For the first time, as far as publicly known, scientists have cloned primates. Bob Enyart speaks with the Discovery Institute's Ann Gauger about the science of cloning and the immorality of even attempting to clone a human being. Dr. Gauger, Senior Fellow at the DI's Center for Science and Culture, earned her biology degree at MIT, her Ph.D. in developmental biology from the University of Washington, has done cloning work as a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard, and has had her research published by the journals Nature, Development, and Biological Chemistry. Click for Ann's recent writings and her collaboration on Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique.
* Other RSR Discovery Institute Interviews: Check out Ann Gauger on Darwinism's Six Enzyme Problems and to hear our other fun and informative interviews with Discovery Institute scientists and scholars, just click on over to rsr.org/di.
* The Richard Dawkins 3-to-1 Evolution Challenge: Research for a debate on the Bible led Bob Enyart and his associate Will Duffy to Oxford University. While there, thinking about the popularity of RSR's graphical evolution challenges, such as the Evolution Vision Challenge and about the success of our PZ Myers Trochlea Challenge (click for that evolutionist's reply), the guys decided to hand deliver to the Oxford office of professor emeritus Richard Dawkins a printed copy of RSR's Dawkins 3-to-1 Challenge. (Dawkins still lectures there for a course titled, Science Literacy: Evolution for Non-Scientists.) Intelligent Design arguments based on complexity, like the flagellum argument offered by Michael Behe, are powerful yet that very complexity provides opportunities for opponents to obfuscate. (For example, if a cellular component is assembled from twenty parts, an evolutionist can make somewhat irrelevant comments about two or three of those parts, and get millions of evolutionists to claim that he has refuted that design challenge.) Thus Real Science Radio has been testing arguments based on the simpler, rather than the more complex, aspects of organisms. It appears that these inherently simpler arguments may more effectively demonstrate the inability of the materialist worldview to explain biology. (Our Myers Trochlea Challenge is just such an argument, focusing on one of the simplest parts of the human vision system.) So the graphic that we delivered to New College asserts that neither Richard Dawkins, nor any materialist, will ever be able to answer this simple Dawkins 3-to-1 Evolution Challenge:
