Geneticists use code words for race, science writer says
Richard Dawkins: How Could Anyone “Possibly Doubt the Fact of Evolution”
Evolutionists like to say that there are mountains of evidence for evolution, but what is the best evidence? What would make a creationist think twice? Twenty five seconds into this video evolutionist Richard Dawkins answers this question. His killer evidence is the congruence between the genes of different plants and animals. Compare the genes across a range of species and you’ll see a “perfect hierarchy, a perfect family tree.” In fact, you’ll see the same result for evolutionary trees using just single genes—the so-called gene trees. It works “with every gene you do separately.” Read more
Another Question for Matzke
Dear Nick, We’ve had this exchange: Barry Arrington: “If you came across a table on which was set 500 coins (no tossing involved) and all 500 coins displayed the ‘heads’ side of the coin, would you reject ‘chance’ as a hypothesis to explain this particular configuration of coins on a table?” Mark Frank: “. . . they might have slid out of a packet of coins without a chance to turn over.” Sal Cordova: “Which still means chance is not the mechanism of the configuration.” Matzke: “Not really.” Now Central Scrutinizer suggests: If I were a software engineer commissioned to write the best random number generator possible, and after I delivered my product, the first set of results that my Read More ›
Is that cold “No Big Bang” universe impossible at the outset…?
Prominent science writer insists Darwinian evolution is ongoing, wants to revive “conversation” about race
Amanda Marcotte is half-right about creationists
Over at Raw Story, feminist blogger Amanda Marcotte has written an interesting post, New Darwin Documentary Shows Creationists Aren’t Dumb. They’re Fearful, about a new HBO documentary, Questioning Darwin, which features interviews with creationists. Marcotte comments: I agree with the New York Times reviewer that the creationists are presented non-judgementally, but as these clips amassed by Gawker make clear, the creationists do all the work for you anyway. There’s a pastor explaining he would have to accept it if the Bible said “2+2=5″ and people talking, over and over again, about the strategies they have to employ to shut down their minds in the event that they’re presented with an opportunity to think more broadly. The major emotion that comes Read More ›
Amended trailer for creationist movie starring Russel Crowe — in theaters March 28, 2014
Crowe Tweets Pope Francis and invites him to watch [creationist] movie Now “Noah” star Russell Crowe is trying to reach a higher power, beseeching Pope Francis on Twitter to watch his upcoming biblical adventure, which is based on the Noah’s Ark story from the Book of Genesis. Addressing the pontiff as “Dear Holy Father,” Crowe on Monday tweeted, “#Noah film. Screening?The message of the film is powerful , fascinating , resonant.” Crowe followed up with a tweet aimed at his own 1.37 million followers, writing, “given his environmental focus/scholarly knowledge, trying to screen #Noah for Pope Francis.” Crowe also asked his followers to retweet his previous message. Francis, who boasts 3.7 million Twitter followers (@Pontifex) and more importantly is the Read More ›
The capriciousness of intelligent agency makes it challenging to call ID science
It would be an interesting debate as to whether legal decisions by juries are considered science. Does anybody really care whether a jury verdict is called science or non-science? Was the verdict against Jodi Arias for killing Travis Alexander science? Or how about the conviction of Bernie Madoff, is that science? Isn’t it more important that the verdicts delivered are correct and faithful to the facts? Whether the inferences and verdicts can be labeled science or not seems to be extremely irrelevant in the scheme of things. In similar fashion, that has been my view about the debate whether ID is science. A case can be made either way, and if we let something as flimsy as Darwinism and multiverses Read More ›
What if the moon disappeared?
New No-Bang theory posits infinite very cold past
Can information theory help us understand the Cambrian explosion?
Movie starring Richard Dawkins bombs at box office
This was such a non-news item at the time because the movie bombed so badly most didn’t even realize there was a movie. It hit theaters November 29, 2013. ‘The Unbelievers,’ With Richard Dawkins Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss on a triple-continent series of public engagements, Gus Holwerda’s unforgivably superficial documentary is too busy drooling over its subjects to flesh out their body of work.…Too slight to persuade, “The Unbelievers” is also too poorly made to entertain. The rational roots of atheism deserve a much better movie than this. Total Worldwide Gross = $14,000 😯 HT Mike Gene
Voynich manuscript continues to drive researchers crazy
Dawkins now convinced even if he saw a miracle, he wouldn’t believe in God
The section of interest starts at 12:30 where Dawkins is asked, “what would it take to make you believe in God.” Short answer by Dawkins, “nothing”. He presumes if he saw a miracle it would be a hallucination or technologically advanced aliens. This is a change from his previous claim that his mind could be changed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNcC866sm7s NOTES 0. Dawkins response reminds me of some of the Darwinists at UD responding to questions about 500 fair coins. Even if they saw credible evidence of design, they’ll find a way to disbelieve it, whereas by contrast they’ll rush to accept the most flimsy explanation in defense of mindless evolution and mindless OOL. 1. Regarding hallucinations, HT selvaRajan for finding the answer Read More ›