sciences. This is by far the most controversial research I conduct. But, astrobiology research is also controversial. They are controversial, in my view, because some people don’t like the implications of the research findings.

CA: Have you intellectually evolved from the “standard way” of doing science? In other words, how did you come to the actual position?

GG: While those who reject ID as legitimate science would say I have deviated from the accepted or standard way of doing science, I would say that ID research I do is science. If science is a systematized method to discover truths about the universe through observation, then ID certainly qualifies as science. If, instead, science is defined by edicts from the governing bodies of scientific organizations, then ID does not qualify as science. So, I would say I am simply following the evidence wherever it leads. And, if that evidence leads me to conclude that the universe is designed, then I can only be honest and accept it.

I came to be a supporter of ID first from the evidence for fine-tuning in physics and cosmology and later from the evidence we present in The Privileged Planet.

CA: What was most influential for you in accepting ETI?  What was most influential in changing your mind?

GG: The huge number of stars in our vast universe was the deciding factor for my original support of ETI. I changed my position on ETI when as a graduate student I began to examine the many factors relevant to a planet’s habitability. I learned that much must go just right for a planet to be habitable. To determine the probability of ETI, it is not enough to understand that there are vast numbers of stars and planets. It is also necessary to factor in the many “habitability factors”. Over the years the list of habitability factors has continued to grow, resulting in probabilities for ETI that continue to drop.

CA: Can you explain us the concept of “Galactic Habitable Zone”? Why do you think this is so relevant?

GG: The Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ) concept describes how habitability varies with place and time in the Milky Way Galaxy. Two broad classes of processes define its boundaries: threats to life and planetary building blocks. The inner regions of the Milky Way are more dangerous, while the outer regions contain fewer planetary building blocks. As a result of these trends the region of greatest habitability takes the form of an annulus in the disk of the Milky Way.

The GHZ concept is relevant to both astrobiology and ID. The GHZ is another factor that must be included in any calculation of the probability of ETI in the Milky Way Galaxy. As we show in The Privileged Planet the GHZ is not only the most habitable location in the Milky Way, it is also the best location for doing astronomy research. This is part of a broader pattern of evidence for design we discuss in The Privileged Planet.

CA: Many others in your field or related fields have acknowledged that it appears as though a super-intellect may have “monkeyed with physics.”  Why are your ideas so controversial?  Aren’t they drawing similar conclusions?

GG: Yes, I am drawing similar conclusions to those cosmologists and phycisists have been making since the 1950s. For this reason I expected that scientists in the physical sciences would be more receptive of my ID research. Indeed, several scientists have endorsed or positively reviewed The Privileged Planet. I think my work in ID has become controversial because of the general controversy surrounding the evolution/creation/anti-Darwinism debate. The same people and organizations who have strongly opposed creationism and criticism of Darwinism in the past now oppose ID. And, they often lump creationism together with ID and fail to distinguish between ID research in biology to ID research in the physical sciences.

The passion behind the recent opposition to ID clearly comes from militant athiests. They see the conclusions of ID research as challenging their deeply held materialist beliefs, which they equate with science itself.

CA: You have paid dearly for being involved with the ID movement, has it been worth it?

GG: It has been difficult, but I would do it all over again. I have made a number of important discoveries in astronomy, but none can compare in importance to my research in ID. So, yes, it was worth it.

CA: Can you explain to the spanish-speaking public how was your conflict with Iowa State University? Do you feel that there is some kind of academic prosecution within the American educational system?

GG: I was targeted for public criticism and condemnation beginning a few months after The Privileged Planet was published in March 2004. A small group of vocal athiest professors at Iowa State University (ISU) began to publicly criticize me in local newspapers and public forums on campus. I don’t mind criticism. In fact, I expect it. The criticisms reached a new level in June 2005 when a documentary based on the book was shown at the Smithsonian Intitution in Washington, D.C. James Randy, a prominent “skeptic”, orchestrated a national campaign to try to get the Smithsonian to cancel the showing.

Two months later, over 100 faculty at ISU, led by athiest professor of religious studies Hector Avalos, signed a petition statement condemning ID. Although my name was not mentioned in the petition, I was clearly the target; Avalos had been publicly criticizing me since the fall of 2004.

