2012

In spite of the crystal clear message from science that evolution is not a good hypothesis evolutionists continue to add confusion and uncertainty to promote their mythology. One tactic evolutionists use is to interpret evidence in terms of evolution and then claim the result as evidence for evolution. That is not only bad science, it is fallacious. Conclusions cannot also be premises. Yesterday’s installment from evolutionist Dennis Venema is yet another example of this never ending display of petitio principia.  Read more

Intelligent Design is relatively new in its present form. Proponents often argue that there are features of biology that look like engineering, and in particular, that the programming of life, the DNA software that goes along with the cellular hardware, is analogous to the programming of computers. However, we haven’t yet been able to fully unpack the implications of that, partly because both computer science and genomics are developing disciplines. The following is merely  a speculative suggestion in the hopes of inspiring further investigation: Could it be that the designer(s) of the genomes of living organisms made use of code libraries in order to do so, as is done in computer software engineering? A code library is a suite of Read More ›

When I was a kid, for a weekend getaway, our family used to visit a place in the woods of northern Idaho. A stream flowed through the campsite, and I remember seeing these fascinating insects called water skippers. They moved on the surface of the water on their “feet,” supported by the water’s surface tension. How did these creatures evolve by random mutation and natural selection in a step-by-tiny-step fashion? Did proto-water skippers sink and drown, and then random errors introduced into the proto-water skipper genetic code produce semi-skippers, some of whom drowned and others that eventually skipped without drowning? Which mutations would be required in this process? What is the likelihood of them occurring? How would they work? How Read More ›

Next up in our Engineering and Metaphysics series is Thomist physicist and philosopher Alex Sich who gives both enthusiastic support and harsh criticisms to the Intelligent Design project. If I understand his objection correctly, he believes that ID is incorrectly and incoherently mixing categories of knowledge, not making proper distinctions of terms, and confusing univocal and analogous modes of reasoning. His call is for ID’ers to take a deeper look into metaphysics, and have a better understanding of philosophy before engaging in the public dialogue. If your video isn’t displaying, the YouTube link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieqCqoKiLmk When he references a previous lecture, he is referring to this one. Pull quote – “I think that one must be literally out of their Read More ›