2011

Jurassicmac quotes from this post and responds:  “What’s really needed is a prize recognizing plausible non-Darwinian mechanisms of evolution.” Uh, before we start handing out prizes for plausible non-Darwinian mechanisms, someone should, y’know, propose one. All ears.  Jurassicmac’s comment is precious, because it illustrates with such crystal clarity a point Phillip Johnson made many times.  Here’s Johnson: Is the blind watchmaker hypothesis true? From the naturalistic standpoint of Darwinists like Dawkins, the question really doesn’t arise. Instead of truth, the important concept is science, which is understood to be our only (or at least by far our most reliable) means of attaining knowledge. Science is then defined as an activity in which only naturalistic explanations are considered and in which Read More ›

The following discussion of the second law of thermodynamics is taken from Basic Physics [Blaisdell Publishing Co., 1968], by Kenneth Ford, but similar comments can be found in many other college physics textbooks: Imagine a motion picture of any scene of ordinary life run backward. You might watch…a pair of mangled automobiles undergoing instantaneous repair as they back apart. Or a dead rabbit rising to scamper backward into the woods as a crushed bullet re-forms and flies backward into a rifle…. Or something as simple as a cup of coffee on a table gradually becoming warmer as it draws heat from its cooler surroundings. All of these backward-in-time views and a myriad more that you can quickly think of are Read More ›

Here. He says, People usually assume I’m an atheist because I’m Charles Darwin’s great-great-grandson. This is less than half the story. Certainly is. But he really should have said, “It’s in my genes,” shouldn’t he? At least, we’re not hearing that “Darwin was a believer. ”