Author: Martin Cothran
Why P. Z. Myers should be wearing the short pants and sneakers
I have theorized elsewhere about the Darwinists’ diminishing status in the gene pool, but there is new and even more alarming evidence of the deterioration of the Darwinist subspecies–further proof that those who believe in the survival of the fittest are less fit for survival. It is becoming increasingly evident that there is a serious lack of creativity among a few Darwinists that could threaten their station on the evolutionary tree. These days I get most of my news via my Google Reader, and about half of it over the last week seems to be about an attempt by biologist P. Z. Myers to sneak into a private viewing of the new movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” Ben Stein’s expose Read More ›
The “Two Jones” Thesis and its Detractors: More ID opponents experience binary fission over Dover decision
Well, it appears that my article about the inherent contradiction in an important section of the Dover vs. Kitzmiller decision is making evident some potentially dangerous developments among Darwinist opponents of Intelligent Design. Both Richard Hoppe at Panda’s Thumb (“The Disco ‘Tute’s New Man“) and Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars (“ID and Testability“) have offered arguments against my position, and with each other–and, it turns out (at least in Brayton’s case), with themselves.I had pointed out that Judge John Jones affirmed a blatant contradiction in his opinion. He argued that the alleged unsoundness of the argument from irreducible complexity is a blow to Intelligent Design, since it is “central to ID,” and then later argues that even Read More ›
Two Years after Dover Intelligent Design Trial Darwinists, Like Judge Jones, Still Want to Have It Both Ways
The opponents of Intelligent Design have recently been trying to slither out of a logical dilemma they have created for themselves. Their problem is that they make two mutually exclusive claims: First that ID is not science, and, second, that ID makes false claims. The primary reason opponents say that ID is not science is because it doesn’t make falsifiable claims. But if it doesn’t make falsifiable claims, then it can’t be said to have made claims that have been found false. Yet this is exactly what they charge.Opponents of ID have done logical contortions of extraordinary dexterity to get out of this dilemma, but they only seem to land themselves in further contradiction. This contradictory attack on ID is Read More ›