The computer I'm using to create this information is an obvious product of intelligent design. We even know the designer(s) are employees of Apple computers. In fact, "design" does not exist until produced by intelligence, so the term would seem to be slightly redundant. In the absence of intelligence the presence of design, no matter how beguiling it may be, could be assumed to be an illusion. But is that a safe assumption? In a way, this article also serves as proof that intelligent design exists. I am choosing my words more carefully than unusual, knowing that the title of the article and subject matter will surely attract the attention of my harshest critics, who also happen to be the intended audience. No typos for you! Intelligent design has also been described in an online dictionary as "a theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed or created by some intelligent entity." Biologist Jerry Coyne, author of the book Why Evolution is True, also wrote a screed titled "THE CASE AGAINST INTELLIGENT DESIGN", which he neglected to make despite its length. The extraordinarily long essay turned out to be nothing more than an extended defense of evolution, combined with a completely dishonest portrayal of intelligent design as an attempt to reconcile scientific evidence with Young Earth Creationism (YEC). What evidence do people like Mr. Coyne or Richard Dawkins offer in rebuttal to the idea of intelligent design? Advocates of Darwin's theory of evolution (or some permutation of it, such as neo-Darwinism) will insist that the … [Read more...]
Eye of the beholder
Eye of the beholder Familiar with the expression "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? Various forms of the phrase date all the way back to Greece in the 3rd century B.C. However, Margaret Wolfe Hungerford is generally credited with the first use of that exact phrase in her book Molly Bawn, originally published in 1878. The cliche simply means that different things will appeal to different people. The eye is a collection of tissue that forms an organ and provides visual feedback from our physical world. The ability to see an adversary who is fighting blind is almost always gives an unsurmountable edge to the fighter with unimpaired vision. Some biologists, notably Jerry Coyne, describe the eye as an imperfect creation or an organ that is easy to create. Coyne wrote, The human eye, though eminently functional, is imperfect - certainly not the sort of eye an engineer would create from scratch. Its imperfection arises precisely because our eye evolved using whatever components were at hand, or produced by mutation. Since our retina evolved from an everted part of the brain, for example, the nerves and blood vessels that attach to our photoreceptor cells are on the inside rather than the outside of the eye, running over the surface of the retina. Leakage of these blood vessels can occlude vision, a problem that would not occur if the vessels fed the retina from behind. Likewise, to get the nerve impulses from the photocells to the brain, the different nerves must join together and dive back through the eye, forming the optic nerve. This hole in the retina … [Read more...]
The conjecture of evolution theory
[AUTHOR'S NOTE: This is the second installment of the series of articles originally published at Examiner.com while I was writing as the Atlanta Creationism Examiner. Lightly edited and re-formatted from the original version.] The conjecture of evolution theory Change occurs constantly. It’s impossible to deny. However, the word “evolution” is often used analogous with virtually all “change”. That definition is much too ambiguous. The philosophical theory called evolution describes an ambiguous process by which new life forms allegedly are created if given enough time. I will repeat the question I have invited my biologist friends to answer: Assuming “evolution” is true, how does sexual reproduction create a new genome that alters a creature’s morphology to be different enough from its parents to be called a new animal (or plant)? What magic elixir or ingredient besides time causes or allows for this sort of change (I have somewhat mockingly referred to as shape shifting) to occur? Surely we can all agree that for Archaeopteryx to evolve into another creature or vice versa, there has to be some point in time where the “base” parent animal (stealing terminology from my objected-oriented past) can be differentiated from the “derived” child animal as a fundamentally different organism, correct? Surely some explanation other than sexual reproduction can account for different morphologies in variant organisms derived from DNA? In layman’s terms -- at some point in time, my zoologist friends have got to be able to say the offspring of an Archaeopteryx is … [Read more...]
An open letter to Dr. Francis Collins (and Dr. Ken Miller)
Dear Dr. Collins, I'd like to begin by saying that I have tremendous respect for your work on the Human Genome Project. I enjoyed your book The Language of God so much that even quoted you a couple of times in my book, Counterargument for God. So, if there is a human being on planet Earth as qualified to answer my question as (atheist) biologist Jerry Coyne, it would appear to be either you, or (Catholic) biology professor Ken Miller, whose work I'm most familiar with from watching his lectures posted on You Tube that attack intelligent design. However, I did appreciate his calm and pleasant demeanor on display while he ridiculed my personal beliefs. One thing that you and Professor Miller seem to share in common with Professor Coyne is your apparent belief in the infallibility of evolution theory, and that descent is the only viable explanation for the origin of species. Unsurprisingly, Professor Coyne didn't respond to his open letter. However, I didn't really try to hide the fact that I am a creationist and an advocate of intelligent design. Professor Coyne may have been hostile to the source, rather than the questions asked. In retrospect, I probably could have done a better job of framing my questions without antagonizing him. Professor Benoit LeBlanc was kind enough to attempt answering them, but unfortunately his answer required Deep Time that I don't believe is available in the scenario we're hopefully about to discuss. I don't believe my personal religious beliefs will keep either of you gentlemen from answering my questions because we are all … [Read more...]
Jerry Coyne’s compatibilism quiz
While I’ve been waiting and hoping for Dr. Coyne to respond to my questions about speciation theory, I’ve periodically scanned his blog Why Evolution is True to see if the opportunity has arisen for him to answer my questions. I'm sure that Dr. Coyne is a very busy man, and he just hasn’t had time to respond thus far. Of course, he had to travel and give a lecture at Appalachian State, take pictures to show off his spiffy new ostrich boots, make several gratuitous attacks on creationism and religion with cheesy cartoons, and time to post lots of cat pictures on his blog. But no time for me yet. I’m sure he’ll get around to my questions, eventually. Apparently, he does respond to email. In the meantime, in one of the sixty-plus blogs posted since my letter, Dr. Coyne published a pop quiz on compatibilism. I love a good challenge, so I’ve taken his quiz. Perhaps he'll even grade my answers. Thank goodness that Dr. Coyne helpfully defined compatibilism as “free will that accepts material determinism.” I must confess that I didn't know the definition, and the closest dictionary didn't offer me one. Because I accept genetics, DNA, and the power of heredity, I can also accept the concept of material determinism, at least up to a point. However, I must reject the proposal that people can’t be held morally responsible for their actions. In fact, I find that suggestion both appalling and absurd. Is Ariel Castro, recently arrested in Cleveland for kidnapping three women and holding them captive for a decade, only guilty of committing egregious evil … [Read more...]
