“Science is a game with one defining rule,” writes UCLA biochemist Richard E. Dickerson.
“The phrase is said to have originated with Thomas Hobson (1544–1631), who offered customers the choice of either taking the horse in his stall nearest to the door or taking none at all.”
Ian O’Neill discusses origin-of-life research, and bizarrely restricts the explanations to “fluke” or “physics.”
Carroll, a cosmologist and physicist specializing in general relativity and cosmology at Caltech, is highly regarded by the New Atheist community.
The argument here for intelligent design could not be simpler or clearer.
Here’s a fair question: Why do I prattle on so much about scholastic philosophy? Of what genuine relevance is it to intelligent design?
Writing here yesterday, I pointed out the problems with materialist metaphysics.
Materialism isn’t really a metaphysical theory. It’s just a mistake. It’s a woefully inadequate understanding of nature.
This odious stuff never ends.
Tom Krattenmaker of Yale Divinity School spots what he sees as good news.