The latest in Onion-ology: PARIS—Citing factors ranging from the dumb, ugly asteroid belt separating the terrestrial planets from the gas giants, to the super-boring and practically empty interstellar medium extending in nearly every direction, new research published Wednesday by the International Astronomical Union has concluded that Earth is located in “by far the lamest” region of the observable universe. “Despite years of intensive analysis, we have failed to uncover even a single pulsar, black hole, lenticular galaxy, binary star system, quasar, or any other cool stuff within 50 light years of this stupid dump of a solar system,” read the study, which noted that to date, no telescope—either ground-based or in earth orbit—has been able to locate a portion of Read More ›

[cross posted at CEU Insight and Inspiration. The essay is terse and is primarily oriented to high school seniors and college freshman struggling with their Christian faith, but presents the essentials in refuting the “bad design” argument. It links to revised essays that were edited and cleaned up from their original form at UD. The links are for those wanting a far more advanced treatment of the “bad design” argument.] [for new students of creation science and intelligent design] Perhaps the strongest argument against the existence of God and against His Intelligent Design of the universe is the fact the world is a real mess. The argument goes something like this: Someone so smart and capable as God wouldn’t make Read More ›

When it comes to explaining the origin of complexity, evolutionists are a house divided. Here’s what Professor Richard Dawkins has to say on the subject: I have written many times that natural selection is NOT the only mechanism of evolution. I have said it is the only known mechanism of ADAPTIVE evolution. And I’ll say that again. Natural selection is the only known mechanism of adaptive evolution, meaning the evolution of complex adaptations carrying the illusion of design. If you have another candidate not involving selection, let’s hear it. (Source, November 26, 2011.) Compare that with what Professor PZ Myers wrote recently, in two posts which are provocatively titled, The fundamental failure of the evolutionary psychology premise and Complexity is Read More ›

Larry actually had some rare kind words for me. He said here Cordova is correct. Thanks for the kind words, Larry! Larry goes on to argue that organisms can tolerate lots of mutations and still reproduce. Yes, I agree, but reproduction is not the real thing in question, it is the existence of designs. I’ve argued even with creationists the issue isn’t whether mutations are “beneficial” or “deleterious” in the sense of differential reproductive success, the question is whether neutral evolution and real selection in the wild will tend to destroy design rather than build it. What’s the simplest fix to the problem of irreversibly accumulating bad mutations (as I illustrated here)? Simple, renormalize the selection coefficients and declare being Read More ›

A couple of days ago Dr. Granville Sewell posted a video (essentially a summary of his 2013 Biocomplexity paper).  Unfortunately, he left comments off (as usual), which prevents any discussion, so I wanted to start a thread in case anyone wants to discuss this issue. Let me say a couple of things and then throw it open for comments. 1. I typically do not argue for design (or against the blind, undirected materialist creation story) by referencing the Second Law.  I think there is too much misunderstanding surrounding the Second Law, and most discussions about the Second Law tend to generate more heat (pun intended) than light.  Dr. Sewell’s experience demonstrates, I think, that it is an uphill battle to Read More ›