2013

This my third installment of a discussion I began here and continued here on the validity of the claim that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, or what I call the EC-EE claim. In the first installment we looked at the EC-EE claim itself and asked whether the EC-EE claim is an example of an EC-EE claim that failed to live up to its own standard. In the second installment, we looked at what exactly are the extraordinary claims being made by ID that so require such extraordinary evidence, or is it Darwinian evolution that is really making the extraordinary claim and so far has failed the EC-EE test? In this third post I want to look at the evidentiary side Read More ›

Superficially, the phrase “survival of the fittest” seems undeniably true, but in the proximal and ultimate sense it is false. If this claim is false then Darwinism is also false. The notion of “survival of the fittest” is an illusion in the general sense though seemingly true in the Darwinian sense. Critical oversights in Darwin’s Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection and in Dennett’s algorithm can be demonstrated. Finally, population genetics can be used to critique Dawkins Weasel, Avida and various other fallacious computer simulations that are used in promoting the falsehoods of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism. To demonstrate that “survival of the fittest is false” it is sufficient but not necessary to demonstrate “death of the fittest is Read More ›

Insect eyes may be tiny but they belong to a “remarkably sophisticated class of imaging systems”. They have compound eyes, made up of hundreds or thousands of optical units or facets. Considered as optical systems, these facets are simpler than the vertebrate eye design because there are no moving parts to focus the light. “In the case of the ‘apposition’ eye of daylight insects, each facet is optically isolated from its neighbour and equipped with its own lens and set of photoreceptors. Because each facet accepts photons from only a small angle in space, the light sensitivity of apposition eyes is rather low and the spatial resolution is limited by the number of facets that can be packed on to Read More ›

One of our frequent objectors, JLA, has listed the consequences of evolutionary materialism, by way of objecting to BA’s further reply to the current crop of remarks at TSZ. (NB: I at first thought he might be being satirical, but, sadly, he is actually playing a straight hand. {Let me make this plain: FULL MARKS for sheer raw honesty. That needs to be respected and JLA must be treated with dignity. From what he says below, he is exposing what he sees as the too often unacknowledged consequences of evolutionary materialism, as what we could call an agnostic in transition.} ) I excerpted his list, and added some remarks on what the points reveal about evolutionary materialism. Not, because JLA Read More ›

Do you think the world arose spontaneously? No one would agree with that, not even an evolutionist. But that is, in fact, what evolutionists believe. Indeed they say it is a fact. A fact as much as gravity or the round Earth. There must be no design, no final causes, no teleology. The world must have arisen by itself—spontaneously. And no, natural selection does not change that. There is no magic ratchet or feedback loop to make the hypothesized evolutionary process not a spontaneous process. And in any case natural selection is finally meeting its long-awaited demise, thus confirming even more so what it is to be an evolutionist.  Read more

Today is the last day of the special pre-order offer for Darwin’s Doubt (43% off + four free digital books + free shipping). Go here to take advantage of the offer now!

My thanks go to KF for pointing out the dustup over at TSZ over my last post.  I found this little gem at TSZ particularly amusing.  Allan Miller quotes me and responds: Barry:  “Materialists are obliged to believe …” Miller:   … absolutely nothing. There is no obligation.   Well Allan, I suppose it depends on what one means by “obliged.”    My dictionary defines it in two ways:  “to require or constrain as by law or command”  or  “to require or constrain as by conscience”  Perhaps our difference lies in the different ways we have used the word.  You are certainly correct that no one is going to require or constrain materialists by law or command to accept the conclusions that are Read More ›

(In case you think this is about a strawman, cf. here) A few days ago UD President, BA, posted on the topic, “If My Eyes Are a Window, Is There Anyone Looking Out?“ Reaction at objecting blog TSZ has been explosive. For just one instance — a slice of the cake reveals its ingredients, we can see ME asserting in a newly set up sandbox: Your clear implication, William, is that no one here knows anything about “centuries of philosophical debate.” We are not ignoramuses here. What you and Arrington attribute to “materialists” is simply false; you have no clue what “materialism” is. Here again you stumble because of your choice to remain profoundly ignorant of science while attempting to Read More ›