2015

NB: RDM paper, here In the current VJT discussion thread on What Evidence is, RD Miksa asks a telling question (slightly adjusted for readability) of naturalistic hyperskeptics: RDM, 25:  . . . the ironic thing to note in terms of comments from the anti-super-naturalist side is how they fail to realize that their very own arguments undermine their own naturalistic position. Indeed, note their use of the poorly-formulated but often used mantra “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Note how this mantra is used to claim–in the context of this discussion–how it is apparently more rational to believe that hundreds of witnesses hallucinated or colluded or lied rather than believe that a man levitated. But the problem is, such an argument Read More ›

Professor Jerry Coyne has written a post titled, Ken Ham vs. Dawkins: On the nature of science and physical law, in which he criticizes Ken Ham’s claim that evolution is a “historical” science, dealing with events that can’t be observed, and hence can’t be verified. Coyne contends that “there is no distinction between historical science and real-time experimental science: both are based on observation, prediction, and testability.” First, evolution can make predictions about the past which scientists can subsequently verify (e.g. the prediction that “birds evolved from dinosaurs and whales from land-dwelling animals”). It can also make “retrodictions,” by making sense of previously puzzling data: for instance, it can explain “biogeographic patterns like the absence of endemic mammals on oceanic Read More ›

There has been some discussion about what a politician should say when asked by a reporter, Do you believe in evolution? My response would be: Of course! Everyone with an IQ above room temperature, who isn’t a science denier, knows that it is an established scientific fact, supported by all the evidence, not to mention computer simulations, that random genetic mutations aided by natural selection turned ancient microbes into Mozart in approximately three billion years (that’s about 10^17 seconds). If evolution can do that, it can do anything. Scientists say it. I believe it. That settles it! By the way Mr. reporter, you believe that too, don’t you? Surely you aren’t a science denier.

On another thread we have been discussing abiogenesis in particular, but there was also some discussion about the evolution of an irreducibly complex system. Commenter CHartsil indicated that “we actually watched an IC system evolve” in reference to Lenski’s E. coli research. At my request, he has posted a brief summary of the research and his take, which I am now elevating to a new thread on this important topic. For those who disagree with CHartsil’s take, strong objections on substantive grounds are of course welcome, whether relating to Lenski’s research or CHartsil’s interpretation of it, but not irrelevant personal attacks. Thank you. —– Guest Post by CHartsil: This is a pro-ID board so I doubt I need to explain Read More ›

While I disagree with almost everything Professor Larry Moran wrote in reply to my post, Is Larry Moran a conspiracy theorist?, he did at least ask a good question: what counts as evidence? In his latest post, he forthrightly declares: I don’t know how to define “valid evidence” and I doubt very much if there’s anyone else who can offer a rigorous definition. This post of mine is an attempt at such a definition. Let’s begin with “valid evidence,” and defer for the time being the question of what constitutes good evidence. The question of what counts as valid evidence for a hypothesis was answered nearly 300 years ago, by the English statistician and clergyman Thomas Bayes (pictured above, courtesy Read More ›