2019

The main thesis of Behe’s new book, Darwin Devolves, surrounds what Behe calls “poison-pill” mutations, which gives an organism a quick fix, but which can run the risk of being rendered incapable of utilizing future needed adaptations. IOW, breaking and blunting genes to adapt to new environments become changes that get locked in due to NS’ tendency to root out anything but what is the ‘fittest’ in any environment–and this can include even beneficial mutations being rooted out due to beneficial mutations being so rare and showing up way too late to modify the adapted organism. So, today at Phys.Org there is a PR (press release) about a study involving viruses. It turns out that even at the level of Read More ›

We live in a Kant-haunted age, where the “ugly gulch” between our inner world of appearances and judgements and the world of things in themselves is often seen as unbridgeable. Of course, there are many other streams of thought that lead to widespread relativism and subjectivism, but the ugly gulch concept is in some ways emblematic. Such trends influence many commonly encountered views, most notably our tendency to hold that being a matter of taste, beauty lies solely in the eye of the beholder. And yet, we find the world-famous bust of Nefertiti: Compare, 3400 years later; notice the symmetry and focal power of key features for Guinean model, Sira Kante : And then, ponder the highly formal architecture of Read More ›

Win a $50 VISA gift card for the deemed best answer to this question: Given the pervasive pattern of “sudden appearance” and “stasis” in the fossil record, does science need a Theory of Stasis or Theory of Conservation to better explain how nature actually functions. Explain. How would such a theory help to strengthen an inference to intelligent design? Feel free to hash out ideas here. For possible hints go to: Stasis: Life goes on but evolution does not happen and Law Of Conservation Of Information vs Darwinism Last month’s question was How would you would respond to someone when they claim that Intelligent Design is merely an appeal to a “god-of-the-gaps”? Entry 6 was selected.