Month: September 2008

Following up on the USA Today fantasy: “All is well in Britain between faith and science … scientists holler for Jesus in pulpits … ” In case anyone wonders how angry the angry god of British science is – against anyone who believes in the existence of another God – read on: In “Blinded by […]

Here’s a textbook example of spin in the legacy media: We are told on the USA Today blog that in Britain all is well in “faith and science” due to “theistic evolution”: While impossible to quantify, a surprising number of prominent British researchers at the pinnacle of their fields, with worldwide reputations in the physical […]

We’ve all seen the detective films where the forensic scientist is always a source of useful information about the crime, right? I’m a great fan of such films myself, Brit lit P.D. James being one of my favourite mystery stars. For psychological insight, she is rarely matched. However, in real life, if you are accused […]

One question: When Brit cleric Michael Reiss, the sinner in the hands of an angry god, got the boot from his Royal Society job for accidental blasphemy against Darwin*, some expressed regret. I wonder how many of those same people would feel anything other than satisfaction at the fate of the Expelled scientists? Few probably, […]

In yet another unexpected finding from the world of comparative genomics a gene that gives a jellyfish its sting is found all over the place. All sorts of explanations are flung at it. Horizontal gene transfer, vertical gene transfer, and convergent evolution were all run up the flagpole to see which garners more salutes. 🙄 […]

The following essay was originally Antony Flew’s “Theology and Falsification” that Flew read before the Socratic Club in 1950 in Oxford. C.S. Lewis was the president of the Socratic Club at that time. I replaced all of the “theological” language with “evolutionary” language. It seems very relevant in modern discussions of evolution. By the way, Flew is now a theist, […]

In a private forum I recently stated: “It is possible for Darwinian processes to generate life of any order of complexity.” In response I was asked: Where is the demonstration that “It’s possible for Darwinian processes to generate life of any order of complexity”? I composed the following in reply:

Science writer and biologist John Timmer recently published an online review of the textbook Explore Evolution, a review which has picked up some play around the web. To gain a sense of the review’s accuracy, consider this: Another PhD the authors found is Christian Schwabe, who apparently has established a career studying a protein called […]

In a visit down under, Lawrence Krauss is busy convincing people that there is no evidence for design in the universe. Notice in this quote he says that if he were able to see organised matter conveying symbolic meaning, then this would, for him,  constitute evidence. “At a time when religion and science are going […]

ID is ineligible for consideration as science because theories that allow for the possibility of forces outside of nature can’t be tested or falsified. In light of that let’s look at what Ernst Mayr had to say in the introduction that appears in “Origin of Species”, Harvard University Press edition, 1964, p. xii: In Darwin’s […]