Intelligent Design

It is the worst sin of science. Scientists sometimes make mathematical errors. They also make measurement mistakes, logical fallacies and a host of other blunders. They even formulate hypotheses that don’t make sense. But all of these must happen, for to err is human. What scientists don’t do, or at least very rarely do, is knowingly misrepresent science. It’s a nice way of saying scientists don’t lie. It is unacceptable in science. In other fields lying may be routine. It may even be justified and expected. Salespeople lie to buyers and buyers lie back to the salesperson. And that is just one example of many. As financier Jean-Claude Juncker once said, “When it’s serious, you have to lie.” But not Read More ›

The first video from the Engineering and Metaphysics conference is from Arminius Mignea. His talk is about self-replication, and what is really required for self-replication to occur. Mignea reviews current attempts at self-replication, and shows the minimal structures needed for it to occur. The slides for the talk are available here. Enjoy!

Several UD members joined in on the Engineering and Metaphysics 2012 Conference. The conference was not ID-specific, but it was welcoming to ID-oriented content. The goal of the conference was to look at engineering from a wider perspective, and see how engineering, philosophy, science, and theology can all help each other. There were 11 talks, on topics ranging from architecture to search algorithms and from the physicalism/dualism debate to the problem of natural suffering. It had participants from Canada, the East Coast, the West Coast, and Middle America. Theological perspectives included evangelical, pentecostal, catholic, mainline, agnostic, and Messianic Judaism. The conference was a great success, and I believe we will be doing several more in a similar fashion. There is Read More ›

Stephen Jay Gould called them our “honest moments.” The truth is, as evolutionists admitted in one paper, “thorny questions remain” not merely regarding minor details of how evolution is supposed to have created all of biology, but of fundamentals such as how replication, metabolism and energy mechanisms arose. As one evolutionist explained:  Read more

David Hume was not expressing a minority opinion when his character Philo triumphantly concluded against creationism because “a perpetual war is kindled amongst all living creatures,” and that nature is arranged so as “to embitter the life of every living being.” The belief that God never would have intended for this bad world reached back to antiquity and continues today. As evolution professor John Avise affirms:  Read more

A blast from the past. Have you stopped beating your wife? — Yes or No. These are the kinds of tactics that Darwinists use to disqualify all dissent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E This kind of thing should put to shame all in the scientific community who make claim to objective, rational, dispassionate evaluation of evidence. Had I been asked this question I would have responded: Of course I believe in evolution. Living things have changed over time. Only an idiot denies this. However, if “evolution” means that random accidents engineered the most sophisticated information-processing technology ever discovered, in even the simplest living cell — technology so sophisticated and functionally integrated that human engineers marvel at its elegance, error-detection algorithms and repair mechanisms, plus Read More ›

Plants use carbon dioxide and produce oxygen while animals use oxygen and produce carbon dioxide. It’s one of nature’s many Huttonian cycles with “no vestige of a beginning—no prospect of an end.” But what James Hutton could not have dreamt of is the literally astonishing magnificence of the invisible machinery working behind the scenes to sustain the carbon cycle. What would the often misunderstood Scottish polymath say today in response to photosynthesis and the electron transport chain? What would the father of the Scottish Enlightenment conclude from “Nature’s most elaborate nanoscale biological machine” which “converts light energy at unrivaled efficiency of more than 95 percent compared to 10 to 15 percent in the current human-made solar technologies”?  Read more