Dickie D, and another fellow discuss evolution in this video. They start off talking about the eye, and state that it is not designed because it is poorly designed. In other words, they claim this falsifies ID. Which is interesting given that Darwinists state that ID is not science and not falsifiable. Then also interestingly, [...]
Continue reading about ID is False; ID is not Falsifiable: Which is it?
We had a recent drive-by commenter, John, here who purported that nested hierarchies were “proof” of common descent (the holy grail of Darwinism). My friend over at the Italian ID site, Progetto Cosmo, recently wrote a post on nested hierarchies.
Why complex systems of nested hierarchies like cars or living things cannot be produced from [...]
Continue reading about Nested Hierarchies: Proof of Evolution?
The New York Times ran an article last November on the Language of Biology. This article is more amusing than anything else for some of the language that is used in the article.
Scientists have learned that the canonical “genes” account for an embarrassingly tiny part of the human genome: maybe 1 percent of the [...]
Continue reading about More Complex than Previously Thought-Part V
In Part I, I introduced the concepts that were set forth by Joey Campana on how a design orientation fosters applied science. William Dembski over at UD linked to a site that has a page titled: The 15 Coolest Cases of Biomimicry. I am much more an advocate of applied science over basic [...]
Continue reading about The Applied Science of Intelligent Design-Part II
Douglas Axe has written an interesting post in which he reviews a recent article by Darwinists and further demonstrates the edge of evolution (i.e., Michael Behe).(1) Darwinists are consistently unable to demonstrate how useful mutations can occur on a level to result in anything other than minor advantages (usually with a single point mutation [...]
Recent research that Darwinism has added yet another epicycle to the geocentric theory that is evolution.(1)
ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2009) — A new and comprehensive analysis confirms that the evolutionary relationships among animals are not as simple as previously thought. The traditional idea that animal evolution has followed a trajectory from simple to complex—from sponge to [...]
Continue reading about More Complex than Previously Thought-Part IV
At the conclusion of the series of essays on DarwinsPredictions.com, the author summarizes the viewpoint of Darwinists through the relevant philosophical assumptions. The gist is that naturalism is seen as metaphysically true; therefore, through the process of elimination, evolution is true. The question from this perspective cannot be, “Did evolution occur?” It can only be, [...]
Continue reading about Naturalism is true; therefore, evolution is a fact
Scientists are now claiming that, “…the tree of life, which shows how species are related, is ‘wrong’ and ‘misleading.’” Basically, the problem is that evolution is far to complex to be explained by a few roots and branches.(1)
Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, said: [...]
Continue reading about More Complex than Previously Thought-Part III
I just read an interesting post on Uncommon Descent about a new website called Darwin’s Predictions. The site appears to be well written and will be a useful resource for understanding the problems with Darwinism.
From the website Darwin’s Predictions:
It is not controversial that a great many predictions made by Darwin’s theory of evolution have [...]
I recently read a brilliant paper(1) written by Joey Campana, in which he details what he terms the Design Isomorph and Isomorphic Complexity. His ideas have practical applicability to both applied technology research and the applied science of biology. As I’ve stated before, Darwinism has little practical utility beyond designed algorithms (i.e., genetic [...]
Continue reading about The Applied Science of Intelligent Design-Part I
Recent Comments