2014

For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter.  We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.”  And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.  That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms . . . Phillip Johnson Johnson’s observation came to mind when I read HeKS comment to a prior post.  That comment recasts Johnson’s observation in terms of Bayesian priors.  It would be cumbersome to put everything in block quotes.  All that follows is HeKS: Read More ›

When someone says “the science is settled” one of two things is true:  (1) they know better and are lying; or (2) they are deeply ignorant about the philosophy of science.  Geraint Lewis, Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Sydney writes: . . . science is like an ongoing courtroom drama, with a continual stream of evidence being presented to the jury.  But there is no single suspect and new suspects regularly wheeled in.  In light of the growing evidence, the jury is constantly updating its view of who is responsible for the data. But no verdict of absolute guilt or innocence is ever returned, as evidence is continually gathered and more suspects are paraded in front of the Read More ›

In my previous post we saw that evolutionist Jerry Coyne claimed that “Darwin showed that ‘design-like’ features could arise from a purely naturalistic process.” That whopper was not even thinly disguised. What is particularly striking about Coyne’s lie is that the science ever since Darwin has not demonstrated this either. It is not as though Coyne was merely confusing something Darwin showed with something that was discovered after Darwin. We are nowhere remotely close to showing that “design-like” features can arise from a purely naturalistic process. Is it possible? Sure, anything is possible. But Coyne wasn’t referring to theoretical possibilities. Unfortunately it turns out this was not simply a rare fib from the University of Chicago evolutionist. In another post Read More ›

I’m not done mining the rich little vein of error ore that Evolve managed to compress into one paragraph.  Evolve writes:  “DNA is a chemical molecule whose components are present in nature. It is not a software program.” Now, it is certainly true that DNA is a chemical molecule whose components are present in nature.  Here is a brief description from Wikipedia: DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions . . . Each nucleotide is composed of a nitrogen-containingnucleobase—either guanine(G), adenine (A), thymine (T), or cytosine (C)—as well as a monosaccharide sugar called deoxyribose and a phosphate group.  The nucleotides are joined to one another in a chain by covalent bonds between the sugar of one nucleotide and Read More ›

In my last post I noted that Darwinists can be proud fundamentalists too. And then a commenter who goes by “Evolve” kindly provided an example in the combox to this post. Evolve writes: [All] of life’s processes can be reduced to chemistry. DNA is a chemical molecule whose components are present in nature. It is not a software program. . . . To deny the weight of our observations and evidence, and invoke imaginary designers requires quite a leap of faith. But who is the real leaper here? One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis Read More ›

Charles Darwin and Edgar Allen Poe were born within one month of each other (February 1809 and January 1809 respectively).  Sadly for someone trying to connect Darwin with “Poe’s Law,” the “Poe” in Poe’s Law takes its name not from Edgar Allen but from Nathan Poe.  From Wikipedia’s article on Poe’s Law: Poe’s law, in broader form, states:  Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of extremism or fundamentalism that someone won’t mistake for the real thing.  The core of Poe’s law is that a parody of something extreme, by nature, becomes impossible to differentiate from sincere extremism. Indeed, when Nathan coined the term he was taking the Darwinist side of an evolution debate.  Read More ›