Month: October 2008
Bigfoot Evolved
“Skeptical” atheist Steven Novella has a blog post on “Mande Barung,” an Indian version of the Himalayan Yeti and the North American Bigfoot. Novella ruminates on the credulity of one Dipu Marak, a local passionate believer in the shy mythical creature. Debunking Yeti sightings is low-hanging fruit for skeptics like Novella, whose skepticism knows no limits — except for his own materialist ideology, about which he is credulous to the bone. One wonders why atheist “skeptics” need to explain to their readership — presumably compliant atheist skeptics all — that Yeti probably don’t exist.Logan Gage explains why. Gage has a superb essay entitled, “Which Secular Superstition do you Believe?” Gage asks: …[Who] is more likely to believe wild eyed superstitions Read More ›
The Great Debate on Evolution and Intelligent Design: Agnostics, Atheists, and Theists, oh my!
Distinguished scientist and professor James M. Tour will moderate a debate next month in Texas about intelligent design and evolution featuring four prominent scientists and philosophers. What’s interesting is that defending intelligent design are an agnostic who is skeptical of ID and an atheist philosopher. That would be Dr. David Berlinski and Dr. Bradley Monton, respectively. Defending evolution will be British theologian Denis Alexander and well-known physicist Lawrence Krauss. Here’s how the hosts at St. Andrews Episcopal church in Fort Worth, Texas describe the debate: The issue of the debate is one of the most emotionally-charged questions facing our country today. The debate seeks to present the audience with different perspectives and helpful insights to enable them to form better Read More ›
Darwin Defender Daniel Bolnick Illustrates How to Market Evolution to the Public
Daniel Bolnick, a leader of the pro-Darwin only “Texas 21st Century Science Coalition,” recently published an op-ed in the Waco Tribune which provides some good lessons on how to argue for “evolution” to the public: Be extremely dogmatic and vague about the evidence. Lesson 1: Vaguely Assert Massive Support for “Evolution” From the Scientific LiteratureBolnick writes that in the past decade, “biologists have published more than 30,000 research articles demonstrating that evolution has occurred and how it works,” further stating that “[m]ore than 100,000 published biological research studies demonstrate the fact of evolutionary change.” So just how does Bolnick define “evolution”? He doesn’t, thus introducing equivocation and vagueness into the discussion. “Evolution” can refer to something as simple as minor Read More ›
Dembski to Speak on Darwin at Baylor University Tuesday Night
ENV readers in Texas have the opportunity tomorrow night (Tuesday), to see Dr. William Dembski present a lecture on “Darwin’s Unpaid Debt.” The lecture will be held at Baylor University and is hosted by the American Scientific Affiliation’s Baylor Chapter. According to ASA-Baylor, this is what Dembski will speak on: Natural selection is widely supposed to be an information ratchet that gradually accumulates the information organisms need to acquire novel adaptations. Yet natural selection is nothing of the sort. The Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation is a low-level trial-and-error method for solving routine problems that is unequipped to handle the innovative problems that biological systems have solved in the course of natural history. Darwinism and evolutionary biology Read More ›
Origin of Life Theorists Perpetuate the Implausible Miller-Urey Experiment
A ScienceNOW news release from last Thursday, October 16, states that re-analyses of the products of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey’s famous origin of life experiments from the 1950s have shown that more amino acids were present than were previously thought. Origin of life theorist Robert Hazen is quoted saying the study “highlights how easy it is to make the building blocks of life in plausible prebiotic conditions.” But did the experiments use “plausible prebiotic conditions”? The news release acknowledges that ammonia and methane were “gases presumed at the time to be the main constituents of the atmosphere billions of years ago.” (emphasis added) Even Miller himself admitted that he ASSUMED these atmospheres because they produced the desired result for Read More ›