The Evolution-Lobby’s Useless Definition of Biological Information

Links to our 8-Part Series, “The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Citation Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information”: • Part 1: Judge Jones’s Misguided NCSE-Scripted Kitzmiller Ruling and the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information • Part 2 (This Article): The Evolution-Lobby’s Useless Definition of Biological Information • Part 3: The Evolution-Lobby’s Misguided Definition of “New” • Part 4: Finding Darwin in All the Wrong Places • Part 5: How to Play the Gene Evolution Game • Part 6: Asking the Right Questions about the Evolutionary Origin of New Biological Information • Part 7: Assessing the NCSE’s Citation Bluffs on the Evolution of New Genetic Information • Part 8: The NCSE’s Citation Bluffs Reveal Little About the Evolutionary Read More ›

Judge Jones’s Misguided NCSE-Scripted Kitzmiller Ruling and the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information

Links to our 8-Part Series, “The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Citation Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information”: • Part 1 (This Article): Judge Jones’s Misguided NCSE-Scripted Kitzmiller Ruling and the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information • Part 2: The Evolution-Lobby’s Useless Definition of Biological Information • Part 3: The Evolution-Lobby’s Misguided Definition of “New” • Part 4: Finding Darwin in All the Wrong Places • Part 5: How to Play the Gene Evolution Game • Part 6: Asking the Right Questions about the Evolutionary Origin of New Biological Information • Part 7: Assessing the NCSE’s Citation Bluffs on the Evolution of New Genetic Information • Part 8: The NCSE’s Citation Bluffs Reveal Little About the Evolutionary Read More ›

NCSE Theologian Parrots Dawkins: ID “Practitioners” Are “Ignorant of Science or Seriously Deluded or Fundamentally Dishonest”

At last week’s ID legal symposium at St. Thomas University School of Law, Peter Hess, a theologian with the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), gave a talk titled “Creation, Design and Evolution: Much Ado about Nothing.” Nearly all of his objections to ID were theological in nature, as he stated that ID is “not only not science” but also “poor theology” and “blasphemous.” The NCSE is increasingly turning to religious objections in their campaign against ID, pitting one particular religious view (theistic evolution) against ID’s science. This is of course their right to do, but it’s amusing since the NCSE regularly attacks ID on the grounds that the ID movement allegedly unnecessarily pits one narrow religious view against the Read More ›

Eugenie Scott Coaches Scientists to Talk About Evolution Without Revealing Any Weaknesses

Eugenie Scott plays many roles in the evolution debate. Now, in a recent enlightening interview in Science News, she offers her wisdom as a media coach for scientists talking publicly about evolution. Her most important piece of advice? Never use terminology that could imply any real weakness in evolutionary biology. Dr. Scott counsels: To put it mildly, it doesn’t help when evolutionary biologists say things like, “This completely revolutionizes our view of X.” Because hardly anything we come up with is going to completely revolutionize our view of the core ideas of science…. An insight into the early ape-men of East and South Africa is not going to completely change our understanding of Neandertals, for example. So the statement is Read More ›

“Expelled Exposed” Is Wrong: Materialists Allowed to Challenge Neo-Darwinian Orthodoxy, Intelligent Design Proponents Are Not

[Note: For a more comprehensive rebuttal to “Expelled Exposed,” please see: NCSE Exposed at NCSEExposed.org] We’re often told that the evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution — where unguided natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force generating the complexity and diversity of life — is “overwhelming.” But hints of dissent from this position can be found throughout the mainstream scientific literature. One article in Trends in Ecology and Evolution last year acknowledged that there exists a “healthy debate concerning the sufficiency of neo-Darwinian theory to explain macroevolution”.[1] Likewise, Günter Theißen of the Department of Genetics at Friedrich Schiller University in Jena, Germany recently wrote earlier this year in the journal Theory in Biosciences: while we already have a quite Read More ›