Hmmm. Maybe figures. She writes: “If atheism’s claim to the intellectual high ground is bolstered by my ancestor’s characteristic ability to explore and analyse inconsistencies in the evidence, that same family characteristic led me towards a sceptical assessment of what can and can’t be known absolutely.” Keynes also describes how her decision was received by loved ones. “That I freely chose to be a Catholic after much thought and analysis, and wasn’t brainwashed into it, baffle my friends and family alike,” she writes. “I overheard one comment: ‘But she seemed like such an intelligent girl.’ So when people ask ‘A Darwin and a Catholic?’ what they’re saying is that I confound expectations.” Welcome. Some of the smartest people in history Read More ›

The Fox News website recently ran this story on the 7 Weirdest Jobs in Science.  To this list I would add an eighth – Evolutionary Biologist (EB).  To be an EB these days, not only does one have to explain away large bits of contrary data, but also believe that the mass amounts of complex specified information observed throughout biological systems is easily explained by the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy interacting over eons of time through chance and/or necessity. Given the choice of being an EB or one of the 7 other Science careers mentioned, I’d opt to be a Scatologist.  At least the crap they talk about is real!

In 1846 astronomers in Europe discovered the planet Neptune. It wasn’t the first time Neptune had been seen, but it was the first time the object was identified as a planet. And how did the astronomers know where to look, and know that the object was Neptune? Because the position of Neptune had been computed and predicted. So they looked, and sure enough, there was Neptune. In fact similar predictions had been made independently by different scientists. The predictions were based on observations that the next closest planet, Uranus, did not quite follow its expected orbit. Was Newtonian physics wrong? Perhaps Newton’s Law of Gravity broke down at longer distances. Or perhaps there was a perturbing force from another planet. Read More ›

Here. Proceedings of the Symposium Cornell University, USA, 31 May – 3 June 2011 edited by: Robert J Marks II (Baylor University, USA) edited by: Michael J Behe (Lehigh University, USA) edited by: William A Dembski (Discovery Institute, USA) edited by: Bruce L Gordon (Houston Baptist University, USA) edited by: John C Sanford (Cornell University, USA) I learned a lot. Hope you will too. – Denyse O’Leary

We recently reported on a study of 1,070 genes and how they contradicted each other in a couple dozen yeast species. Specifically, evolutionists computed the evolutionary tree, using all 1,070 genes, showing how the different yeast species are related. This tree that uses all 1,070 genes is called the concatenation tree. They then repeated the computation 1,070 times, for each gene taken individually. Not only did none of the 1,070 trees match the concatenation tree, they also failed to show even a single match between themselves. In other words, out of the 1,071 trees, there were zero matches. Yet one of the fundamental predictions of evolution is that different features should generally agree. It was “a bit shocking” for evolutionists, as one Read More ›