Intelligent Design

As we saw in the previous post, the consensus position among evolutionists is that evolution is a fact, every bit as much as gravity, the round Earth and heliocentrism are facts. But the scientific evidence does not show evolution to be a fact, so what’s going on? For example, evolutionists refer to the fossil record, but the fossils reveal what species existed in the past, not how they got there. Minor adaptations in lineages are suggested in the fossils, but large-scale evolutionary change must be inferred to occur between different fossil species. In fact, the fossil record shows bursts of diversity and new forms appearing abruptly.  Read more

The argument against Behe’s characterization of the bacterial flagella as demonstrating “irreducible complexity” has been attacked by Nick Matzke and others on the grounds that the flagellar proteins have simply been “coopted” from already existing flagellar proteins. A recently discovered organism found in “a little lake 30 kilometer south of Oslo in Norway” has caused a stir. An analysis of its genome has found that it has almost, if not completely, nothing in common with any known organisms. It is seen as a new ‘branch’ on the putative “Tree of Life.” Quoting from the article: When researchers from the University of Oslo, Norway compared its genes with all other known species in the world, they saw that the protozoan did Read More ›

In the course of the exchanges on Dr Matzke’s clip on what “science” says can and cannot be so regarding miracles, he has made an interesting comment, here at 15: . . . I still haven’t seen anyone present a good argument as to why we can’t just say that science is the study of the usual course of events . . . Of course, he — sadly, misleadingly — failed to inform us that this highlighted phrase was taken from my own remarks in the original post (and which were followed up in the thread): It goes without needing emphasis that those who experienced the sequence A –> B –> C . . .  here [–> A, the last Read More ›

A new paper out of Germany on the evolution of animal embryos reveals yet again the typical trajectory of evolution’s treatment of the science. Evidence that is barely understood is declared to confirm powerfully evolution. Then, years later, when science looks under the hood and uncovers the incredible details, the mismatch between the data and the theory becomes more clear. At that point the evidence, rather than confirming the theory, is interpreted according to the theory. Rather than the evidence explaining the theory, it is the theory that is explaining the evidence, no matter how awkward. In the end the evidence is contorted every which way in order to serve the theory of evolution. All of this must be presented with great Read More ›

Visitors to the Grand Canyon, and especially those who hike to Plateau Point at the end of Bright Angel Trail, will see a major change in rock type when looking into the inner canyon. The steep walls reveal metamorphosed basement rocks, but resting on these are the horizontally-bedded fresher looking Tapeats Sandstones. The linear boundary between them is known as the “Great Unconformity”. There are many other unconformities to be found in the Grand Canyon, but this one is by far the most dramatic. It can be traced as far as the eye can see – and beyond. It is found on most continents: “The Great Unconformity is well exposed in the Grand Canyon, but this geomorphic surface, which records Read More ›

By now, I imagine most of my readers will have watched the infamous video clip featuring activist Dan Savage’s comments on “the bull—t in the Bible,” during a talk he recently gave to the National High School Journalist Conference in Seattle. The text of Savage’s remarks can be found in a post by a contributor named Sigmund, over at the Website Why Evolution Is True. (The font color is easier on the eye than the original transcript at Towleroad.) P. Z. Myers weighs in here, and The Huffington Post has a piece about Savage’s comments here. I’m currently working on a post on Methodological Naturalism, which has direct relevance to the issue of Intelligent Design. Morality is a topic which Read More ›

“The advancement of the arts, from year to year, taxes our credulity and seems to presage the arrival of that period when human improvement must end.” Patent Office Commissioner Henry Ellsworth, 1843 “It’s not so clear that there will be any more revolutions in physics.” Ian Hacking, 2012 Do our readers know of more examples of astonishingly stupid and arrogant assertions along the lines of “We now know it all, or nearly so, and the only job left is to suss out the details”?

It will be helpful to have a standard succinct but thorough description of the cell that incorporates references to as much of its marvelous technology as possible.  Here’s an example from a recent post by KF:  “nanotech, informational polymer based digital code using information system constituting a metabolising, von Neumann self-replicator automaton” The contest is to develop such a description.  Remember, the winner will walk the best line between brevity and comprehensiveness.  Try to keep your entries under 50 words (few than 40 would be even better). The winner will receive two prizes: (1) a copy of The Nature of Nature, and (2) his/her work will be permanently posted as a reference on UD.