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 ›
In a recent debate between Stephen Meyer and Karl Giberson, Giberson (a well-known theistic evolutionist) related what he thought was how ID could proceed in order for him to take it more seriously as a scientific endeavor. I thought it was a very thoughtful response, and posted it here for you.
Read More ›
Thought you all might be interested in a new essay of mine on whether or not we should teach our students methodological materialism.
Read More ›
I originally wrote this for a friend, but decided that other people might be interested, too. Anyway, this is not a blow-by-blow, and I’m sure I’m missing some important points, but here is my commentary on the debate. If parts of it read like an email to a friend, well, that’s because that’s where it originated 🙂 Overall impression – Ken Ham made an excellent (and better) initial presentation, but he faltered quite a bit at answering questions from both Bill Nye and the audience, in which part Bill Nye was the clear winner. Where I Thought Ken Ham Succeeded, and Nye Failed One thing I was surprised at was that Bill Nye completely discounted the distinction between operational science Read More ›
One of my favorite biologists is Gunter Wagner. He makes the claim in Genome Biology and Evolution that evolvability and modularity are highly associated. While not proof of a requirement, I think that Wagner is on the right track. In fact, this sort of research can actually bridge the gap between Intelligent Design and Evolutionary biology. The main critique ID has for evolutionary biology is that the haphazard mutation/selection paradigm does not create organisms. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they didn’t evolve in some way, but it does rule out the haphazard mechanisms. As I pointed out in 2008, there is a difference between “parameterized” evolution and “open-ended” evolution. Parameterized evolution requires information about the most likely productive ways to Read More ›
There are three main approaches to current origin-of-life studies – metabolism-first, replication-first, and membrane-first. The problem with each of these approaches is that they ignore the reality of irreducible complexity in self-replicating system.
Read More ›
Tania Lombrozo has a great piece up at NPR on why, more importantly than common ground, is charitable ground.
Read More ›
I have long been a big fan of amateurs participating in science. Here is a great article from Popular Mechanics about how people can get started doing just that.
Mark Armitage has been recently noted here on UD for having possibly been fired from his job for reporting facts that others don’t like. In a recent podcast, PZ Myers takes Armitage’s findings to task:
Read More ›
There is currently a discussion going on about Nagel’s new book, Mind and Cosmos between Ed Feser and Jason Rosenhouse. Feser takes Rosenhouse to task pretty well but there’s one thing that I think he overlooks – Rosenhouse actually winds up conceding the entire argument at the end.
Read More ›
I just wanted to extend my congratulations to Deborah Haarsma, the new president of BioLogos! I hope that in the coming years, whether BioLogos embraces Intelligent Design or not, they can at least come to understand better the positions we hold. I have not read Dr. Haarsma’s book on creation/evolution/intelligent design, but I would be interested to hear from people who have. Anyway, many congratulations, and I hope the BioLogos Foundation’s search for truth is effective and fruitful.
I am a big fan of numbers. One of the reasons that I like Intelligent Design is because it presents a quantitative approach to many issues and questions that were previously unquantifiable. However, sometimes an over obsession with quantity can cause one to get a distorted picture of reality. Read More
A disturbing feature of the debate over origins is the fact that many evolutionists, rather than offering facts or ideas, instead use the rhetorical tricks to push their ideas. Some of these are more subtle than others. One tactic that has been popular for well over a decade is this – if a Darwin-doubter makes a claim that natural selection (or some other idea) might be challenged in the literature by some otherwise-orthodox figure in biology, then one of Darwin’s modern supporters is almost guaranteed to send an email like the following (I’d be surprised if there wasn’t actually a template for this): Dear [[mainstream biologist]], I have been viciously fighting the evil creationists to prevent biology from being thrust Read More ›
In the spirit of Christmas, I thought I would share with you all two intellectual gifts I received from my parents growing up. Read More