If you attend Taede Smedes talk at Trinity College this Thursday on “Why is Special Divine Action a Probem?” beware that his use of the term “theological naturalism” falls into the Warfare Thesis category. As Smedes explains:  Read more

The first part of the video below, which is essentially my invited talk at a recent meeting in Erzurum, Turkey, is based on my 2013 BioComplexity article “Entropy and Evolution.” However, I want to focus here on the second part, beginning at the 19:40 mark, which discusses the remarkable similarities between the evolution of life and the evolution of human technology. The primary argument of Darwinists, from Darwin on down, has never been “natural selection of random variations is a reasonable explanation for evolution,” it has always been “evolution doesn’t look like the way God would have done things, therefore it must have been due to natural causes, and all other natural theories are even more far-fetched than ours.” [youtube Read More ›

UB takes down the “life is only fancy chemistry” shibboleth: AVS: The transcription and translation processes are entirely based on chemistry.  Can you explain why functional sequence specific DNA cannot be reduced to chemistry? UB: Because there is a chemical discontinuity between the nucleic medium and the amino acid effect that must be preserved in order for translation to be obtained. AVS: And what is this chemical discontinuity exactly, Upright? UB: There is nothing you can do to the nucleic pattern GCA to relate it to Alanine, except translate it. Which is what the cell does. AVS: It’s related by another nucleic pattern, bound to alanine, that has a specific sequence that associates with that GCA. UB: The base pairing Read More ›

Let me ask you a question – is evolution a theory of similarity, or one of transformation? This is a big question because it affects the nature and adequacy of evidence presented to support it. What’s really surprising is the answer that evolutionists give to this question.
Read More ›

Conclusion: Not even remotely close. See here. Yet we are still expected to bow and scrape to our lab-coated betters?  

My dictionary defines a “bogart” as: “a person who hogs or monopolizes something; or a person who acts in a tough or aggressive way.” In a recent exchange Upright Biped took down a bogart in his usual inimitable way. The last paragraph pointing out the position of many materialists is ultimately faith-based is a gem. Acartia_bogart: Finally: Scientists clearly admit that they don’t know how life originated, and will never know (unless they invent time travel). But they will narrow it down to a small number if good contenders. And intelligent design won’t be amongst them because that still leaves the question of how the intelligent designer originated. By definition, an intelligent designer must be alive. You can call it Read More ›

One of the most bizarre defenses of evolution, which I first encountered years ago, is that contradictory evidence doesn’t matter because it was investigated by an evolutionist. Like planting your flag on the Moon, or like a trademark or patent, the first one there, or the first one with the idea, gets to claim it for their own. Evolutionists discovered ORFans, for example, so ORFans cannot be contrary to evolution.  Read more