Tag Archives: Evidence

News

What kinds of predictions does intelligent design make?

3 Comments

Here’s a post from Evolution News.

Excerpt:

Regarding testability, ID makes the following testable predictions:

(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
(4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.

In this regard, ID is falsifiable. When we test these predictions, ID passes those tests.

And here’s some detail on 3), because I’ve never talked about convergence on the blog:

Regarding prediction 3, similar parts have been found in organisms that even Darwinists see as separated by more closely related forms that do not contain the similar parts in question. Clear examples include genes controlling eye or limb growth in different organisms whose alleged common ancestors are not thought to have had such forms of eyes or limbs. For details, please see: A Primer on the Tree of Life.

An example would be where humans and octopi have the same kind of eyes, but they don’t share a common ancestor. So the designed “evolved” in two places independently. A simpler explanation that something so unlikely is that the two systems have a common designer.

The article lists several scientific areas where ID has explanatory power.

Commentary

What possible harm can result from premarital sex?

6 Comments

Here’s an article by a Duke University student that talks about the hook-up phenomenon.

Excerpt:

Every weekend, girls across Duke’s campus wake up sad and confused. The previous night’s choices have not left them fulfilled or content. My girlfriends always seem hurt while the guys easily move on to their next fling. Why are the women upset? After all, it was supposed to be just sex-just one of the “responsible social decisions” discussed in The Real Deal. Without an explanation for their emotions, my friends are left feeling used and embarrassed. All I could do is sit with these women while they let painful tears flow.

Our women’s center and sexual health groups failed to tell us the whole truth. They may warn of the physical risks of “unsafe sex” but tend to ignore its emotional toll which also has biological roots. Research suggests that a hormone called oxytocin plays a role in the feelings of attachment and trust that women feel for their sexual partners. Female mammals primarily release oxytocin while giving birth and breast feeding and the hormone facilitates mother-child bonding. Oddly enough, the same hormone is also released during sexual contact causing a sense of attachment. In men, oxytocin’s effects are neutralized by the release of testosterone.

Did you catch that ladies? There is a biological explanation for the way you feel and the way he doesn’t feel.

I had always thought casual sex had different consequences for men and women. Now, based on scientific evidence, I know it does. College women at Duke are suffering emotional pain that’s not only avoidable-but, predictable.

Why weren’t we told this three years ago?

[…]The explanation is a radical feminist agenda that has a foothold in women’s health discussions. As Dr. Miriam Grossman, a psychiatrist at UCLA suggests in her book, Unprotected, “I once assumed campus medicine and psychology had one priority: student well-being. I’m no longer so naive. Radical politics pervades my profession, and common sense has vanished.” To propose that “safe” sexual experimentation may not be emotionally healthy and may be more dangerous for women than men is not politically correct.

Premarital sex hurts women. But it also hurts men.

It’s not like men are going to be happy about transitioning from years of hooking up with no responsibilities to the rigorous demands of a marriage. Premarital sex destroys the ability of women and men to bond, because it trains them to separate out their emotions from sex. It makes no sense to expose yourself emotionally during sex if you’re not married – you run the risk of being crushed by the pain of separation. Do it enough times, and it becomes extremely difficult to allow sex to bond two people together emotionally.

Commentary

Doug Groothuis writes about a recent anti-ID lecture by Michael Shermer

Leave a comment

Here’s a review of a recent lecture by Michael Shermer by Doug Groothuis.

Excerpt:

Shermer’s basic argument against ID was what he called “the argument from personal incredulity.”

1. X looks designed.
2. I cannot figure out how X could come about through natural causes.
3. Therefore, X was supernaturally designed.

[…]Shermer made many criticisms of creationism and ID (usually not differentiating them), but this argument was the backbone of his critique. It amounts to an endorsement of methodological naturalism: we can only appeal to material explanations in science that preclude any originating design. But Shermer’s argument is faulty for several reasons.

He goes on to explain three reasons why that argument fails.

And then here’s another argument from Shermer:

Shermer’s argument against the design inference is this: The Argument from the Presumption of Naturalism:

1. All scientific arguments must be based on naturalism.
2. ID appeals to causes not allowed by naturalism.
3. Therefore, ID is not scientific.

And another argument. 

Shermer many times said that science (read: naturalism) is given enough time, it will explain what now seems difficult to explain (such as the Big Bang without God) or fine-tuning (without God). I have heard this so often, that I must dub it: The Post-dated check fallacy:

1. We cannot explain X naturalistically.
2. But give us more time and we will explain X naturalistically.
3. Therefore, we do not accept your ID explanation of X.

Are you seeing a pattern? Shermer has presupposed naturalism as a blind faith religion (which he never defends anywhere) and then uses his religion to twist science into supporting his blind faith in naturalism. I don’t mind that he is made happy by religion, but if he cannot support it with public evidence, then why bring it into the lab where the real science is happening? Why not not just keep his religion for the atheist equivalent of church, and leave scientists free to figure out how the world really works?

Click through to read the rest of the post (it’s worth reading).

Related posts

Science’s war on the religion of naturalism