In the fall of 2006 I came up for tenure review. The physics and astronomy faculty voted against my tenure in November, and the President of ISU came down with his final negative decision the following spring. Since then, I have been applealing the decision, first to the President and then to the Board of Regents. Today, my appeal is still being considered by the Board of Regents.

Statements made by the chair and several faculty of the physics and astronomy department make it clear that my ID research (The Privileged Planet book, my work on which was officially approved by ISU when I arrived in 2001) was the determinative factor in denying me tenure. This is clearly an infringement of my academic freedom. The faculty let their prejudices against ID influence their votes on my tenure.

At this point, I think it is not possible for a known ID proponent to be hired in a science department at a major American university. There is overt viewpoint discrimination taking place at American universities.

CA: Will your conflict with Iowa State be included in Ben Stein’s upcoming film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed?

GG: Yes, I was interviewed for the film. My understanding is that my story will be included in the film when it is released in the spring.

CA: Can you explain a short synopsis of your work The Privileged Planet?

GG: In The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery, Jay Richards and I present evidence for design using data from the physical sciences. Specifically, we showed that the same conditions that result in the most habitable locations also produce the best overall settings for scientific discovery. We reached this conclusion after examining evidence from the atmospheric, geologic and astronomical sciences. The correlation between the conditions for life and the conditions for scientific discovery is improbable and it is not necessary. The correlation is what one would expect if the universe is designed for discovery, but not otherwise.

CA: Peter Ward, co-author of Rare Earth, called your work on The Privileged Planet “crap.”   Considering that you were “instrumental in tying the various strains of the Rare Earth argument;” how do you feel about Mr. Ward’s comment?  Has your relationship with him changed since your involvemnt with ID? Why?

GG: Peter Ward is a very emotional person, and he often reacts emotionally to ideas that challenge his. He ceased collaborating with me in 2001, immediately after learning that I was an ID proponent. He made very clear to me at that time his intense dislike of ID. This occurred long before my book was published, so he already had a bias against ID before reading it.

CA: What is your take on the multi-verse hypothesis?  Does it have implications for the so-called anthropic coincidences?

GG: I consider myself to be a skeptic of the multi-verse hypothesis. I don’t see how one can have conclusive observational tests of other universes, or even of other domains of our universe. Nevertheless, I must remain open to possible existence of unobservable universes. If (and that’s a big ‘if’) a large number of other universes actually exist, then they could account for the observed anthropic coincidences. Whether they could account for the most impressive examples of fine-tuning would depend on how many other universes there are. In principle, this “self-selection bias” only accounts for necessary conditions for life. Of course, we do not actually know such universes exist, so this remains a speculative explanation for anthropic coincidences.

But, the evidence I present in The Privileged Planet goes beyond just fine-tuning of the necessary conditions for life. The evidence for the fine-tuning of conditions for scientific discovery cannot be explained by appeal to self-selection from multi-verses. This doesn’t mean other universes don’t exist, just that they cannot account for the particular properties of our universe. In other words, we live in an extravagant universe, one that has some properties beyond what is necessary for our existence.

CA: Apart from all of the ad hominem attacks, have you met any formidable challenge against your work in The Privileged Planet?

GG: In Chapter 16, The Skeptical Rejoinder, we presented what we considered to be the most important criticisms of our thesis (including some not so important ones). These are criticisms we either thought of ourselves or encountered from scientists and philosophers while we were still writing the book and speaking at public venues. We have not heard a criticism that we did not already address in the book. Probably the most frequent criticism has to do with the multi-verse hypothesis.

CA: Do you have plans in writing another ID related book?

GG: Right now I don’t have plans for another ID book. I might write a new version of The Privileged Planet with a chapter updating the science, somewhat like what Mike Behe did with Darwin’s Black Box.

An Interview with Dr. William A. Dembski

By Mario A. López

A mathematician and philosopher, William A. Dembski is Research Professor in Philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth. He is also a senior fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle as well as the executive director of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design. Previously he was the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, where he founded its Center for Theology and Science. Before that he was Associate Research Professor in the Conceptual Foundations of Science at Baylor University, where he also headed the first intelligent design think-tank at a major research university: The Michael Polanyi Center.

