Intelligent Design

DRC writes: Evolution postulates that the History of Life is due to gradual evolution of form generating novel features and functions, which has been a result of strictly naturalistic random mutations and variations of genetic material. This cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory. This cannot be illustrated from fossils in the fossil record. This cannot be proven false. Proving me wrong should be a simple exercise. Simply point to a single experiment, performed over the last 150 years of evolutionary experimentation and investigation, that shows random unguided mutation resulting in a completely novel function (e.g. a rat growing wings, a fruit fly that can spin webs, e.coli. becoming not e.coli.). Your response will no doubt take the form of “there Read More ›

As we know, atheists and agnostics have been smuggling metaphysical truth claims into the study of nature for a long time. Materialism is their God and Darwin is their prophet. Accordingly, they distort the evidence so they can lead it in the direction of the desired outcome—and when it resists—they drag it in kicking and screaming. There can be no question that this is an ethical breach. Injecting world-view commitments into the investigative process violates the integrity of science, just as prohibiting alternative world views violates the dignity of the human person. The two points are connected. If Materialistic Darwinism was a sensible idea, Western institutions wouldn’t place a politically-correct shield around it to protect it from rational scrutiny. In Read More ›

Over at his Sandwalk blog, Professor Larry Moran has recently created something which he has previously declared to be impossible: a moral absolute. Readers might be wondering: what is Professor Moran’s moral absolute all about? Is it about the inherent wrongfulness of killing the innocent, or taking away people’s freedom, or oppressing the poor, or violating a commitment one has given? Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong! Here’s Professor Moran’s new moral absolute, in all its resplendent glory: It is totally wrong, all the time, to discriminate against someone based on their sexual preferences… There is NEVER a time when an enlightened society should tolerate, let alone legalize, bigotry. The reason why I was surprised to read this statement on Professor Read More ›

  “The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge. . . If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today’s climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken? They deal with the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans, argues Dyson, ignoring the effect of biology, i.e., vegetation and topsoil. Further, their predictions rest on models they fall in love with: “You sit in front of a Read More ›

Darwinist: Evolution is a fact fact fact! The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The theory is as well proven as the theory of gravity. IDer: Well, OK. If by “evolution” you mean that the biosphere is very different now than it was in the past, you get no argument from me. Darwinst: Then genuflect with the rest of us at the altar of St. Charles. Bow down damn you. Submit. Acknowledge his genius. IDer: Wait a minute. I thought we were talking about evolution in the broad sense of “the biosphere is different now than it was in the past.” Now you’re asking me to sign off on a particular theory of why it is different. I am not prepared Read More ›

A little over a year ago, I wrote a reply to a post by skeptic John Loftus, arguing that in a godless universe, senseless evils are precisely what we would expect to happen. Shortly afterwards, Jeffery Jay Lowder, President Emeritus (and co-founder) of Internet Infidels, Inc., posted a reply to my post, which I’d like to respond to today. In my post, I accused John Loftus of making seven philosophical errors. Jeffery Jay Lowder has responded to each of my seven points. I’d now like to reply to Lowder’s arguments. Mistake #1: Loftus’ failure to take account of prior probabilities In his reply, Jeffery Jay Lowder conceded that John Loftus had failed to take account of prior probabilities in his Read More ›

I appreciate our commenters here at UD. The comment threads are often more enlightening than the OPs. For example, in the combox to my nullasalus Makes a Point Darwinist wd400 gamely presses the Darwinist line against several ID proponents. This great exchange caught my eye, because it encapsulates in just a few brief comments the entire debate between ID proponents and Darwinists. I especially want to thank wd400 for his civil and patient participation in this thread. Wd400 gets the ball rolling by claiming this article  provides an “in-depth look at what we know about the evolution of one system of cell-types and tissue, approached from a range of angles” phoodoo calls foul: You used one of the most classic Read More ›

First Things has posted a response – of sorts – to Stephen Meredith’s dreadful “Looking for God in All the Wrong Places.” See Intelligent Design Might be Wrong, but not the Way You Think by Stephen H. Webb. It is not the sort of reply someone who understands and advocates ID would have written. But at least it’s something.