Everyone knows biology is full of complicated designs, but evolutionists think it arose spontaneously, as a result of the play of natural laws. In other words, it happened to happen. First there was nothing, then there was something, then that something became very complicated. All this just happened to happen. Read more
In this post the UD news desk quotes OOL researcher Jack Szostak: “We think that a primitive cell has to have two parts. First, it has to have a cell membrane that can be a boundary between itself and the rest of the earth. And then there has to be some genetic material, which has to perform some function that’s useful for the cell and get replicated to be inherited.” He believes they have the “membrane” part figured out, which leads him to suggest that they are about “halfway” to figuring it all out. Really? Consider a computer in a paper sack. If I figure out how to make a paper sack does that mean I am “halfway” toward Read More ›
If you read Brian Cusack’s paper (discussed here) you may have wondered why the evolutionists did not distinguish the two-fold fragile codons from the single-fold fragile codons. Perhaps I missed it, but I saw no mention of this distinction. The evolutionists define as “fragile” those codons that can be changed into a STOP codon with a single substitution. They are shaded gray in the table below (from Figure 1 in the paper): Read more
When is a theory a theory? Long ago we commented briefly on the Climategate revelations that the global warming books have been cooked to support the theory. There are a great many blogs dedicated to tracking how that miserable field is regressing, so I have felt no need to beat an obviously dead and cooling horse. But physicist blogger, Lubos Motl, questions why a 2-sigma result (1:20 chance of being accidental) of climate warming (a highly contested result, not supported by data contends Roy Spencer) should cause the American Physical Society to claim “incontrovertible proof” when a 6-sigma result (1:Million chance of being accidental) from a neutrino detector is doubted by all concerned. In effect, Motl, makes the old argument Read More ›
In “Walters researchers decode the secrets of the Archimedes Palimpsest” Baltimore Sun, October 18, 2011), Mary Carole McCauley reports on the massive reconstruction job that has made available to us, after two millennia, the lost writings of the great, ancient Greek mathematician, Archimedes. It’s unfortunate that many know him only as the ancient Greek cartoon figure running naked and dripping through the streets shouting Eureka!, the bath attendant in hot pursuit. Archimedes’ legacy extends to mathematical fields as diverse as calculus and computer science. He made groundbreaking discoveries in hydrostatics, which measures the pressure exerted by liquids because of gravity. He invented the catapult, the battering ram, pulleys and siege machines. He was the first person to explain mathematically how Read More ›
[Image courtesy of Jurgen Schoner and Wikipedia.] Here’s an old joke: how do snails move? Philosopher Julian Baggini, writing in The Guardian (“Religion’s truce with science can’t hold”, October 14, 2011) seems to have forgotten that there are two answers to this question. Here’s the scientific answer: “By gliding along on their muscular foot, which is lubricated with mucus.” And here’s the other answer: “Very slowly.” As we’ll see, this humorous example perfectly illustrates what’s wrong with secular humanists’ complaints about religion encroaching on the domain of science. As readers of this blog are well aware, Intelligent Design theory makes no claims about the identity of the Designer. However, since Dr. Baggini criticizes the claims of religion in his article, Read More ›
“Disagreement is not an easy thing to reach. Rather, we move into confusion.” John Courtney Murray My “Mirror” post has generated quite a few comments concerning “miracles” and the relevance of “miracles” to ID. Further thoughts are in order. First, let us define terms. My dictionary defines “miracle” as “an event that is contrary to the established laws of nature and attributed to a supernatural cause.” Second, ID does not posit miracles. In this post I established the following contest: “UD hereby offers a $1,000 prize to anyone who is able to demonstrate that the design of a living thing by an intelligent agent necessarily requires a supernatural act (i.e., the suspension of the laws of nature).” The prize Read More ›