There are two regular tragedies in the Intelligent Design movement. The first tragedy is the student who airs his or her doubts about Darwin, and a faculty member then makes it their life mission to block that student from a degree, or, if they get a degree, prevent them from getting any further. This sometimes happens via a bad letter of recommendation or a notice in their file or sometimes even calling other programs to tell them not to include the student. The second tragedy is the student who plays it safe, presuming that some day in the future they will have the position, stature, or whatever to present their doubts about Darwin. Many people counsel this procedure – keep Read More ›

Physicist Sean Carroll, an outspoken but ever-courteous defender of the New Atheism, has recently written a post entitled, The Case for Naturalism, at the end of which he kindly encloses a 10-minute video summary of the reasons which have led most scientists to reject the supernatural and accept that the natural world is all there is. The video, which is well worth watching, is excerpted from a two-hour debate held at Caltech on 27 March 2012, on the topic, Has Science Refuted Religion?. Sean Carroll and Michael Shermer argued for the affirmative, while Dinesh D’Souza and Ian Hutchinson argued for the negative. In the course of his video presentation, Professor Carroll makes reference to a most remarkable woman from the Read More ›

(UD Editors:  We didn’t know what “SUSY” was.  It means “supersymmetry.”) When this happens within the corridors of high-energy physics, then science is in a bad way. Tomasso Dorigo, in a recent blog entry, chastens those who determinedly cling to SUSY despite no show of evidence for it at the LHC. Here’s what he says (but, of course, just plug in “Darwinism” where you see “SUSY”): What SUSY enthusiasts in fact do when they resort to the “Nature chose elsewhere to hide” argument is to manifest that their prior belief in SUSY being the correct theory of nature is 100%. This, in a Bayesian formalism, can be mathematically described as a “point mass” prior probability density function (PDF): a Dirac Read More ›

If only evolutionists would tell the world what they tell each other. In the popular media, in detailed books about evolution and in textbooks a unified front is presented: Evolution is a fact as much as is gravity or the roundness of the Earth. It would be perverse and irrational to conclude otherwise. The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming. There are no scientific problems of substance with evolution, just scientific questions about details. Simply put, we know evolution occurred, just not how it occurred.  Read more