What does a “tree of life” purport to show? The obvious answer is a tree of life purports to show the pathways of common descent ASSUMING common descent occurred. In the combox to a prior post a commenter who goes by wd400 writes: That we can explain the data so well assuming a tree is evidence for common descent. Wait just a second, you might say. Doesn’t a tree assume common descent rather than demonstrate it? Of course it does. wd400’s comment might just as well be re-cast as: That we can explain the data so well assuming a tree is evidence for a tree. We might be able to say that a tree of life diagram is consistent with Read More ›

As his recent posts in these pages demonstrate, Nick Matzke loves cladistics, and for reasons that defy explication, he seems to think that cladistics demonstrates – rather than assumes – common descent. It really is a stumper. One wonders if his faith commitment to metaphysical naturalism renders him unable to see the circularity of his arguments, or if he does see it and just chooses to look the other way. My money is on the former. I think he is literally unable to grasp the obvious question begging that is immediately apparent to those who do not share his faith. David Berlinski’s skewering of Matzke is particularly fun to watch: [P]hylogenetic methods as they exist now,” [Matzke] writes, “can only Read More ›

In a comment to another post StephenB noted that atheists often argue as follows: “evil exists; therefore God does not exist.” That is true. Yet, the incoherence of the argument should be immediately obvious. Let’s see why. The argument to which Stephen alluded is an abbreviation of a more formal argument that goes like this: Major Premise: If an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being (i.e., God) existed, he would not allow evil to exist. Minor Premise: Evil exists Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist. The problem with the argument is in the word “evil.” What does it mean? If metaphysical naturalism is true – if particles in motion are the only things that exist – then the word “evil” must necessarily Read More ›

There is a forgotten creationist book by engineer and physicist Robert Gange, PhD: Origins and Destiny that was published in 1986. It is available for free online, but for how long, I do not know. It was pioneering, and anticipated arguments that would be found in ID for the next 27 years, and likely beyond. Gange worked in the field of cyrophysics, so it is no surprise he writes with incredible insight regarding thermodynamics. His book is the only book written by a creationist that I agree with on the subject of thermodynamics, and he uses the so-called “New Generalized 2nd Law” to make his case. [the Kelvin-Plank version of the 2nd Law is a special case of the “New Read More ›

I am sorry if it appears that I am beating this horse long after it has expired, but I think it is important to expose the perfidy of prominent Darwinists and the depths to which they will sink when it is plain for all to see. By exposing their shenanigans on a matter that is plain to everyone, we will be able to judge their credibility better when they are arguing more subtle issues. Nick Matzke is one such prominent Darwinist, and his false allegation of quote mining is a case in point. To review, in a previous post I argued that the fossil record did not turn out the way Darwin expected it would. Of course, I will be Read More ›