Count The Wrong! Nelson and Ontogenetic Depth

Looks like we won’t have Paul Nelson to kick around anymore! He seems to be trying to make good on his promise to provide details on ontogenetic depth. I know, I’m shocked too, but, well, there it is. Says Paul:

Rather, building animals de novo by known biological (evolutionary) processes is an evolutionary problem. Common descent by natural selection is the main theory on the table in 2010. It’s the theory that, in this OD 2.0 series, I hope to show does not

Coffee, says I! At any rate, how many errors can you spot in that short paragraph?

Stupid Intelligent Design Comments Of The Week

It all started at Uncommon Descent, on a thread about Biologos and their criticism of Signature in the Cell. Vmartin starts the stupidity:

Ayale published at Biologos another speculations. One of his attacks against ID was this emotive one (”On Reading the Cell’s Signature” Jan 7):
“The birth canal is too narrow for the head of the newborn to pass easily through it, so that millions of innocent babies—and their mothers—have died in childbirth throughout human history.”

I noticed darwinists that in fact this argument refutes Natural selection more than anything else. Because natural selection should have given advantage to woman with wider canals. Actually it was professor Adolf Portmann who mentioned this argument against natural selection.

Continue reading

Luskin on National Geographics Website? Why?

National Geographic has an Intelligent Design vs. Evolution feature that gives some time to Casey Luskin. One has to wonder why. To their credit National Geographic counters Luskin with Don Prothero. An example, in talking about the evolution of whales we get this nonsensical argument from Luskin:

Continue reading

Creationist Quote of the Week: A Face-Palm/Head-Desk Moment

I can’t resist mentioning this. Over at the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum a commenter named wowbagger compiles a list of questions for intelligent design advocates. Question 2G reads:

If I were to claim that the “deducing of an Intelligent Designer” was nothing more than a type of paredolia phenomenon, how could you demonstrate otherwise?

Continue reading

Cornelius Hunter: Intellectually Dishonest? Or Uninquisitive? Or Both?

cgh_thylacineCornelius Hunter has a post up at his blog bashing evolution in connection with a recent paper on the evolution of Water Striders. It seems Hunter is upset because the research indicates that:

As usual the story is more complicated than evolution would have it. A regulatory gene that helps in the development of the water strider has opposite effects in different limbs, lengthening some and shortening others.


Incredibly, evolutionists were quick to add their gratuitous, scientifically meaningless, interpretation of the findings. As one evolutionist put it:

Many have marveled at the ability of water striders to walk on water, and we are excited to have discovered the gene that has affected this evolutionary change.

Makes it sound like some poor developmental biologists, operating in a perfect theoretical vacuum, did some interesting research that the evil evolutionists were quick to appropriate for their own nefarious purposes. Hunter is talking about a recent press release at Science Daily and if you wander over you find that the quote came from an evil evolutionist named Locke Rowe.
Continue reading

Discovery Institute Propaganda Ruins AP Report on Wallace

PhysOrg.Com has an interesting article by AP environmental reporter Michael Casey. The article, ostensibly about George Beccaloni’s quest to “return Wallace to what he sees as his rightful place in history.” The article recounts Beccaloni’s project to retrace Wallace’s trip through southeast Asia. An interesting moment in the article comes at the beginning when Beccaloni discovers the hut Wallace was staying in when he discovered natural selection. Unfortunately, almost from the beginning, the article credulously accepts creationist and Discovery Institute propaganda:

Continue reading

Discovery Institute’s YouTube Copyright Infringement Claim

The Discovery Institute has filed a copy right infringement claim against this video:

Continue reading