From David Snoke’s review at the Christian Scientific Society of Perry Marshall’s Evolution 2.0: Breaking the DeadlockBetween Darwin and Design Perry Marshall is a well known, successful expert on internet marketing, and his career has included developing new algorithms and paradigms in business and market analysis. For several years, he has been involved in online discussions about intelligent design and evolution. He has now come out with a book giving a comprehensive presentation of his views. The book will be quite useful as an introduction to the debate, especially for those who are not experts in biology. His writing style is easy to read and to the point. Here are some of the things I like about the book: 1) Read More ›

In my previous post, Six bombshells relating to H. L. Mencken and the Scopes Trial, I exposed six journalist bombshells relating to the Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925. I also accused Mencken of lying on nine particular points – a charge for which I shall provide substantiation in today’s post. Mencken’s Nine Major Misrepresentations – An Executive Summary What did Mencken lie about, in his reporting on the Scopes trial? First, Mencken lied about the key point at issue in the Scopes Trial, which was not whether the theory of evolution could be taught in Tennessee’s public high schools, but whether the evolution of man from “lower animals” could be taught as a scientific theory to high school Read More ›

In a previous post two years ago, entitled, H. L. Mencken: Is this your hero, New Atheists?, I accused H. L. Mencken (pictured left) of lying and character assassination, in his reporting on the 1925 Scopes trial. Specifically, I charged that Mencken knowingly and deliberately made false statements about William Jennings Bryan (pictured right), a three-time Democratic Presidential candidate and eloquent orator, whose passionate opposition to Darwinism led him to volunteer his services an assistant prosecutor during the Scopes trial. To accuse a highly respected author such as Mencken of slander is a very serious matter, and in today’s post and an upcoming post, I’m going to substantiate this charge. Mencken not only slandered Bryan; he also slandered the people Read More ›

What kinds of structural, functional and behavioral complexity can the neutral theory of evolution account for, and what kinds of complexity can’t it account for? According to Professor Larry Moran, to evince confusion on these vital questions is a sure sign of being an “IDiot.” But it is the “neutralists” themselves who are confused on these issues, as I intend to show in today’s post. (I have chosen to use the term “neutralist” to describe someone who adheres to the neutral theory of evolution, as Nature magazine uses that term, although Professor Moran evidently prefers the term “mutationist.”) In a recent post titled, Sal Cordova tries, and fails, to understand evolution by Professor Larry Moran (April 22, 2014), Professor Larry Read More ›

In a recent post over at his Sandwalk blog, Professor Larry Moran has been attempting to set the cat among the pigeons, with a list of five issues which, he anticipates, will lead to bitter recriminations within the “big tent” of the Intelligent Design movement. Professor Moran is shocked, shocked, that Intelligent Design advocates sometimes publicly disagree on certain issues, as illustrated by a recent series of posts (by Sal Cordova, Dr. Branko Kozulic and myself) on the neutral theory of evolution. He writes: The reason why this is so remarkable is that it almost never happens under the creationist big tent. Different Intelligent Design Creationists have widely conflicting views ranging from Young Earth Creationism to Theistic Evolution Creationism but Read More ›

Recently, while reading a post by Professor Larry Moran over at his Sandwalk blog, I stumbled across a lively discussion of Haldane’s dilemma in the comments section. Not being a geneticist, I hadn’t really paid much attention to the dilemma, until now. For those who are interested in following up the matter, I’m going to post a few links to relevant articles arguing that Haldane’s dilemma remains unsolved (with asterisks placed in front of what I think are the best ones), plus some of the best responses to the dilemma that I’ve seen by evolutionists, before throwing the discussion open to readers. Articles arguing that Haldane’s dilemma is a real problem for evolution A Dilemma for Haldane by PaV at Read More ›

Recently I came across a fascinating biography of Lord Kelvin over on the creationist Website, crev.info. That article gave me the idea for an interesting hypothetical question, which I’d like to put to evolutionary biologists and other defenders of Darwinism. If Professors Jerry Coyne, Larry Moran or P. Z. Myers want to weigh in, I’d be delighted. Darwin’s biggest problem in the nineteenth century: there wasn’t enough time for his theory of evolution to work First, a little bit of background. Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection had numerous critics in the nineteenth century. By far the most formidable of these critics was Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) (pictured above, portrait by Sir Hubert von Herkomer, Glasgow Museum, image courtesy of Wikipedia). Read More ›

This is a follow up to : Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview UD’s purpose is serving the ID community. Even if I may not necessarily agree with the Darwinists, there are times things they say merit our attention and consideration. It is fair to say Darwinism inspires a lot of bad science as well as twisted morality. But I have to offer cautions if one wants to play the eugenics or genocide card because if you’re a Jew or Christian, if you play these cards, it can be thrown right back at you because of the abundant and zealous genocide practiced by God’s people in the Old Testament. In that sense, Old Testament “creationists” were also advocates of genocide Read More ›

There are two regular tragedies in the Intelligent Design movement. The first tragedy is the student who airs his or her doubts about Darwin, and a faculty member then makes it their life mission to block that student from a degree, or, if they get a degree, prevent them from getting any further. This sometimes happens via a bad letter of recommendation or a notice in their file or sometimes even calling other programs to tell them not to include the student. The second tragedy is the student who plays it safe, presuming that some day in the future they will have the position, stature, or whatever to present their doubts about Darwin. Many people counsel this procedure – keep Read More ›

Passed by and noticed Dr Hunter’s post on Nagel’s forthcoming book.  (And, objectors, Nagel is a serious philosopher of mind, writing in his area of expertise.  As in, author of “What is it like to be a bat?”) Going to the Oxford University Press [OUP] book page, I noticed another name popping up: Plantinga. As in, the man who blew away the logical form of the problem of evil. Passed by my thread on It’s Friday, but Sunday is coming, and saw Axel’s comment. Clipping: . . . while on the subject of the materialists’ desperation to quash any theistic assumption from scientific consideration, surely the proven precedence of mind over matter in physics points unequivocally to a personal God. Read More ›