Today we have seen several cases of Darwinist Derangement Syndrome (DDS) at the “Yes, KN.  It is a Literal Code” post.  I invite you to peruse the combox to that thread and see: Jerad copying only half a definition and saying it lacks “rigor” when the rigor is in the half he left out. Kantian Naturalist:  Language means nothing or, better yet, it means anything I want it to mean, so I can always argue something is ambiguous. Reciprocating Bill:  “This doesn’t accomplish what you want it to accomplish, because the conclusion turns on what we know.”  Whaaazat?  My conclusion turns on what we know?  Well, yes, guilty as charged. Mark Frank misrepresenting the definition of CSI. Alan Fox’s ravings that are Read More ›

From: Origin of life on earth and Shannon’s theory of communication. “If the historic process of the origin and evolution of life could be followed, it would prove to be a purely chemical process . . . The question is whether this historic process or any reasonable part of it is available to human experiment and reasoning; there is no requirement that Nature’s laws be plausible or even known to mankind.” This statement is fascinating. It is perhaps the most astonishing leap of blind faith I have ever seen in a scientific paper. It is glaring materialist fideism* in its most crystalline form. One wonders if the author is so blinded by his materialist faith commitment that he does not realize this.  Read More ›

We’ve talked about this. ‘Why Malcolm Gladwell matters and why it unfortunate,” this cognitive scientist sums it up: UI don’t think the main flaw is oversimplification (though that is a problem: Einstein was right when he—supposedly—advised that things be made as simple as possible, but no simpler). As I wrote in my own review, the main flaw is a lack of logic and proper evidence in the argumentation. But consider what Gladwell’s quote means. He is saying that if you understand his topics enough to see what he is doing wrong, then you are not the reader he wants. At a stroke he has said that anyone equipped to properly review his work should not be reading it. How convenient! Read More ›

Here is an experiment you can try next time you clean out your refrigerator. When you excavate that old jar from way in the back of your refrigerator which long ago held something edible but is now covered with growths of various colors, scrape off some of that growth and put it into a pot of boiling water. After boiling for several minutes let the water cool off and then pour the water into a little pond that has no living organisms and mimics the conditions of the early Earth. Do you think that those organic chemicals from the refrigerator will eventually reassemble and produce new living cells? Evolutionists do. In fact it’s worse. Evolutionists believe life will spontaneously appear Read More ›

I stumbled across a howler today at Jeffrey Shallit’s blog.  Allow me to explain: A few weeks ago I posted Jeffrey Shallit Demonstrates Again That He is Clueless About Even Very Basic Design Concepts in which I completely dismantled Shallit’s argument about a coin-flip scenario. Today, I found out that Shallit had posted a “response” of sorts.  Here it is in its entirely, not a single word modified or deleted: Barry Arrington to the Rescue! And Sal Cordova, Breathless Liar How cute! Lawyer and certified public accountant Barry Arrington thinks that there is something called “design theory”, and furthermore, I am just too stupid to understand it. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Barry, but there’s no Read More ›

If Adam and Eve were real, who were they and when did they live? Nobody knows for sure. The proposals I have made below are tentative, and may be revised as new scientific information comes to light. The case for Heidelberg man as Adam (1) In keeping with the doctrine known as monogenesis (held by many Jews, Christians and Muslims), I shall assume that the entire human race is descended from a single original couple, Adam and Eve. This assumption is a theological rather than a scientific assumption; it is compatible with, but not entailed by, the theory of Intelligent Design. I have no intention of defending monogenesis in this article, as I have already done so in my Uncommon Read More ›

Kantian Naturalist is always good for provoking a thought.  In a comment to a prior post he writes: I had a minor insight yesterday: that one way of characterizing the dispute between design theorists and their critics is in terms of the question, “is the ‘code’ in ‘the genetic code’ meant literally or metaphorically?” What I’m not sure is whether that question has a framework-neutral answer — whether one could give a fully satisfying answer to that question without presupposing either design theory or evolutionary theory. This is an interesting comment. A debate on this topic raged on these pages for several weeks earlier this year. See here. Summary: The genetic code is a literal code. Even prominent Darwinists admit Read More ›

Even honest Darwinists admit that some of their Darwinist colleagues are more interested in defeating ID than in getting at the truth of the matter vis-à-vis the human genome. See here. Finally, we suggest that resistance to these findings is further motivated in some quarters by the use of the dubious concept of junk DNA as evidence against intelligent design . . . There may also be another factor motivating the Graur et al. and related articles (van Bakel et al. 2010; Scanlan 2012), which is suggested by the sources and selection of quotations used at the beginning of the article, as well as in the use of the phrase “evolution-free gospel” in its title (Graur et al. 2013): the Read More ›

Proteins are highly complex molecular machines that perform essential tasks in our bodies. They also are a good example of what is wrong with evolutionary theory. The first problem with evolutionary theory is that it is unlikely. Proteins are not the first or only problem for evolution. Problems with evolution have been known since 1859 and before. But proteins provide a better, more quantitative, look at the problem than usually available from biological designs. The second problem goes deeper into evolutionary thinking, for proteins reveal how evolutionists respond when confronted with undeniable scientific problems.  Read more

In a prior post I took Dr. Liddle (sorry for the misspelled name) to task for this statement: “Darwinian hypotheses make testable predictions and ID hypotheses (so far) don’t.” I responded that this was not true and noted that: For years Darwinists touted “junk DNA” as not just any evidence but powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. ID proponents disagreed and argued that the evidence would ultimately demonstrate function. Not only did both hypotheses make testable predictions, the Darwinist prediction turned out to be false and the ID prediction turned out to be confirmed Liddle resonds: Sorry Barry that that example simply does not work. Darwinian theory would only predict unused sequences of DNA were it to be Read More ›

Central ascribes to me this statement: “[The holocaust is] obviously evil, and if you don’t agree with me, you’re evil too.” And he asks me why I refuse to give a similar answer with respect to the Canaanites. Here is the difference between my demand for a “yes or no” answer regarding the holocaust and my refusal to give a simple “yes or no” answer regarding the Canaanites: The Nazis never claimed to be under a divine command to exterminate the Jews. They claimed their actions were based on their desire for racial cleansing within their territories. Central suggests that it is at least conceivable that someone could come up with a justification for the holocaust (e.g., the killers thought Read More ›