People’s Choice Awards: Our most read stories May 2013
|January 4, 2014||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News|
Runaway favourite Andy Jones: Failure to Educate? Failure to Persuade:
Larry Moran replied to my latest post with an admission of failure. He thinks he has failed to educate, but I think rather he is confusing the word ‘persuade’ with the word ‘educate’.
He thinks I am rationalising junk DNA with a pile of ‘what-ifs’. But the fact is that most of my ‘what-ifs’ are already known to have some basis in reality. I am not denying any obvious reality. Indeed, the basic machinery of life looks like design, far more than when Paley was around. Yes, there could also be a great deal of junk. That’s why I have said a number of times that ID is not committed to the idea that there is no junk.
Yet, from my point of view, I see a whole pile of Darwinian/post-Darwinian materialists who have only partly explored the genome, working from an assumption that the genome was not designed, and thus are jumping the gun on the evidence.
It’s not clear how much evidence has to do with junk DNA claims any more, Andy. Evidence is piles of that stuff the junkers keep having to push away.
Sal Cordova: Cocktails! falsifying Darwinism via falsifying the geological “column”:
There is the forgotten book Shattering the Myths of Darwinism written by a non-creationist agnostic Richard Milton. Milton expressed his skepticism of mainstream claims of the old-age of the fossil record. His work further motivated me toward the idea that there could an empirically driven critique of the accepted ages of the fossils.
Of course there could be an empirically driven critique, Sal. It just wouldn’t be accepted, the same way the Big Bang never really was.
kairosfocus: A “simple” summing up of the basic case for scientifically inferring design (in light of the logic of scientific induction per best explanation of the unobserved past):
In answering yet another round of G’s talking points on design theory and those of us who advocate it, I have outlined a summary of design thinking and its links onward to debates on theology, that I think is worth being somewhat adapted, expanded and headlined.
With your indulgence: …
It was a discussion many found stimulating, to judge from reads and comments. The difficulty is, in the current environment, facts and arguments mean whatever supports materialism. By definition no others can exist. And the reader’s role is to accept the system and pay to support it. Glad we straightened that out.
Follow UD News at Twitter!