I have an interesting story to tell. When I was in elementary school back in the 1950s a man came into my classroom and talked to the teacher. I was taken into another room by this man. He gave me puzzles to figure out, and timed me with a stop watch. I thought that this was very weird. After these tests I was returned to my classmates with no explanation. Many years later, upon reflecting about and remembering this event, I asked my mom what this was all about. She told me that as a result of an IQ test I had taken (they did that back in those days) I had scored the highest IQ ever recorded in the Read More ›
The resolution of the debate about the creative powers of natural selection is dead simple and utterly trivial to figure out. 1) Natural selection throws stuff out. Throwing stuff out has no creative power. 2) Existing biological information, mixed and matched, can be filtered by natural selection, as in sexual reproduction, but nothing inherently new is created. 3) Random errors can produce survivability quotients, but only in circumstances in which overall functional degradation supports survival in a pathological environment (e.g., bacterial antibiotic resistance), and only given massive probabilistic resources and a few trivial mutational events capable of producing the survival advantage. 4) Random errors are inherently entropic, and the more complex a functionally-integrated system becomes, the more destructive random errors Read More ›
I’m just wondering. ID proponents have been called creationists in cheap tuxedos. Intelligent design theory has been called “intelligent design creationism.” It seems to me that to be consistent, theistic evolutionists such as Francis Collins should be called — with an obviously pejorative intent — evolutionary creationists, or perhaps creationists in expensive tuxedos. Is there a double standard here, or am I missing something?
That’s the materialist/Darwinist way, which is quintessentially antithetical to the scientific enterprise. Here we learn that: The earliest cells were unstable chemical systems that survived by combining a handful of shaky carbon-based assemblies together, researchers say. How do “researchers” know that the earliest cells were unstable chemical systems that survived by combining a handful of shaky carbon-based assemblies together? They know no such thing. They just made it all up. All evidence suggests that the earliest cells must have been highly sophisticated information-processing systems. There is no known chemical or stochastic mechanism that can accomplish this task. The most important point is to notice the rhetoric: The earliest cells were… This is a statement of certitude — essentially a statement Read More ›
I’m allergic to bee stings, and was recently stung by a bee in our home because we have a bee infestation in our attic. My hand swelled up and I was in pain for almost a week. (I couldn’t even play the piano!) As a result of this, I checked out Internet links on bee extermination. Here we learn: Ever wonder why bees use hexagons to make beehives? Two reasons. First, bees want to enclose the largest possible space with the least amount of wax. With this in mind, a circle would be best. So why don’t they use circular combs? Because hexagons are the shape with the most sides that “tesselate”. In other words, if you put a bunch Read More ›
This from the compassionate, inclusive, tolerant, atheist community. Get yours while there’s still some left!
In the News post here we discover: This rule [each side gets its say] presents a challenge when one side of a controversy obviously lacks merit. The notion that chance and physical law can turn dirt into Chopin in 10^17 seconds obviously lacks merit. What about that? …treating climate change naysayers as cranks. But wait a minute. In the 1970s the scientific consensus was that the earth was entering a dangerous cooling period, possibly even a new ice age (caused by human pollution of course, with industrial particulates in the atmosphere reflecting sunlight), and it was even proposed that soot should be strewn on glaciers to help them melt and avoid the impending global-cooling calamity. Oops. Now the planet is Read More ›
Today I revisited the work that convinced me that contemporary Darwinism is bankrupt. That work is Michael Denton’s 1986 opus: Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. The chapter I reference I do so for a special purpose. The puzzle of perfection in biology, and the puzzle of the mathematical perfection of the laws of physics to make life possible in our universe, should suggest design to anyone who thinks rationally, in my view. I’ll quote only one comment from Denton in my brief essay here: It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research Read More ›
Our engineering department often gets feasibility-study contracts. The client has an idea, but wants to know if he should pursue further investment and research into a proposed solution to an engineering problem. Our team goes to work. We use all our resources and experience to evaluate the suggested engineering solution. Our team recommends three possible avenues of approach: 1) Based on our analysis, the probability that it could work is so small that no further investment of effort or resources should be made. 2) Based on our analysis, there is a reasonable chance that this engineering solution could work, but we’ll need to build prototypes and test them. In addition, our analysis suggests that further design modifications should be made Read More ›
With what is now known about the fine-tuning of the laws of physics for the production of a universe that “knew” we were coming (Freeman Dyson), and with what is now known about the sophisticated information-processing systems and technology found in even the simplest living cell (not to mention the human mind), it is incomprehensible to me that this evidence would lead any rational person to the conclusion that it all came about by chance and necessity, and not by design. Either I have lost my mind, or materialists have lost theirs. There is no third option.
