Month: March 2009

A recent article in Cracked, discussing plagiarism, used the careers of Richard Owen and H.G. Wells – both important evolutionists – as 40% of “Five Great Men who Built Their Careers on Plagiarism.” Read it and see what you think.

What make you all of this, in City Journal?: How Science Fiction Found Religion Benjamin A. Plotinsky Once overtly political, the genre increasingly employs Christian allegory. Winter 2009 There is a young man, different from other young men. Ancient prophecies foretell his coming, and he performs miraculous feats. Eventually, confronted by his enemies, he must Read More…

By now most of you are probably aware of the news from Texas and the new science standards there. Apparently, the new standards don’t sit well with Dr. Eugenie Scott and her friends at the NCSE, (National Center for Saving Evolution). “The final vote was a triumph of ideology and politics over science,” says Dr. Read More…

Someone by the name of skeech is cluttering up UD with impervious sophistry and wasting a lot of our time. His/her latest thesis is that “according to biologists…” there is a “credible possibility that small incremental changes could have developed massive increases in biological information in a short time — followed by stasis.” So, skeech Read More…

After giving his famous METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL computer analogy to evolution in his book The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins remarks, “Life isn’t like that. Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distant target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection.” I would dispute that there are no targets. Read More…

Dogs, not chimps can help us understand human behaviour? Well, this moved recently at msnbc.com: Dogs (not chimps) most like humans Man’s best friend serves as model for understanding human social behavior By Jennifer Viegas Discovery Channel updated 11:58 a.m. ET, Thurs., March. 26, 2009 Chimpanzees share many of our genes, but dogs have lived Read More…

Don Johnson (PhD in Computer Science from Univ. Minnesota, another PhD in Chemistry from Michigan State) has just published a pro-ID book, “Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability: A Call to Scientific Integrity” amazon.com link here . My question to readers: how many scientists have to reject Darwinism before there is a “scientific controversy”?

I see where Nature News published (2009 03 25) an item about Canadian science minister Gary Goodyear vs. the puff dino suits in downtown Toronto (young researchers with nothing better to do (?), claiming that he doesn’t believe in evolution – like it was some kind of religious experience he never had, but was supposed Read More…

Natural selection is posited as the only mechanism to lead to differential survival among individuals of varying fitness. However, if selection pressures cause mortality to occur in individuals who would soon be dead anyway, then natural selection is not really operating. The hypothesis of the Harvesting Effect in epidemiology leads to this conclusion. I think Read More…

In Bill Dembski’s thread, No Major Conceptual Leaps, I posted a comment about the evidential, logical, and probabilistic vacuity of the Darwinian co-option hypothesis. (I use the word hypothesis with reservation. A hypothesis in a domain such as this should at least be based on a minimal, mathematical probabilistic analysis.) In response to my comment, Read More…