Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

From the recent Hunter-Ruse debate…


Biophysicist Cornelius Hunter debates “Is Evolution Compelling.” Cornelius Hunter versus Michael Ruse, March 11, 2016.

Note: Hunter often writes here at Uncommon Descent. We are trying to get vid of Ruse too.

See also: Steve Meyer vs. Lawrence Krauss in Toronto this Saturday, live-streamed

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Amen. Great point that evolutionism MUST explain innovation origin or its failing its legitimacy as a scientific theory for how biology came too be. Amen . Evolution is not a scientific theory. this because its claims are not made on biological evidence for the claimed pocesses. instead they use comparative anatomy and genetics, fossils/geology, biogeography, embryology, and simple reasoning. I disagree with hunter its not science because of other motives. YES thyey kick in but i see simple human failure in thinking. figuring out things, especially invisible processes, is very intellectually difficult. iTs not easy like physics which is involved thought. As I said it was methodology that was the failure of evolutionism but also a failure of creationists/opponents of any tribe, to hold them too it or understand this. Good points about how bats couldn't evolve radar ability. yet i believe they are only post flood rats that took to the air. So yes they could instantly change the dna and create wings and radar just as people did with colour change and other physical attributes soon after the flood. Evolution is not compelling. Robert Byers

Leave a Reply