Readers may recall my encounter with developmental biology professor PZ Myers earlier this year. In that brief interaction, I came to appreciate Myers’s ability to charm his adoring fans and followers irrespective of the scientific robustness of his claims, or the accuracy with which he represents the views of those with whom he disagrees. Click here to continue reading>>>
Ivan Schwab’s new book on the evolution of vision systems is a vivid reminder of our blindness. Recently we reviewed how minor changes such as viruses mutating and allele frequency dynamics are, according to evolutionists, proof texts of evolution. Now in Schwab’s new book we have an example of how comparisons of various designs, again according to evolutionists, show howevolution occurred. Like the ancient myths, it is difficult to believe that anyone actually believes these things. Read more
Key ID figures measure the impact of the Discovery Institute. Also, Steve Meyer on new developments in the UK.
In a recent post, entitled, Barry Arrington Explains Irreducible Complexity, Professor Laurence Moran sought to discredit the argument that irreducible complexity requires an Intelligent Designer. Let me state up-front that I am a philosopher, not a scientist. However, I believe in arguing rigorously, so I have attempted to state the argument from irreducible complexity in a rigorous fashion. I’d appreciate hearing from Professor Moran thinks of this argument, as a biologist. What is irreducible complexity? I’d like to quote a passage from an online paper entitled, Irreducible Complexity Revisited (version 2.0; revised 2/23/2004) by Professor William Dembski. The basic logic of IC [Irreducible Complexity] goes like this: A functional system is irreducibly complex if it contains a multipart subsystem (i.e., Read More ›
What perplexes me is that Darwinists, when confronted with the astronomically sophisticated technology found in a “simple” living cell, continue to defend the proposed Darwinian process of chance, physical law and natural selection as a plausible explanation, when there is no evidence of this degree of creative power through such a mechanism, and that their proposition defies logic and even the most trivial analytical scrutiny. But it gets worse. They go much further than just attempting to defend such transparent irrationality. They propose that their fantasies are established, incontrovertible, scientific fact, when nothing could be further from the truth. And it gets worse still. These people insist that other people’s children must be indoctrinated with this stuff in government funded Read More ›