I love Kantian Naturalist.  Even when I disagree with him, which is frequently, he is always good for a thought-provoking statement. Consider this exchange in the comment thread to an earlier post: Barry: [Why] do we always argue about which side of some arbitrary line of demarcation our theory falls on? If my beliefs about biological origins are true, what difference does it make to me whether Karl Popper would have said those beliefs are on one side or the other of the line? The issue is the truth of the matter, not the boxes in which we choose to put that truth. In arriving at truth we summon and employ to the best of our ability our powers of Read More ›

Here. Why don’t they just revoke the science creds of anyone who thinks there is more to know than Darwin ((“the best idea anyone ever had”) did? Alternatively, life has moved on.

I am a big fan of television show Breaking Bad.  For those who are unfamiliar with the show, let me give a brief synopsis of the plot.  Walter White is a technically brilliant chemist but an underachiever at life (at least by his own lights).  He had a chance to make big money using his chemical skills, but instead he wound up teaching chemistry to bored high school students while moonlighting at a car wash to make ends meet.  He finds out he has lung cancer and probably only a short time to live.  This is especially devastating to him because he knows he will not leave enough money behind for his wife and children to live comfortably. Here is where things get really Read More ›

For me, despite 43 years of indoctrination in atheistic materialism and Darwinian orthodoxy, it was a very simple logical exercise to conclude that living systems are the product of intelligent design. The simplest living cell includes highly sophisticated, functionally integrated information-processing machinery, with error-detection-and-repair algorithms and their implementation. The notion that random errors, whether filtered by natural selection or not, can produce such technology, is a transparently absurd proposition. It’s really just that simple. The great Arthur Eddington once said that, philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of nature was repugnant (referring to the Big Bang). It might have been philosophically repugnant, but it was true. Only those who find the notion that living systems Read More ›

The comments our Darwinist friends put up on this site never cease to amaze.  Consider, as a for instance, Kantian Naturalist’s comment that appears as comment 9 to kairosfocus’ Infographic: The science of ID post.  The post sets forth a simple summary of the case for ID, and KN responds:  What I like about this infographic is that it makes really clear where the problem with intelligent design lies. Here’s the argument: (1) We observe that all As are caused by Bs. (2) Cs are similar to As in relevant respects. (3) Therefore, it is highly probable that Cs are also caused by Bs. But this is invalid, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. KN has been posting Read More ›

HT, ENV. Let’s Embed, from here:   Explore more infographics like this one on the web’s largest information design community – Visually.   And, let us discuss. END