The materialist view of the origins of life is one of those things that looks okay from a high-level, blurry view, but which turns utterly absurd once you examine it closer. Or perhaps not even that; just when you phrase it correctly. It seems to be that a chemical reaction became self-perpetuating and everything that’s … Continue reading Thought of the Day: Materialist View of Origins of Life
For most of our contemporaries, 'Science' is only the means to impose their own views as dogma without all the difficulties, limitations, and demands of religion.
Another post is up at The Federalist: in this one I give some reasons why I'm skeptical of what is now called 'Climate Change:' You see, I can’t judge from what I don’t know (e.g., climate science), but I can judge from what I do know. I know something of history, something of philosophy, and something … Continue reading Talking Climate Change at ‘The Federalist’
Something that occurred to me the other day: if natural selection and chance variables in genes from generation to generation is the main engine of change, then shouldn't animals that reproduce most rapidly show the most accelerated evolution? That is, shouldn't, say, the rabbits of today be markedly different from the rabbits of a thousand … Continue reading A Thought on Evolution
So, there's a study going around the different popular science sites of the internet to the effect that genetic testing indicates most animal species actually appeared about the same time as humanity: 100 - 200,000 years ago. Apparently, they can tell this by the lack of notable variations in mitochondrial DNA between different species. I'm … Continue reading Occam’s Razor in Action
The real question raised by the tarantula hawk’s practice of paralyzing and laying its eggs into a tarantula before burying it is this; how does it know what a tarantula is, if it was born in the dark, underground, inside the thing? How does it know to go after the tarantula, sting it, bury it, … Continue reading A Startling Conclusion
I was fantasizing about pitting one of my characters against Hannibal Lecter (because I do that sort of thing) when I came out with an argument that rather surprised me. It went something like this: When a psychologist is studying his patient, his only evidence are what the patient tells him about himself (drawn out … Continue reading Check My Reasoning Here