the fossils of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Cambrian ExplosionÃ¢â‚¬Â period, near the base of the geological column, include some of the most sophisticated eyes ever known to have existed Ã¢â‚¬â€ the compound eyes of trilobites have double calcite lenses, which defeat any slow evolutionary explanation, and, what is more, they have no precursor in the rocks
Allen Orr’s article against ID is now out in the New Yorker (go here). It’s as bad as I thought it would be. I’m on the road right now but will comment on it later in the week. Note that I remarked last week on this blog that a fact-checker from the New Yorker had […]
The scientific case against Darwinism is largely won.
Biologists have often thought about evolution in the same way many think about death and taxes — something inevitable. But Romesberg is a chemist, and he found himself asking not only how, but why evolution happens.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“intelligent design theoryÃ¢â‚¬Â (ID) … its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed.
The only reason for raising such questions before state education authorities is not to deepen the scientific understanding of teenagers but rather to sow deliberate confusion.
to be effective in its support, the scientific community needs to understand the empirical claims of ID
They got Charles Darwin trapped out there on Highway Five
Judge says to the High Sheriff,
“I want him dead or alive
Either one, I don’t care.”
Scientific criticism of evolution should not be muted for fear of being labeled a creationist.
Evolutionary logic has a further advantage, namely, the results are not required to be true, thus eliminating a tiresome (and now superfluous) restriction on the growth of evolutionary knowledge.
The New Yorker is doing a major piece on intelligent design next week written by Allen Orr
The key is to understand that the nature-supernature distinction poses a false dilemma. There is a third option.
I gave the entire Washington Post article on Phil Johnson here two days ago (go here). I want to draw your attention to two quotes in that article, one by Stuart Kauffman, the other by Theo Roszak. Kauffman is a well known self-organizational theorist. Roszak was a popular countercultural figure two and three decades ago […]
Over a decade ago, Phillip Johnson, in his public lectures, used to describe his critique of evolutionary naturalism as encapsulated in an analysis of three words: science, evolution, and creation. According to Johnson, by suitably equivocating about the meaning of these words, Darwinists were able to confuse the public and themselves into consenting to a […]
Doubting Rationalist ‘Intelligent Design’ Proponent Phillip Johnson, and How He Came to Be http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051401222_pf.html By Michael Powell Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, May 15, 2005; D01