Darwinism Intelligent Design

Darwinism’s legacy of confusion in biology

Miller quotes, “Indeed the language of neo-Darwinism is so careless that the words ‘divine plan’ can be substituted for ‘selection pressure’ in any popular work in the biological literature without the slightest disruption in the logical flow of argument. –
Robert G. B. Reid, Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment, Pp. 37-38” That’s a devastating indictment, given that the whole point of Darwinism was to demonstrate that life could come into existence purely by random processes.

Intelligent Design Medicine Philosophy Science

At The Ness: Science is not Just Philosophy

Wait. If atheist neurologist blogger Steven Novella is right, the science presenters in media must be speaking a different language from the rest of us. The impression that he says they don’t convey (“insight into the ultimate nature of reality”), they in fact do — by a variety of means. That’s okay, of course, until the whipped cream hits the fan.

Intelligent Design Peer review Philosophy Science

At Lancet: An appeal for an honest debate in science about the origin of COVID-19

We wish Jacques van Helden and his co-authors good luck getting an honest discussion going. It’s not like China is going to become transparent anytime soon. In any event, few virus researchers would want to be told bluntly that, because gain-of-function research in viruses can go badly wrong, they now face controls. Some nations wouldn’t heed the controls. And nature never responds – on her own – to calls for clarification. Most likely, whatever happened with COVID will need to happen again a few more times until a pattern develops. Then we’ll see. It doesn’t help that Lancet itself became politicized in recent years.

Intelligent Design Peer review Science

Policy analyst: More funding is not going to solve current science problems

Two thoughts: Unclear what Dr. Mills means by a “so-called” “replication crisis.” There IS a replication crisis. They can call it an ice cream cone if they want. Second, more funding, under the circumstances, not only “could” make the problems worse; they almost certainly WILL do so. If systemic issues are not addressed, more funding helps magnify the problem. It’s like giving a gambling addict more money.