Popular portrayals of human evolution reveal subjective interpretations not adequately supported by the available evidence.
Tag: Casey Luskin
At Evolution News: An Optimistic Solution to the Mystery of Life’s Origin
It’s fairly evident that non-theistic origin-of-life researchers, while seeing the daunting obstacles to any conceivable naturalistic pathway for abiogenesis, nevertheless believe that life arose naturally, not based on scientific evidence, but due to their nearly absolute determination that God’s creative agency not be considered.
At Evolution News: Origin of the First Self-Replicating Molecules
“Many variants of Stanley Miller’s experimental setup have been used in attempting to demonstrate the conversion of energy-rich, gaseous-phase chemicals into amino acids and other biomolecular monomers. But this is not nearly sufficient to generate life.”
At Evolution News: Did Life First Arise by Purely Natural Means?
Walter Bradley and Casey Luskin write: Major scientific magazines and journals often feature articles on the “Biggest Unsolved Mysteries in Science”1 — and the origin of life is almost always on that list, sometimes as the number one mystery.2 In this and coming posts we will explore key challenges to a natural, chemical origin of life. We’ll Read More…
At Evolution News: The Positive Case for Intelligent Design (series)
Although these posts at Evolution News may have been referenced previously, it seems timely to provide reminders of how ID serves as a “fruitful scientific paradigm.”
Jerry Coyne fires back at Egnor and Luskin
Having stated that he wouldn’t engage in a dialogue (which he would presumably be doing if he responded), Coyne conceded shortly afterward that “I may be forced by the laws of physics in making a few remarks.” And he makes more than a few. But he presses on: “one more before I grow ill.” Physics is a harsh master.
At Mind Matters News: Mike Egnor to Jerry Coyne: If evil exists, so must good — and real choices!
Egnor to Coyne: … when you find that your metaphysics was shared by the defense counsel at the Nazi war crime trials, you ought to reconsider your metaphysics. And I think Coyne should reconsider.
At Mind Matters News: Why free will is philosophically and scientifically sound
Takehome: Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor points out that, though free will may be unpopular with atheist thinkers like biologist Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, science doesn’t refute it.
At Mind Matters News: What’s hot and what’s not in Darwinblogs
Casey Luskin: We’ve seen a decline in the amount of high quality science writing from blogs like Panda’s Thumb. Some old voices in the Darwin blogosphere have diminished and some new ones have popped up. Jerry Coyne certainly is one of the ones that has really popped up on his very popular blog.
From Evolution News: Luskin Explores Design Evidence from Geology
For those who have eyes to see, nature reveals design across the scientific disciplines.
Casey Luskin at Hillfaith: Using the Positive Case for Intelligent Design to Answer Common Objections
Luskin: ID is not based upon what we don’t know — an argument from ignorance or gaps in our knowledge — but rather, is based upon what we do know about the origin of information-rich structures, as testified to by the observed information-generative powers of intelligent agents.
Casey Luskin asks: Can claims about punctuated equilibrium accommodate the scientific data?
Luskin: Punctuated equilibrium compresses the vast majority of evolutionary change into small populations that lived during shorter segments of time, allowing too few opportunities for novel, beneficial traits to arise.
How do we know an intelligent agent produced something and it is not just an accident?
Although intelligent agents need not generate novel structures abruptly, they can do so.
Has interest in intelligent design WANED?
A new ID the Future episode continues the debate between design theorist Casey Luskin, an editor of The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith, and science historian Adam Shapiro, co-author of Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction.
What? Paper on human mutation admits to “fundamentally challenging” neo-Darwinism?
But Darwinism about human beings is the bread and butter of pop science media! If that’s under threat now, what will become of, for example, evolutionary psychology?