Part of an excerpt from his new book, Taking Leave of Darwin (2021). Science historian Michael Flannery, among others, have often noted this style of Darwinian argument. One might say that it relies on the public’s willingness to be persuaded of the proposition far more on the innate intellectual value of the proposition.
Darwinist rhetorical tactics
But the war IS actually on logic … and that’s the point
John West: “Reading the rest of her article I realized she simply didn’t know how to frame a proper comparison. She actually was attempting to malign those who support intelligent design, not those who tried to create panic over it. Apparently neither she nor her editor is particularly good with logic.” But that’s the point. The whole enterprise is a war on logic. It’s like the war on math and the war on science. And there is a sophisticated public for that now.
Haeckel’s biased, manipulative, dishonest drawings
It is strange that Haeckel has come up again, so let us first understand just how manipulative and dishonest he was in his books that popularised Evolutionism in Germany and elsewhere. As a start, here is his infamous drawing of heads of men and other primates: This was a time when photography was not ubiquitous, Read More…
Ten (or so) Anti-Intelligent Design Books You Should Read
I have posted the second video in my two part book recommendation series on the YouTube channel. In the previous video I highlighted many books that argue for intelligent design. My view is that proponents of design should face the strongest criticisms possible, and not be afraid of doing so. In line with this philosophy, Read More…
L& FP41: Dawkins, Krauss and trying to pull a world out of “no-thing”
As Cardinal Pell has been recently cleared, perhaps some may be willing to learn from this telling vid: No, Virginia, you do not get a world from no-thing. END
L&FP40: Language is . . . (as a foundation for understanding machine code and mathematical language as just that, linguistic)
It seems we need to clarify language. For, we see in the Ortho types thread: EG, 140: >> . . . Definitions of language: Webster’s: the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community. Britannica: a system of conventional spoken, manual (signed), or written symbols by means of Read More…
L&FP39: How the folded structure (and then the “loading”) of tRNA corrects attempts to reduce protein synthesis to “mere” chemistry
One of the more astonishing rhetorical gambits of objectors to the design inference is to try to suggest that the alphanumeric, code-using, algorithmic information system we see in the D/RNA of the living cell and linked protein synthesis is not really an information system, it all reduces to chemical reaction trains. A common associated gambit Read More…
A note on layer-cake communication systems and protocols
There is a live exchange on the molecular nanotech communication systems in the cell that is trying to reduce them to Chemistry; where a chemical reaction is a physical process. Accordingly, I beg to remind one and all regarding layered communication systems and protocols: This is an elaboration of the general communication system: Here is Read More…
Further on Sev (and EG) vs the Christian Faith in community
Some of our frequent commenters have recently made fairly explicit claims against/challenges to the Christian Faith, especially as it intersects community. For one, in responding to my earlier headlining of a response to his claims, Sev has now gone on record: Sev, 2: >> where some Christians imply that the faith as a whole has Read More…
On Sev’s “privileg[ing]” vs liberty as the due balance of rights, freedoms and duties (also, on truth vs warrant)
Sometimes, one of our commenters raises a significant matter that is worth headlining and further analysing. In a recent thread, Seversky dismissies Christian concerns about anti-Christian bigotry, bias, lockouts and the like, with: Sev, 14: ” This doesn’t sound like a crusade against Christianity so much as the faith playing the victim because they are Read More…
Monod’s “objectivity” (= naturalistic scientism) and begging big questions
Jacques Monod won a Nobel Prize in 1965 for work on the mechanism of genetic replication and protein synthesis. By 1970 – 71, he published a pivotal book, known in English as Chance and Necessity, which is a part of the context in which Design Thinkers have argued that no, intelligently directed configuration, design, is Read More…
Stephen Meyer interview with Ben Shapiro
Today [oops –> recent], here: Starts with Wikipedia’s “pseudoscience” accusation. And, Creationism [in a cheap tuxedo]. END PS: Here is the smoking gun letter by Sir Francis Crick to his son, March 19, 1953, i.e. as he informed his son about his breakthrough:
drc466 exposes the argument from incredulity fallacy
Here at UD, we will headline particularly noteworthy comments spotted in discussion threads. Today, drc466 has a gem, in the Show a Natural OoL for $10 mn prize thread,: drc466 , no. 21:] “there is nothing more irritating than the constant (invalid) refrain from evolutionists of “argument from incredulity”. And the variant “God of the Read More…
Logic and First Principles: Summarising first principles and duties of reason
As we continue to ponder the core of responsible rationality, it is helpful to ponder a summary of what we have won: I recall, way back, being taught how the seventeen first equations of Boolean Algebra [which can all be verified as equivalence relations through truth tables] were of equally axiomatic status. But then, I Read More…
The issue of epistemic rights and duties
Back in 2007, “todangst ” of the “rational response squad” atheistical site wrote: To say that I am within my ‘epistemic rights’ to hold to a claim, I am saying that I violate no epistemic responsibilities or obligations in believing in my claim. (Rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand.) An epistemic obligation is an intellectual responsibility Read More…