Here’s another delightful offering from the compassionate, tolerant, inclusive, diversity-promoting atheist community. As usual, it includes a plug for “evolution.” …the lineup includes atheist speakers, a rapper who raps about evolution and a “kiddy pool” where boys and girls will be able to scientifically walk on water. There will also be a number of bands performing – the most famous of which is Aiden. They are featured in a video on the “Rocky Beyond Belief” website that includes images of burning churches and bloody crosses. Among the lyrics: “Love how the [sic] burn your synagogues, love how they torch your holy books. The group is no stranger to strong lyrics. Another of their songs says, “F*** your God, F*** your Read More ›
FEA = finite element analysis PR = Poisson’s Ratio E = Young’s modulus Ro = mass density EOS = equation of state Darwinian computer simulationists have no idea what I’m talking about, but they should. A thorough understanding of FEA, PR, E, Ro, and EOS is a prerequisite for any computer-simulationist who hopes to have any confidence that his computer simulation will have any validity concerning the real world (and this just concerns transient, dynamic, nonlinear mechanical systems — nothing that even approaches, by countless orders of magnitude, the complexity, sophistication, and functional integration of biological systems). Even with all of my understanding and years of experience, I would never expect anyone to accept the results of one of my Read More ›
In answer to the question, I suggest that they have. Materialist philosophy inevitably leads to transparent absurdities and self-contradiction, whether moral relativism (a truth claim about morality that no truth claims about morality are valid), or that random errors can produce sophisticated information-processing technology (for which there is no evidence and much disconfirming evidence). The no-free-will thing is yet further evidence of the lobotomizing influence of materialist philosophy. Just the other day I was in the supermarket, and decided to treat myself to some ice cream. I like the Haagen-Dazs coffee and dark chocolate varieties. I thought to myself, “Self, which flavor would you like to purchase?” I chose the dark chocolate. A thoroughgoing materialist would argue that my choice Read More ›
Darwinism has been the most prolific progenitor of junk pseudoscience in the history of junk pseudoscience. One might even call Darwinism the universal common ancestor of junk pseudoscience in the last century and a half. (“Junk pseudoscience” is not redundant. Pseudoscience is worthless. Junk pseudoscience is less than worthless, that is, destructive.) Once unsupported Darwinian speculation and storytelling became acceptable within the academy, and was legitimized as “science,” all bets were off. One might write a paper with the title, A Scientific Study In Evolutionary Musicology: How Darwinian Evolution Explains the Origin of Mozart’s Symphony No. 40 in G minor. This might make for a great Ph.D. thesis for a young musician with a double major in music and evolutionary Read More ›
It seems to me that they do, and that they are. I made the following comment in vjtorley’s thread here: Something that must be kept in mind is that, if proponents of the creative power of the Darwinian mechanism are correct, every aspect of every biological system in every living thing that has ever existed — from functional proteins, to the flagellum, to the human mind — must be approachable in a step-by-tiny-step fashion through the accumulation of random errors. This should strike reasonable people as belief in something that can only be described as a miracle. One can easily get lost in the obfuscation and misdirection of Darwinists, with endless claims that one must read endless “peer-reviewed scientific papers” Read More ›