Since frontloading is becoming a hotter topic in ID circles, I thought I would repost a video covering, in just 5 minutes, a short explanation of what is being proposed, and some of the evidences for it. There are minimalist and maximalist views of frontloading, but I think all of them share a fascination with what we are finding out about mutations today.
Read More ›

As we saw here, here and hereRandy Moore and Sehoya Cotner, in their new bookArguing for Evolution: An Encyclopedia for Understanding Science, list altruism as an evidence for evolution, make the typical religious arguments that prove evolution, say that evolution predicts “There will be anatomical similarities among related organisms,” and begin the book with a bogus prediction claim.  Read more

As we saw here and here Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner, in their new book Arguing for Evolution: An Encyclopedia for Understanding Science, list altruism as an evidence for evolution, make the typical religious arguments that prove evolution, and say that evolution predicts “There will be anatomical similarities among related organisms.” That religion is doing the heavy lifting behind the phony science is not news, but Moore and Cotner’s book gives us yet another example of this hypocrisy.  Read more

What exactly is a scientific prediction? Philosophers have long since pointed out that many so-called scientific predictions do not qualify. For instance, sometimes a prediction is made after the fact. Other times the prediction is too broad or vague. In some cases a failure of the prediction can be too easily accommodated, using minor adjustments to the theory. In fact sometimes the prediction is not even required by the theory. It is simply used to make the theory look good. These textbook examples from the philosophy of science can be found in abundance in evolutionary theory. Consider, for example, Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner who, in their new book Arguing for Evolution: An Encyclopedia for Understanding Science, state that evolution predicts Read More ›

One of my favorite parts of ID is the fact that it is creating good tools for biologists to use. ID is often misconceived as a conclusion about whether or not X was designed. Instead, ID presupposes only the *possibility* that something was designed, and that intelligent agents are not mechanistic. In accordance with this, several metrics have been developed. The first metric that I am aware of is CSI. The method for measuring CSI was originally developed by Dembski in The Design Inference. The main problem for CSI is in the difficulty of actually taking the measurements it requires. The second metric (well, metric probably isn’t quite the right word, it’s a qualitative measure) is Irreducible Complexity as described Read More ›