Intelligent Design

According to Sidney Altman it makes sense that there are enzymes, such as RNase P, which include RNA components in addition to proteins. After all, the mother of all such ribonucleoproteins, the ribosome, is too complex to have evolved by itself. Surely less complex ribonucleoproteins must have evolved in the process:  Read more

Evolutionists have always liked our immune system for its apparent Darwinian process of generating randomized antibodies and, through a feedback-selection process, amplifying those antibodies that successfully bind to the pathogens. Is it not an example of natural selection acting on random mutations—a proof-of-concept of Darwinian evolution before our very eyes? Such conclusions are another sign of the religious dogma that drives science. In fact our immune system not only operates in an infinitesimally smaller design space than would evolution, it performs its experiments astronomically faster than evolution ever could. Furthermore our immune system comes with a built-in, complex, feedback system that performs the selection. In other words, the selection is not natural as it is supposed to be in evolution. Read More ›

UPDATE: In his comment #9 below, Sal Cordova says he doesn’t believe that a backward running tornado, turning rubble into houses and cars, would violate the second law either (more precisely, he says the burden of proof is on me to show mathematically that it would, as though I were the first to claim this). So, no, if you don’t think the second law should be used in any application that isn’t quantifiable, and there are others with this point of view, you aren’t going to think it has anything to do with evolution either, that’s about all you need to know about our disagreement. My point of view, and that of most general physics textbooks (thermodynamics texts, on the Read More ›

Scientists and engineers building miniaturized airborne vehicles might want to look to nature for their next breakthrough. At 0.40 mm Euryplatea nanaknihali is a technological wonder that dwarfs even the closest man-made competition.  Read more

The abrupt appearance of many plant species was, for Charles Darwin, extraordinary. But the fossil record is not the only problem with plants. Plants also don’t fit into the evolutionary tree very well. Their DNA comparisons are inconsistent with their visible features, as discussed in the Nova documentary, First Flower:  Read more

ID proponents and creationists should not use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to support ID. Appropriate for Independence Day in the USA is my declaration of independence and disavowal of 2nd Law arguments in support of ID and creation theory. Any student of statistical mechanics and thermodynamics will likely find Granville Sewell’s argument and similar arguments not consistent with textbook understanding of these subjects, and wrong on many levels. With regrets for my dissent to my colleagues (like my colleague Granville Sewell) and friends in the ID and creationist communities, I offer this essay. I do so because to avoid saying anything would be a disservice to the ID and creationist community of which I am a part.

 [Granville Sewell  responds to Sal Cordova here. ]

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, I don’t think Granville Sewell 2nd law arguments are correct. An author of the founding book of ID, Mystery of Life’s Origin, agrees with me:

“Strictly speaking, the earth is an open system, and thus the Second Law of Thermodynamics cannot be used to preclude a naturalistic origin of life.”

Walter Bradley, Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life

Read More ›

Elliot Sober recently wrote a piece showing how Darwinian evolution and theism can be reconciled. It is interesting for two reasons. First of all, it never calls into question the premise – whether Darwinian evolution is itself true. Second, it’s primary purpose is political – to give Darwinian evolution political cover in the courts. For me, the more interesting of these is the first. Sober basically asks if random mutations can be compatible with theism. But the bigger question is, are random mutations even the cause of evolution when it occurs? The evidence continues to gather that the evidence for that is no. It does not matter if the random mutation hypothesis is compatible with theism, or compatible with God’s Read More ›