September 2011

In this article in the Daily Telegraph (UK), we see some typical philosophical and cultural applications of Darwinism: People are unfaithful to their marriages Therefore, it is natural Therefore, it is right i.e. What is, is what is right. Since we are no more than nature, all that we do is thus natural – and who can object to that? Take away the Darwinian assumptions, and what is the basis of this article? There are none. But does the author ever examine those assumptions? Nope.

Denis Venema wants to explain evolution to evangelical Christians because he doesn’t think it is understand sufficiently. But he asks us to use our imagination and avoids a carefully modelled defence of evolution. If that is the best Darwinists can do then is it any wonder that many of us reject it? See: Venema Understanding Evolution: An Introduction to Populations and Speciation Firstly, Venema follows the common evolutionary practice of presenting evidence for evolution by focussing upon the micro changes and then extrapolating without evidence to the macro evolutionary scale by assuming it happens by similar means. But the micro changes, such as that of his exampled stickleback fish, are simply uncontested even by young earth creationists, but what is Read More ›

Those of you who have been following this blog, as well as Evolution News & Views, for some time, will be aware that I have previously discussed, across multiple articles, the phenomenon of endogenous retroviral inserts into the genomes of primates. Those familiar with the debate over origins will also be familiar with the various arguments for common descent which are based upon these fascinating genetic elements. A friend recently asked me if I would compile my thoughts on the topic into a single article, and hence that is what I intend to do here. Since my previous articles on the topic (and since my progression from undergraduate to postgraduate status), my knowledge of the subject has increased and I Read More ›

The point of UD’s contest (“UD Puts up $1,000 Prize“) is to demonstrate in a practical way that design theory does not depend upon a suspension of natural law (i.e., supernatural miracles). Once again, here is the contest: “UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature).” Now it should be obvious that a materialist cannot win the contest. Materialists believe that living things “appear” to be designed. As Richard Dawkins wrote, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” However, materialists Read More ›

Just yesterday I was reading some scientist bloviating about how scientific knowledge is superior to other types of knowledge, because “nothing is ever settled” and scientists are “unrelentingly skeptical” of all claims.  Piffle. Today I read that Dr. Ivar Giaever, who won the Nobel Prize in physics, resigned from the American Physical Society (the premier physics organization in the nation), because its scientific integrity has been subverted by the politics of global warming.  Dr. Giaever truly is what the other scientists in the society only claim to be – skeptical – and he took exception when the society carved its global warming politics into stone by announcing that the evidence is “incontrovertible.”  Dr. Giaever writes:  “In the APS it is Read More ›

Even by the evolutionist’s own numbers protein evolution has failed by somewhere between 27 to 49 orders of magnitude. And those estimates—which make evolution unquestionably the worst theory in science—are optimistic. They are based not on the evolution of a protein, but only part of a protein. But even worse, those estimates assume, believe it or not, the prior existence of proteins. That’s right, when evolutionists estimated the number of searches evolution could have made for those elusive protein sequences, they assumed billions of bacteria were available to do the job. But to synthesize a protein, bacteria need hundreds of different types of, yes, proteins. Indeed, to be bacteria, they need an army of proteins. So we cannot sneak in Read More ›

In “Nile crocodile is two species” (Nature, September 14, 2011), Ed Yong reports, he iconic Nile crocodile actually comprises two different species — and they are only distantly related. The large east African Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) is in fact more closely related to four species of Caribbean crocodile than to its small west African neighbour, which has been named Crocodylus suchus. Genes from both living crocodiles and mummies were sequenced. Apparently, the ancient Egyptians knew that suchus was different. It was docile enough to use in religious ceremonies. The name C. suchus was coined in 1807 by the French naturalist Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, who singled it out as a subspecies of Nile crocodile. However, his ideas were not widely accepted. Read More ›