Dr. Dembski has taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas. He has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University. A graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago where he earned a B.A. in psychology, an M.S. in statistics, and a Ph.D. in philosophy, he also received a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988 and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1996. He has held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships.

Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, philosophy, and theology journals and is the author/editor of more than ten books. In The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998), he examines the design argument in a post-Darwinian context and analyzes the connections linking chance, probability, and intelligent causation. The sequel to The Design Inference appeared with Rowman & Littlefield in 2002 and critiques Darwinian and other naturalistic accounts of evolution. It is titled No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Dr. Dembski has edited several influential anthologies, including Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing (ISI, 2004) and Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA (Cambridge University Press, 2004, co-edited with Michael Ruse). His newest book is a festschrift volume in honor of Phillip Johnson. It is titled Darwin’s Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement.

As interest in intelligent design has grown in the wider culture, Dr. Dembski has assumed the role of public intellectual. In addition to lecturing around the world at colleges and universities, he is frequently interviewed on the radio and television. His work has been cited in numerous newspaper and magazine articles, including three front page stories in the New York Times as well as the August 15, 2005 Time magazine cover story on intelligent design. He has appeared on the BBC, NPR (Diane Rehm, etc.), PBS (Inside the Law with Jack Ford; Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson), CSPAN2, CNN, Fox News, ABC Nightline, and the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

*This interview was originally conducted in two parts by Mario A. Lopez, with collaboration from Eduardo Arroyo Pardo for the Pro-ID Spanish website, Ciencia Alternativa.

CA: Dr. Dembski, ID has come a very long way since its inception; and ID proponents are making inroads in a vast array of scientific disciplines such as astronomy, biology, and chemistry.  How has your own work in mathematics (namely, The Design Inference and No Free Lunch) helped or influenced the development of novel ways of doing science?

WD: It’s too early to tell what the impact of my ideas is on science. To be sure, there has been much talk about my work and many scientists are intrigued (though more are upset and want to destroy it), but so far only a few scientists see how to take these ideas and run with them. There’s a reason for this slow start. My work in The Design Inference was essentially a work on the philosophical foundations of probability theory, trying to understand how to interpret probabilities in certain contexts. This led naturally to some ideas about information and the type of information used in drawing design inferences. My book No Free Lunch was a semi-popular overview of where I saw the ID movement headed on the topic of information. The hard work of developing these ideas into a rigorous information-theoretic formalism for doing science really began only in 2005 with some unpublished papers on the mathematical foundations of intelligent design that appeared on my website (www.designinference.com). With the formation of Baylor’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab just this month and work by me and my colleague Robert Marks on the conservation of information (several papers of which are available at www.evolutionaryinformatics.org), I think ID is finally in a position to challenge certain fundamental assumptions in the natural sciences about the nature and origin of information. This, I believe, will have a large impact on science.

CA: Your critics (such as Wein, Perakh, Shallit, Elsberry, Wolpert and others) seem unsatisfied with your work.  They charge your work as being somewhat esoteric and lacking intellectual rigor.  What do you say to that charge?

WD: Most of these critics are responding to my book No Free Lunch. As I explained in the preface of that book, the aim of this book was to provide enough technical details so that experts could fill in details, but enough exposition so that the general reader could grasp the essence of my project. The book seems to have succeeded with the general reader and with some experts, though mainly with those who were already well-disposed toward ID. In any case, it became clear after that publication of that book that I would need to fill in the mathematical details myself, something I have been doing right along (see my articles described under “mathematical foundations of intelligent design” at www.designinference.com) and which has now been taken up in earnest in a collaboration with my friend and colleague Robert Marks at Baylor University’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab (www.evolutionaryinformatics.org).

CA: Are you evading the tough questions?

