For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and Read More ›

The recent Engineering and ID conference was obviously fruitful. I find it — HT: JohnnyB — helpful to compose Mignea’s schematic for self-replication, and discuss it a bit in the context of the origin of self-replicating entities given von Neumann’s requisites of a successful kinematic self-replicator. [Henceforth, vNSR.] Let me extract from the just updated discussion in the IOSE course, Unit 2: _________ >>John von Neumann’s self-replicator (1948 – 49) is a good focal case to study. Ralph Merkle gives a good motivating context: [[T]he costs involved in the exploration of the galaxy using self replicating probes would be almost exclusively the design and initial manufacturing costs. Subsequent manufacturing costs would then drop dramatically . . . . A device Read More ›

People sometimes ask me if evolutionists are at all changing their minds given the overwhelming scientific evidence against their religious mandate. The answer of course is “no.” But there are some evolutionists, well one anyway, that at least acknowledges some of the evidence. That would be the one and only Lynn Margulis who illustrates just how far an evolutionist can go, but no further. In her 2011 Discovermagazine interview, after stating that “All scientists agree that evolution has occurred,” the University of Massachusetts professor goes on to explain that natural selection “eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create,” that she believed the textbook orthodoxy that random mutations lead to evolutionary change and new species “until I looked for evidence,” and Read More ›

It is the worst sin of science. Scientists sometimes make mathematical errors. They also make measurement mistakes, logical fallacies and a host of other blunders. They even formulate hypotheses that don’t make sense. But all of these must happen, for to err is human. What scientists don’t do, or at least very rarely do, is knowingly misrepresent science. It’s a nice way of saying scientists don’t lie. It is unacceptable in science. In other fields lying may be routine. It may even be justified and expected. Salespeople lie to buyers and buyers lie back to the salesperson. And that is just one example of many. As financier Jean-Claude Juncker once said, “When it’s serious, you have to lie.” But not Read More ›

The first video from the Engineering and Metaphysics conference is from Arminius Mignea. His talk is about self-replication, and what is really required for self-replication to occur. Mignea reviews current attempts at self-replication, and shows the minimal structures needed for it to occur. The slides for the talk are available here. Enjoy!

Several UD members joined in on the Engineering and Metaphysics 2012 Conference. The conference was not ID-specific, but it was welcoming to ID-oriented content. The goal of the conference was to look at engineering from a wider perspective, and see how engineering, philosophy, science, and theology can all help each other. There were 11 talks, on topics ranging from architecture to search algorithms and from the physicalism/dualism debate to the problem of natural suffering. It had participants from Canada, the East Coast, the West Coast, and Middle America. Theological perspectives included evangelical, pentecostal, catholic, mainline, agnostic, and Messianic Judaism. The conference was a great success, and I believe we will be doing several more in a similar fashion. There is Read More ›

Dr. Jay Wile is a signatory of the Discovery Institute’s Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Wile is a prolific writer, and I’m surprised I only ran across his blog Proslogion recently. Here is a sample: Early in my high school years, I was a proud atheist…. All that changed when a young lady who I wanted to date (but who didn’t want to date me) suggested that we go to a debate between atheism and Christianity. I didn’t really want to go to the debate, but I did want to spend time with her, so I went. I was shocked to learn that both debaters were scientists. The atheist was a professor of biology, while the Christian was a professor of Read More ›