There is some benefit to ID if even parts of the YEC hypothesis are confirmed, the most notable example right now is Sanford and Cos work which was presented at the Cornell Conference. In a previous thread, I discussed the distant starlight problem is a thorn in the side of YEC. [the Vodka designation means the following material likely has errors but has data that are worth considering] There are some experiments that have indirect bearing on the question YEC. Any experiment that may enable us to augment existing physics, particularly Einstein’s relativity and Maxwell’s equations is good for YEC, and thus possibly good for ID. But Einstein’s relativity and Maxwell’s equations have numerous experimental proofs ( unlike Darwinism). Much Read More ›

John Farrell, a science and technology blogger who writes for Forbes magazine and who is also the author of The Day Without Yesterday: Lemaître, Einstein, and the Birth of Modern Cosmology, has just written a highly critical review of Stephen Meyer’s latest book, Darwin’s Doubt. No surprise there, for those who are familiar with Mr. Farrell’s views on Intelligent Design. Nor is it particularly surprising that National Review Online should see fit to publish them; after all, it has published articles critical of Intelligent Design (see here) as well as rebuttals by other contributors (see here) since 2005. The terms “conservative” and “pro-ID” are not synonymous. The aim of this post is not to rebut Farrell’s latest review, but to Read More ›

Frequent commenter “Joe” writes: Did someome say POOF? Poof, the magic Mutant (to the tune “Puff the Magic Dragon”) Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be. Little Richard Dawkins, loved that rascal Poof. And wrote him books to appease the kooks, oh what a silly goof! Oh Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be Poof the Magic Mutant, a-t-g-c And changed them just by randomness just to see what he could be Together they would mutate Poof into a beluga whale Richard kept a spectroscope trained on Poof’s mutating tail. Nobel things and atheists bowed whene’er they came Read More ›

If an unrepeatable, unobservable POOF was the way life came about, how could we scientifically infer it? Researchers of late have essentially resorted to A new mechanism of evolution — POOF. Appeals to POOF are hinted in the hopeful monster hypothesis and the mutationist/neutralist school of evolution and even punctuated equilibrium. And when Koonin appealed to multiverses to answer OOL, imho, the naturalists conceded to a POOF mechanism just like they were forced to concede to a POOF mechanism for the Big Bang. I listed the absence of seeing the Intelligent Designer and lack of direct observation and direct experiment as good reasons to reject ID. See: Good and bad reasons for rejecting ID. But on a more basic level, Read More ›

Each species has large numbers of unique genes that seem to have magically arisen without any ancestor. Evolutionists are saying they essentially POOFed into existence. These genes are referred to as ORFans or orphan genes. From the Max Plank Institute: However, with the advent of sequencing of full genomes, it became clear that approximately 20–40% of the identified genes could not be associated with a gene family that was known before. Such genes were originally called ‘orphan’ genes Evolutionary Origin of Orphan Genes 20-40% of the genes discovered cannot be explained by common ancestry or common descent. So what mechanism is left to explain it? Special creation? But evolutionists can’t accept special creation, so they just pretend they’ve made a Read More ›