Archives
Another Way to Defeat the ID = Creationism Meme
Darwinian logic often contends that because a given proportion of ID proponents are creationists, ID must therefore be creationism. It’s a twist on the genetic fallacy, one I like to call the Darwinist “Genesis Genetic Argument.” As noted, it implies that each and every argument made by a creationist must be equivalent to arguing for full-blooded creationism. This fallacious argument is easy to defeat on logical grounds by pointing out that some ID proponents are not creationists, and in fact have been persuaded to support ID in the absence of religion. Thus something other than creationism or religion must be fundamental to the set of views underlying ID (big hint: it’s the scientific data indicating real design in nature)! Michael Read More ›
Some thoughts on the ‘psychology of the mainstream’
A colleague intimately familiar with the debate over evolution offered the following insight, which I thought would be of interest to a number of our readers. Understanding why someone holds to a particular position — understanding how holding that position supports the person’s goals in life — is important to figuring out what will be necessary to cause that person to change position. I came across an observation in a different context that I feel also applies to the evolution/origins debate.
Michael Behe’s dialogue with Jerry Coyne
Now that Michael Behe has started addressing his critics over at his Amazon blog, some of them are beginning to take notice. Jerry Coyne, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist, has posted a reply to Behe at TalkReason.org. Now Behe is including a few of his salient points and his responses to them on his Amazon blog so we can all keep track of the conversation. So far he has posted part 1 here — hopefully part 2 isn’t far behind.
A Science Myth from the New York Times
On June 26 the New York Times ran an article by Douglas H. Erwin, senior scientist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, in which he stated as demonstrated fact the power of natural selection to create the eye. We now can see (forgive the pun) that natural selection “is the primary agent in shaping new adaptations.” His example? “Computer simulations,” he declares, “have shown how selection can produce a complex eye from a simple eyespot in just a few hundred thousand years.” Really, Dr. Erwin? Where is your proof of this important fact? What computer simulations, published where and when and by whom? Just a citation or two will do.
Pat Sullivan and Marketing Darwin
On June 18th, blogger Pat Sullivan posted his thoughts on the difficulties that Darwinists are having with the public acceptance of their theory. Pat is an entrepreneur and a marketing expert who is the creator of ACT! and SalesLogix, software programs that help businesses with marketing and customer relations. When it comes to marketing, he knows what he’s talking about. He observes: What interests me as a marketing observer is this; after tens of thousands of exposures to the Darwin marketing “message” only some 34% of people buy the message. And with almost NO exposures to the contrary message except in Sunday school and mom and dad, 66% of people believe we were created by a designer. Personally, I believe Read More ›