We continue to examine the work of authors George Johnson and Jonathan Losos in their biology textbook, The Living World ((Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008). In their chapter on evolution and natural selection, these accomplished evolutionists begin by (1) misrepresenting the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and biological variation here, (2) making a non scientific, metaphysical, truth claim that just happens to mandate the truth of evolution here, (3) making the grossly false statement that the fossils themselves are a factual observation that macroevolution has occurred here and here, (4) making a series of misrepresentations by carefully selecting the evidence to provide to the student and protecting it with circular reasoning here, (5) misrepresenting the molecular evidence here, (6) presenting Read More ›

On another forum, a colleague used this term to describe the phenomenon I illucidated in the final sentence of my post there. (I’ve reproduced the content of that post below as a blockquote.) My comment was in reference to the widely circulated article, Naked Chimp Reminds Us of Ourselves. The article begins with: “It’s been said that humans are just naked apes. And if you don’t think that’s true, just take a look at Guru, a hairless 20-year-old chimpanzee…” Humans are much more than naked apes. Let me count the ways (with apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning): Agriculture, houses, indoor plumbing, books, symphonies, cars, airplanes, philosophy, churches, hospitals, high-blood-pressure medication, nuclear reactors, magnetic resonance imaging, rockets, parachutes, supersonic aircraft, computer Read More ›

In “Creationism lives on in US public schools” (New Scientist 20 October 2010), John Farrell revisits the Dover trial: IN DOVER, Pennsylvania, five years ago, a group of parents were nearing the end of an epic legal battle: they were taking their school board to court to stop them teaching “intelligent design” to their children. But the monster never sleeps, it seems: None of this means that the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based think tank that promotes intelligent design, has been idle. The institute helped the conservative Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), headed by Christian minister Gene Mills, to pass a state education act in 2008 that allows local boards to teach intelligent design alongside evolution under the guise of “academic freedom”. Read More ›

The discussion thread to vjtorley’s excellent post below veered off on the issue of the nature of “Truth.” The issue is: Does science say anything that is “True” with a capital “T”? That is to say, does science make absolute statements? That is an issue that deserves its own post. To answer this question, we must answer some preliminary questions first. The most basic question is this: What does it mean for a statement to be “true”? Here Kairosfocus quotes Aristotle: “to say of what is, that it is, and of what is not, that it is not, is true.” (Metaphysics 1011b). Just so. This is the classic formulation of the “correspondence theory of truth.” True statements are those statements Read More ›

My book, By Design or by Chance?, provides an entertaining and informative explanation for lay people of why there is an intelligent design controversy. Speaking of whys, why did I burn up so much time and career over that? Why do I still? Two reasons: First, most of what passes for media coverage today is just a reverent rehash of the claims of voluble Darwinists. To say nothing of a warm welcome to Darwin lobbies stumping for economic rent.* In fairness, the dying legacy media are too busy bunkering down and yammering to government for welfare to start asking the critical questions one associates with journalism. Second, I had noticed, about a decade ago, an inverted news funnel. Intelligent design, Read More ›

There’s an item today at PhysOrg concerning an article in this week’s Science magazine. According to the study conducted on a bacterial population using a technique wherein mutations could be inserted anywhere along the length of the genome, each and every bacterial mutation had the same small effect on fitness of 0.5%, no matter if the mutation took place in a protein sequence or in a so-called non-coding section. I’m just bringing your attention to it. It would seem that for those who wish to use the RM + NS motif of Darwinian evolution, this study pretty much spells this motif’s deathknell. If the average mutation reduces fitness, how does any living organism improve? And, how can NS distinguish between Read More ›

I have blogged before on infinity, which holds a certain fascination for me. For one thing, I’m working on a thesis involving self-reference and the retreat into infinite recursion. And early in my Presbyterian life, I had to defend divine sovereignty and the infinities of power, knowledge and goodness from the inroads of Arminian rationalism and free will. So with a little practice, I’ve gotten quite comfortable with infinity, sort of like driving 80mph in the dark in a thunderstorm–the important thing is not to think about it too long. In this post, I want to think about it long enough to show that the Multiverse doesn’t save Darwin. Georg Cantor, of course, couldn’t stop thinking about it and was Read More ›

William Dembski will be debating Christopher Hitchens at the Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, TX, Nov. 18th, on the question of God’s goodness.

“Does a Good God Exist?”

Debate between Dr. William Dembski and Christopher Hitchens

Two intellectual heavy weights will square off toe-to-toe on the existence and goodness of God.

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where Dr. Dembski is a research professor, has an article on the debate.

Dembski and Hitchens will debate the existence of a good God during a conference for the Biblical Worldview Institute at Prestonwood Christian Academy in Plano, Texas. The debate will be hosted in the worship center at Prestonwood Baptist Church from 8:40 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. It will also be webcast on www.pcawebcast.com.

“Huh?” I hear you say. “Why would anyone think that?”

The reason, according to a recent blog article by Dutch biologist Gert Korthof, is that a God who designed malaria, and who allowed Hitler’s atrocities to take place, could not possibly be the same Deity as a God who upholds the sanctity of human life, and who condemns abortion, euthanasia and the atrocities committed by Hitler:

But there are two Gods. The God of the Sanctity of Human Life and the God of the Free Will Defense. They disagree strongly. The God of the Sanctity of Human Life is against abortion and euthanasia, and also against the atrocities of Hitler. The other God, The God of the Free Will Defense, allows the atrocities of Hitler.

However, Intelligent Design proponents fail to recognize that these attributes are mutually incompatible, so they end up believing in a schizophrenic Deity who somehow combines them all. Dr. Korthof argues that believers who engage in this intellectual juggling act end up paying a terrible personal price: they become desensitized to human pain and suffering, because they have learned to rationalize its occurrence in God’s cosmos.

Dr. Korthof is aware that this conclusion will evoke skepticism and even incredulity from many readers, so he skilfully sets forth his case, which rests upon two pillars: first, a quotation from the writings of a scientist and notable Intelligent Design proponent, Professor Michael Behe (who is also a Roman Catholic Christian) on the malaria parasite; and second, quotes from two Christian philosophers (John Hick and Richard Swinburne), who use the Free Will Defense to justify God’s allowing atrocities such as the Holocaust.
Read More ›

Not only do biological organisms adapt before our eyes, but in recent years researchers have developed robots that adapt via Darwinian selection. As one recent research paper explained:  read more

When I first encountered epigenetic research, some 10 years ago, (where epigenetics is the modification of the genome by environmental factors) I remember the thrill of seeing Darwinism being disproven, well, the Neo-Darwinist Theory (NDT) synthesis anyway. Darwin himself had this archaic idea of “gemmules” carrying traits from the body to the gametes, but Mendel blew all that nonsense out of the water. Not until 50 years after Darwin’s death did his theory get resurrected with the discrete gene as the bearer of the all-important genetic blueprint. This led to the central dogma of NDT, that genes are the DNA blueprints for the cell, producing the RNA transcriptions that get converted into the proteins that make up a cell, a Read More ›

Michael Shermer and I are taking our ID versus Darwinian Evolution show back on the road, this time at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. The date is Tuesday, November 16, and the venue is Prochnow Auditorium; here are some details: Debate on Evolution vs. Intelligent Design with Michael Shermer and Paul Nelson. This event is only open to NAU students, faculty and staff and is free with a ticket and ID. Tickets can be picked up at the NAU Central Ticket Office starting October 26. A limited number of tickets will be available at the door. Please… bring NAU ID with you to the event. This event is part of SUN Entertainment’s Lecture and Debate Series. Here’s the Facebook entry Read More ›