Tag Archives: intelligent design

REALITY MATTERS

As some materialists try to make sense out of their interpretation of reality they have debated whether our existence is indeed reality or if we are part of a simulation.  Why is there a debate?  Because the mathematical properties of the physical universe are in conflict with what their beliefs have compelled them to deny, that the universe is intelligently designed. Should we call scientists considering this idea Simulated Design Creationists? Scientific American called the idea that we live in

WHALES EVOLVED NOT

While studying whale evolution and looking at what type of evidence is presented, I found that no macro evolutionary evidence was presented from a biological process for several critical integrated biological systems. The evidence was mainly from homology and fossil placement and it assumed undocumented and unexamined biological changes throughout millions of years. Evolution was given credit, without scientific analysis of biological processes. Of course, this is typical of evolutionary science. No mutational evidence was presented, but many things could

EVOLUTION: STARRING NATURAL SELECTION

“In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a false term.” Charles Darwin Natural selection is the star of the evolutionary process. How often is natural selection given exclusive credit for a presumed evolutionary advance in biotechnology?  Meanwhile, mutation, its silent partner with the bad reputation, the one that did all the design work, misses another opportunity for stardom.  Even Darwin was aware that natural selection wasn’t capable of causing anything without variation.  Consider the following

THE FLAWED EYE: A TRIUMPH OF DESIGN

The argument from bad design, unnecessary design or unlikely design, i.e. “a designer wouldn’t do it that way” is very often used to prop up natural selection or homology arguments because they are scientifically weak. It is mostly used as a straw man argument against design. THE ARGUMENT FROM BAD DESIGN It really adds nothing to the understanding of how the feature in question would occur naturally. It’s heavily bogged down with subjectivity, who’s standard of perfection are we supposed

THE CONVERGENCE CONCOCTION

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but it’s not a duck, it’s probably another case of convergent evolution Generally, the assumed transitions in the evolutionary story do not require a scientific explanation. Evolution is assumed to be responsible for every feature of every organism that ever existed. The key to defining an evolutionary ancestral relationship is usually similarity of structure. The differences are assumed to be the result of evolution. Quite often however things may

COMPLEXITY AND SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY

Specified complexity exists in only two places, life and things designed by life. This fact is supported by many observations and experiments that started centuries ago and continue in top science labs today. Complexity is a relative term. Technically, by definition something becomes complex as soon as it has more than two parts. But complexity for us is based on two things, the amount of data there is to consider and also our familiarity with what we are considering. The

HOW TO STUDY CREATION

What kind of scientific experiment would you do to determine if something were created by intelligence or formed through natural processes?  Would testing something chemically prove it was designed?  Only if you knew that the chemicals were unable to produce that combination or arrangement without intelligence. You would not only have to set up experiments to test the natural properties of the chemicals involved but you would have to be reasonably sure that the chemicals would not normally produce the