Why atheists can’t show that Ken Ham is wrong

Professor Jerry Coyne has written a post titled, Ken Ham vs. Dawkins: On the nature of science and physical law, in which he criticizes Ken Ham’s claim that evolution is a “historical” science, dealing with events that can’t be observed, and hence can’t be verified. Coyne contends that “there is no distinction between historical science […]

Oops. Be careful when you say “I trust scientists” …

Someone might hear you. Wonder how YOU could possibly mean that.

Do You Believe In Evolution?

There has been some discussion about what a politician should say when asked by a reporter, Do you believe in evolution? My response would be: Of course! Everyone with an IQ above room temperature, who isn’t a science denier, knows that it is an established scientific fact, supported by all the evidence, not to mention […]

Evolution of an Irreducibly Complex System – Lenski’s E. Coli

On another thread we have been discussing abiogenesis in particular, but there was also some discussion about the evolution of an irreducibly complex system. Commenter CHartsil indicated that “we actually watched an IC system evolve” in reference to Lenski’s E. coli research. At my request, he has posted a brief summary of the research and […]

What evidence is

While I disagree with almost everything Professor Larry Moran wrote in reply to my post, Is Larry Moran a conspiracy theorist?, he did at least ask a good question: what counts as evidence? In his latest post, he forthrightly declares: I don’t know how to define “valid evidence” and I doubt very much if there’s […]

Chemist Harry Lonsdale and the secret of life

The metaphysical naturalist basis of his quest may have precluded his examining the “cash value” of Darwinism in the project.

New theory as to why matter predominates over antimatter

Researchers: The asymmetry may have been produced as a result of the motion of the Higgs field

Scott Walker says most people don’t care about the issues media obsess over

They need to create the impression that Walker must be a dunce if he doesn’t “believe” whatever studio blowdrys “believe” about evolution.

Do demoralized arts faculty affect the ID controversy?

Yes, because the mood is seeping into the sciences. A full professor now claims not to know what evidence is.

Real Clear Science on what if there were genuinely separate human species?

A critical question is, would the “separate species” have genuinely different values from what we know of typical humans?

Darwin’s man PZ Myers attacks Canadian medic, on neuroplasticity

Hits wall.

On skepticism about skeptics: Oxford mathematician John Lennox weighs in

Is Shermer’s sell-by date long past, like Dawkins’? It does have that feel.

Prof: Darwin’s followers raise ID’s status by attacking it

It is clear that those who treat ID with the greatest contempt are those with the most at stake in terms of professional identity and social status.

Casey Luskin on top 10 problems in biological and chemical evolution

From More than Myth (Chartwell, 2014)

Non-Darwinian biologist Rupert Sheldrake takes on Darwinian atheist Daniel Dennett

Says Dawkins’ selfish gene is past its sell-by date.

Spaghetti Monster apparition converts Germans

They might get persecuted too. Their posters were banned at London U and they got beat up in Moscow.

A former American Psychiatric Association president complains, why doesn’t psychiatry get respect as a science?

Calling it science should increase the public oversight, not decrease it. If it were self-acknowledged to be a cult, the standards of actionable harm might drop.

The Evolution Catechism

Adam Gopnik has written an impertinent piece for the New Yorker (February 19, 2015), arguing that political candidates should be put on the spot and required to affirm their acceptance of evolution before being allowed to take office. Evolution, he writes, is “an inarguable and obvious truth” which is “easy to understand,” and if you […]

Carl Woese, discoverer of a whole domain of life, regretted not overthrowing Darwin

Carl Woese, discoverer of a whole domain of life, regretted not overthrowing Darwin

Actually, overthrowing Darwin will take care of itself, once the real story gets out. Lots of change, maybe, but not much Darwin?

See what pretzels people make of themselves, to deny fine-tuning of the universe for life?

In short, if we can just leave evidence out of it, we can dispense with fine-tuning.

Next Page »