Wells is the author of Zombie Science, about out-of-date Darwinian rubbish whacked from one edition of a given publicly funded textbook to another, often claiming the protection of law as if it were some kind of Holy Writ that founds a religious republic.
In calculus, the Leibniz notation for the second derivative confuses most students. It turns out, rightfully so. The notation for the second derivative turns out to actually be incorrect. Earlier this year, I got a paper published detailing the problem and the corrected notation. In the video below, I introduce the new notation, why the […]
It will be interesting to see whether Steve Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt has as much influence in years to come as Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial.
IVP will be officially releasing it December 10.
The trouble is, as Michael Egnor says, “consensus science” meant not denouncing Epstein. If it now means sanctioning regular witch hunts against anyone who knew the guy, we haven’t made any progress toward rational assessment. Or maybe it’s all just their form of fun.
Sheldon: Post-modernists, which Comfort seems to identify with, have a valid point about scientism’s ideological foundation on MN, but rather than rationally correct the error, as Phillip Johnson spent 29 years doing, they treat it as an ethical lapse justifying their own ideological, irrational behavior.
Talbott: I can think of no fundamental question about evolution whose answer is suggested by the advertised formula for natural selection. Everything depends on what the amazingly diverse sorts of organism actually do as they respond to and shape their environments.
Yes. And with luck, retirement works the same way. Many Darwinians are looking kind of like they could use a break and there is lots to research.
The Ediacaran creatures are fascinating predecessors to be sure. They will likely turn out to be explosions of life, just like the Cambrian, but often not clearly related to it.
Dembski begins by reminding us of the book, Darwin’s Nemesis (2006), which introduced Johnson as “the leading figure” in the intelligent design movement—which he was. Johnson was perhaps the first person after David Berlinski to just ask, point blank, never mind religion or whatever, why does all this tabloid-level nonsense rule biology?
Stonestreet and Morris: Johnson’s articulation that naturalism had not only poisoned science but also law and ethics shaped Chuck Colson’s thinking, and consequently, shaped BreakPoint.
Ethan Siegel: Why does empty space have the properties that it does? Why is the zero-point energy of the fabric of the Universe a positive, non-zero value? And why does dark energy have the behavior we observe it to have, rather than any other?
It’s just a conventional story in favor of hydrothermal vents for the origin of life. Some of us can remember back to when most such stories would begin by announcing that they had proven Darwin right. Funny how the rhetoric is changing.
Interesting. But where did your Big Bang get the flame, guys? No fuel, no flame; no flame, no mechanism. Or have you discovered creation ex nihilo?
The result [of overspecialization], as everyone here knows, is that all biologists know that Evolution doesn’t work in their specialty, but they believe it works generally for the other specialties. Every astronomer knows about the problems of Lambda-CDM model in their specialty but believes it works in the other specialties.