WD: Of course not. But tough questions take time to answer, and I have been patiently answering them. I find it interesting now that I have started answering the critics’ questions with full mathematical rigor (see http://web.ecs.baylor.edu/faculty/marks/eil/

Publications.html) that they are strangely silent. Jeff Shallit, for instance, when I informed him of some work of mine on the conservation of information told me that he refuse to address it because I had not adequately addressed his previous objections to my work, though the work on conservation of information about which I was informing him was precisely in response to his concerns. Likewise, I’ve interacted with Wolpert. Once I started filling in the mathematical details of my work, however, he fell silent. Perhaps the most striking instance of silence is that of Thomas Schneider, whose article on the evolution of biological information in Nucleic Acids Research (2000) claims to refute my colleague Michael Behe. When Robert Marks and I recently showed that his evolutionary program was equivalent to a neural network and that it works worse than pure chance (http://web.ecs.baylor.edu/faculty/marks/T/ev2.pdf), he too fell silent though in the past he would reply in a day’s time on his own website to any challenge from me. I have found that Darwinists make a habit of staying quiet about problems with their theory and ignore the best criticisms of it.

CA: Are there any major universities supporting the work of ID proponents?  If not, why not?

WD: I wouldn’t say that universities as such support ID. They tolerate it if the faculty member doing ID research has tenure. And if they don’t have tenure, the university makes sure that they don’t get tenure (the tenure denial of Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University is latest instance). Why this opposition? Darwinists have been very successful at demonizing anyone who dissents from their materialistic view of evolution. They have essentially established a Stalinist regime over the western academy.

CA: I know about the Biologic Institute and the work of Dr. Minnich.  Are there any other laboratories currently doing ID work?

WD: Baylor’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab: www.evolutionaryinformatics.org. I understand another ID lab at Baylor is on the way.

CA: Is your (still incomplete) monograph, Mathematical Foundations of Intelligent Design, supposed to be a more complete or rigorous explanation for inferring design?

WD: For now, this work will be published as separate articles in collaboration with Robert Marks. I expect that eventually we will be co-authoring a monograph on this topic together, though we may not give it that title given the climate of hostility against ID. The emphasis in this work shifts from detecting or inferring design to the need for information in search. These are related problems since information that enables successful search can trigger a design inference.

CA: Now that we have methods of design detection (i.e. The Explanatory Filter and Behe’s Irreducible Complexity), is there any work being done on the designer’s modus operandi, other than the conjunct of evolutionary theories and front loading?  I am thinking of something in the lines of Von Neumann terms, such as self replicating automata or the increase of specificity atom at a time.  Is this an irrelevant question?  Why?

WD: The implementation of design into living systems, especially at the origin of life, is a fascinating question but I’m not sure that science is in a position right now to answer it. If life is indeed designed, then it represents a technology far more sophisticated than anything humans have devised. It may take some time before our technology is at the place where we can determine the designer’s modus operandi. ID research, however, does not need to be limited to that question. Much of the focus these days is on the limits of evolution given certain types of informational resources. This is an inherently interesting question and one that does not prejudge which theory is likely to emerge on top, ID or Darwinian evolution.

CA: Do you feel that we are on the verge of proposing a neo-saltation theory on the smorgasbord of ideas?

WD: I don’t think the evidence supports universal common descent, but there are design theorists such as Michael Behe who think that it does. A saltational theory of life’s diversification is therefore a design-theoretic option, but it is not the only option, and I don’t expect to see any one position gain ascendancy within the ID movement any time soon.

CA: Amidst all the animosity and criticisms written about your work, what is your motivation for continuing this ambitious research program?

WD: The work itself is immensely satisfying and intellectually stimulating. Moreover, I see those who seek to shut it down as intolerant dogmatists who encapsulate a tyranny that I despise. So I get to see myself as both a scientific researcher and as a freedom fighter-a rare combination.

CA: You’ve done a lot of work on ID already.  Is there something else in the works?  Maybe other theoretical models for inferring design?

WD: I see evolutionary informatics as the scientific core of ID and expect I’ll be working in this field for the next several years. In addition to this work with the engineering and mathematical communities, I retain my interests in philosophy and theology and have various books in the works in this area. My first doctorate was in mathematics, and what mathematics has given me is a desire to solve interesting problems, whatever they might be and wherever I might find them. One of the things that convinces me that ID is on to something is that I find one interesting research problem leading to another, and that I have more interesting problems to resolve than I have years to spend working on them. Despite all the opposition I face, especially ostracism from the scientific mainstream, which can be painful, I would not change places with anyone.