No Bomb After 10 Years

I have been studying the origins issue for 22 years, and I have been debating the origins issue with literally hundreds of Darwinists for a decade. Here’s a brief report: I have to admit that when I first started debating the origins issue I did so with some trepidation. After all, there are a lot […]

Leading psych theory fails replication

They should quit using North American university students.

TJ “Can’t Muster up Enough Blind Faith”

Sorry TJ, then you will never be in good standing in the Darwinian cool kids club. All that follows is from tjguy’s comment to my prior post: Tin says: Just because something can be made by man does not mean that all occurrences in nature must have an intelligent origin. As Barry says, sure, that […]

Sorry Tin, Nature Does Not Do CSI.

tintinnid attempts to undermine the design inference by noting: Just because something can be made by man does not mean that all occurrences in nature must have an intelligent origin. Agreed. You have been one of our most vocal critics in recent weeks. But that you would write this statement indicates you have a seriously […]

Darwinian Debating Devices #16: Willfully distorting the ID position

One of the saddest aspects of the debates over the design inference on empirically reliable signs such as FSCO/I, is the way evolutionary materialist objectors and fellow travellers routinely insist on distorting the ID view, even after many corrections. (Kindly, note the weak argument correctives, accessible under the UD Resources Tab, which address many of […]

Do Fish Make Design Inferences?

KF says they do: Just from the suspiciously uniform but non-repetitive asymmetric pattern of surfaces and features in the sand castle — too many straight lines and arcs of circles or circles, rectangles, cuboids and the like — I would be suspicious. BTW, in lure fishing, too much uniformity is to be avoided, the fish […]

Convergent evolution: Squid bioluminescence evolved multiple times

Bencze: This convergent evolution is so astonishingly unlikely that we would never expect it to occur via the evolutionary mechanism of random mutation and natural selection.

Jonathan Wells at Evolution News & Views on the recent revolution in biology

Don’t expect the old guard to get it, whatever they claim their faith to be. They “know” they are machines.

Amazingly, Time Magazine is not just directly undermining free will, for once

Totalitarians don’t care if they don’t have free will. They just want to be the ones making all decisions.

Further to Larry Moran’s claims about ID proponents’ selective hyperskepticism

Design only points to itself. It doesn’t necessarily tell you much about the designer.

Nature’s story of the Hobbit a decade later …

… seems to be all about the scientists who discovered the fossils

WJM is on a Roll

In response to this post rich says: It’s a bit like looking at a clock for a tenth of a second and lamenting you’ve witnessed no hours. Did you expect to? To which WJM responds: what I’m lamenting is not that we do not see hours pass on the clock, but rather, I’m lamenting the […]

Thomas Huxley wasn’t a social Darwinist?

Okay. If hardly anyone was a social Darwinist, how come the ideas flourished so widely?

Retread: Life started only fifteen million years after the Big Bang?

OOL: One of these ancient worlds could have supported liquid water on its surface irrespective of its distance to a star.

An unofficial guide to Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Cosmos remake

Odd that Americans, of all people, would be willing to pay for Cosmos II stuff to be in their school systems. Naturalist atheism, in its most propagandistic form.

Selective hyperskepticism: A response to Professor Moran

Are ID advocates guilty of selective hyperskepticism? Professor Larry Moran evidently thinks we are. In a recent post, he writes: Let’s take the formation of bacterial flagella as a good illustration of how they use selective hyperskepticism. They begin with the unshakeable assumption that gods exist, that that they must have created life. They then […]

Quote of the Day : Hyper-credulity, the Flip Side of Selective Hyper-skepticism

From our own WJM: What is so frustrating/baffling at times is the ongoing use of terminology by materialists to deny/obfuscate what are relatively simple, straightforward observations – as if the example of the sun seemingly moving through the sky serves as a universal principle of hyperskeptical fallibility through which every statement/observation can be summarily ignored/dismissed. […]

Rob Sheldon on latest origin of life theory, shining light on atoms

Further to “New formula for the origin of life, breaking, breaking” … where Laszlo Bencze offered some thoughts

Rob Sheldon comments on Peter Woit on science journalists

Sheldon: Peter Woit is defending BICEP2 by putting the blame on Guth and Linde’s promotion that snookered the journos.

Two Lego block piles — what’s the difference, why?

Lego Pile A: Lego “Pile” B: What’s the difference, and why is it there? What does this tell us about functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information (FSCO/I), why? So, bearing in mind this needle in haystack search challenge: . . . also, the design inference process flowchart: . . . and the use of […]

Next Page »