2011

In “Alternative Evolution” of Dinosaurs Foresaw Contemporary Paleo Finds” (Scientific American August 10, 2011), Brian Switek surveys the great changes that have taken place in how dinosaurs are viewed, many of which may have been foreseen by Dougal Dixon, who thought he was writing a fantasy about how dinosaurs would have evolved, had they survived. Except that they happened way back then. Read More ›

Biologos have responded to the NPR program, by suggesting that it is OK to believe in a literal Adam and Eve as theology, even if science is silent on the question. http://biologos.org/blog/nprs-adam-and-eve-story

Darrel Falk and Kathryn Applegate write that “There is no scientific reason to upset that theological apple cart. Indeed as scientists, we must respect the theological diversity of Evangelicalism.” although adding “Science is an amazing tool that gives insight into our world, one which is so effective that it is allows us to become virtually certain about some things.” I would prefer though to maintain a degree of greater scientific scepticism concerning historical questions that are not directly testable, lest we turn our scientific narratives into self delusion. Read More ›

For those with open minds (genuine skeptics, not selective skeptics) check out Prager University, especially this. Like Frank Pastore I was once a devout atheist, but eventually realized that I could no longer muster up enough blind faith to believe in a completely materialistic explanation for everything. It was to a great extent that my interest in science, engineering, mathematics, and reason forced me to abandon my materialistic and therefore inherently nihilistic worldview (but there was much more, including the birth of my first daughter after a long infertility ordeal). My conversion from materialistic atheism to Christian theism — to a great extent through reason, logic, and evidence — is what really scares people like Dawkins and his ilk. The Read More ›

Although I may be struck by a thought, or moved by a memory, or distracted by a craving, these familiar descriptions suggest an effect with no obvious physical cause. Thoughts, memories, cravings—they are what? Crossing space and time effortlessly, the human mind deliberates, reckons, assesses, and totes things up; it reacts, registers, reflects, and responds. In some cases, like inattention or carelessness, it invites censure by doing nothing at all or doing something in the wrong way; in other cases, like vision, it acts unhesitatingly and without reflection; and in still other cases, the human mind manages both to slip itself into and stay aloof from the great causal stream that makes the real world boom, so that when it Read More ›

Listen to this rant, and then tell me that this guy is sane. His rants are perfectly analogous to those of people like Dawkins concerning challenges to Darwinian orthodoxy.

God’s kitchen God at His computer God appears on Trivia Tonight UD News favourite: God makes the snake

In “Yet another “post-Darwinism,” Evolving Thoughts complains about Shapiro’s Evolution:/a> A view from the 21st century thusly:

Over the years there have been many books that purport to “radically revise” or “supplant” Darwinian evolutionary biology; they come with predictable regularity. Usually they are of three kinds: something is wrong with natural selection, something is wrong with inheritance, or something is wrong with phylogeny. This book, by geneticist James A. Shapiro, exemplifies all three.

Shocka! Read More ›

I come back to FG, because I think he is seriously trying to engage with ID, and I am very pleased to report that he is making significant progress.

In my post “Who Designed the Designer Argument Demolished in Three Easy Steps”  I demonstrated that the infinite regress argument has no real force by giving what FG called a “concrete example” of how a design inference can be valid in the complete absence of any knowledge of who the designer was or where he/she came from.

FG writes. “When applied to a single concrete example like the one you gave, your inference could be valid . . .”

Wonderful!

FG then slips when he says: “The infinite regress problem is real and does defeat ID the moment your argument is invoked to explain first life.” Read More ›

Readers may recall U.S. prez hopeful Michele Bachmann, who is sympathetic to intelligent design: In “The National Organization of Women defends Bachmann against Newsweek” (Daily Caller, August 8, 2011) Caroline May reports,

“It’s sexist,” NOW president Terry O’Neill told TheDC. “Casting her in that expression and then adding ‘The Queen of Rage’ I think [it is]. Gloria Steinem has a very simple test: If this were done to a man or would it ever be done to a man – has it ever been done to a man? Surely this has never been done to a man.”

While some have pointed out that Newsweek has used unflattering photos of men such as Rush Limbaugh and John McCain on its cover, O’Neill says that is not the issue.

“Who has ever called a man ‘The King of Rage?’ Read More ›