Dear Professor Louis: You have presented the view that from a theological perspective evolution is not objectionable. You explained, for instance, that we ought not to confuse mechanism with meaning. If the creator used evolution as a creation tool, that need not detract from the meaning of the creation. And you thoughtfully defended Leibniz’s arguments that occasional divine intervention demeans God’s craftsmanship and that God doesn’t do miracles to satisfy the wants of nature, but rather those of grace.  Read more

 I am constantly amazed by the extent to which materialists will go to prop up their metaphysics.  Like a snake that eats its own tail, they sometimes resort to “scientific” explanations that, if true, would undermine the foundation of science, i.e., the concept of “causality.”  Consider rhampton7’s response to my prior post :  “Susskind favors a megaverse interpretation of string theory that does not need a first cause other than itself (in which case, you could describe it as a pantheist argument, but that is not what Susskind believes).” Let’s think about that. First, as has been pointed out many times, the assertion that a megaverse (or multiverse) exists is a religious/metaphysical assertion, not a scientific one if we use the Read More ›

Here. About their usefulness, we don’t know. But maybe it’s now within budget.

Here. Author summary: Intelligent behavior encompasses appropriate navigation in complex environments that is achieved through the integration of sensorial information and memory of past events to create purposeful movement. This behavior is often described as “complex”, but universal ways to quantify such a notion do not exist. Promising candidates for measures of functional complexity are based on information theory, but fail to take into account the important role that memory plays in complex navigation. Here, we study a different information-theoretic measure called “integrated information”, and investigate its ability to reflect the complexity of navigation that uses both sensory data and memory. We suggest that measures based on the integrated-information concept correlate better with fitness than other standard measures when memory Read More ›

What Darwinists don’t recognize is that, in the name of promoting science, they are actually promoting skepticism about what can be trusted in the name of science. Bears evolved into whales? No, that’s been rejected. “Scientists” suggest that whales might have evolved from a cat-like animal, or a hyena-like animal, or (fill in the blank). “It is thought by some that…” This is “science”? Evolution is a fact, if evolution is defined as the observation that some living systems are not now as they once were. According to this definition I count myself as an evolutionist. But Darwinists are unwilling to acknowledge their ignorance concerning how this all came about, and persist in presenting unsupported speculation in the name of Read More ›