As we saw here and here Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner, in their new book Arguing for Evolution: An Encyclopedia for Understanding Science, list altruism as an evidence for evolution, make the typical religious arguments that prove evolution, and say that evolution predicts “There will be anatomical similarities among related organisms.” That religion is doing the heavy lifting behind the phony science is not news, but Moore and Cotner’s book gives us yet another example of this hypocrisy.  Read more

What exactly is a scientific prediction? Philosophers have long since pointed out that many so-called scientific predictions do not qualify. For instance, sometimes a prediction is made after the fact. Other times the prediction is too broad or vague. In some cases a failure of the prediction can be too easily accommodated, using minor adjustments to the theory. In fact sometimes the prediction is not even required by the theory. It is simply used to make the theory look good. These textbook examples from the philosophy of science can be found in abundance in evolutionary theory. Consider, for example, Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner who, in their new book Arguing for Evolution: An Encyclopedia for Understanding Science, state that evolution predicts Read More ›

One of my favorite parts of ID is the fact that it is creating good tools for biologists to use. ID is often misconceived as a conclusion about whether or not X was designed. Instead, ID presupposes only the *possibility* that something was designed, and that intelligent agents are not mechanistic. In accordance with this, several metrics have been developed. The first metric that I am aware of is CSI. The method for measuring CSI was originally developed by Dembski in The Design Inference. The main problem for CSI is in the difficulty of actually taking the measurements it requires. The second metric (well, metric probably isn’t quite the right word, it’s a qualitative measure) is Irreducible Complexity as described Read More ›

(Series on Front-loading continues, here) As we continue the ID Foundations series, it will be necessary to reflect on a fairly wide range of topics, more than any one person can cover. So, when the opportunity came up to put Front-Loading on the table from a knowledgeable advocate of it, Genomicus, I asked him if he would be so kind as to submit  such a post. He graciously agreed, and so, please find the below for our initial reflections; with parts B and C (and maybe, more? please, please, sir . . . 😆 ) to follow shortly, DV: ____________________ >> Critics of intelligent design (ID) often argue that ID does not offer any testable biological hypotheses. Indeed, often times Read More ›