March 2012

Today I revisited the work that convinced me that contemporary Darwinism is bankrupt. That work is Michael Denton’s 1986 opus: Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. The chapter I reference I do so for a special purpose. The puzzle of perfection in biology, and the puzzle of the mathematical perfection of the laws of physics to make life possible in our universe, should suggest design to anyone who thinks rationally, in my view. I’ll quote only one comment from Denton in my brief essay here: It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research Read More ›

Aristotilean/Thomist philosopher and sometimes ID Critic Edward Feser has recently penned a blog entry about the upcoming atheist “Reason Rally.”

Read More ›

Do you remember when evolution was supposed to follow a common descent pattern, with genes passed down (“vertically” in evolution lingo) from progenitor to progeny? Then the evidence got in the way as similar genes were found in more distant species, violating the expect evolutionary pattern. So evolutionists took their first drink of lateral evolution. And of course the drinking continued. And continued. Soon the origin of life riddle, for instance, was transformed into one massive lateral evolution event, with genetic material readily being exchanged between cells in the same population via an incredibly complex, never observed, process that cannot be repeated or tested. Similarly lateral, or horizontal, evolution is being called upon to explain all kinds of findings that Read More ›

Here at UD we have been discussing first principles over the last several weeks, and those discussions came to mind when I read about the recent paper After-birth Abortion:  Why Should the Baby Live?, in which Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue in good Nazi fashion that some newborn babies have Lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”). In this article Gabby Speach makes all kinds of philosophical arguments against the Giubilini/Minerva thesis.  Unfortunately, while in the main I agree with Ms. Speach, her article is all but useless and will not convince anyone who is not already convinced.  Why?  Because she is trying to argue for first principles and that is a losing proposition.  First principles must be accepted as self-evident.  They are the foundation upon Read More ›