Intelligent Design

As Denyse pointed out (go here), Steven Pinker’s “dangerous questions” were really pretty mild stuff. I’d like to propose a Scoville scale for dangerous questions (based on the hotness of chili peppers). In the comments, please include what you regard as dangerous questions for materialism as well as a “hotness” measure for each question. Let me get the ball rolling: What would happen if the general public not only disbelieved materialism (as it is, they disbelieve it now) but also decided to cease funding it out of their tax dollars? [Hotness = Serrano Pepper]

In response to my last post DrREC wrote:  “what is Barry Arrington’s exposure to the practice of science that trumps that of a scientist who has “been around the scientific block” as he put it?” This is unintentionally hilarious.  In the post I criticized scientists who appeal to authority instead of evidence and logic.  DrREC, a scientist, responds by . . . wait for it . . . wait for it . . . an appeal to authority!  Beautiful.  Thank you REC.

In a comment to a recent post Dr. Liddle wrote: “Scientists do not appeal to authority; they appeal to evidence and argument, and all their conclusions are provisional, not absolute.” I will grant that Dr. Liddle’s statement summarizes fairly what scientists should do, but I am astonished that anyone – much less someone who has been around the scientific block a few times as Dr. Liddle obviously has – would believe that is what scientists actually do. Every single scientific revolution, from Newton to Einstein, was met with vociferous opposition by the scientific establishment with a vested interest in the status quo. Indeed, I have previously noted on these pages that scientists often hold to the prevailing orthodoxy with a hidebound Read More ›

Ten years ago work began on sequencing the first amphibian genome. The organism of choice was Xenopus tropicalis, a two inch frog native to Sub-Saharan Africa. And when the finished product was analyzed it was found to share substantial similarities with mammalian genomes, including our own. As one headline put it, “Frogs and humans are kissing cousins.” As the report explains:  Read more

If you thought it strange that those incredible whales and dolphins are supposed to have evolved from freshwater and ultimately terrestrial environments then you’ll be amazed to hear that evolutionists are now saying the same is true for the majority of fish in the ocean. As they explain:  Read more

In the article Evolution is a Big Word, I cover several issues. In our last installment, we discussed what the multiplicity of theories means for the claims of a consensus opinion about evolution. In this installment, I wanted to talk about the theories themselves. There are several questions I would like to propose to our readers: Of the theories listed, which ones do you think have the best evidence? Of the theories listed, which one is your favorite? What theories did I miss? (If you list a theory, please provide a link to a paper or book describing the theory) Which theories of evolution are consonant and/or dissonant with Intelligent Design? What are the theological and political corollaries of the Read More ›