TreesNightly

I recently had a discussion about what it would take to falsify evolution with another atheist. We both agreed that theories based on evidence are all falsifiable by counter-evidence, but we disagreed on the amount of counter-evidence it would take in the case of evolution. Here is the hypothetical evidence that he believes would falsify the theory: �If we found an organism that clearly breaks out of the evolutionary tree we know. Say - a 5 legged creature, or an animal without DNA, or an animal that has a DNA that doesn�t have any common parts with the rest of the life on earth.� Such a find would certainly be compelling, but I would first consider that the outlier was created artificially or evolved in isolation of all other known life before throwing out evolutionary theory. As unlikely as either of these sound, they would be more reasonable explanations. To show evolution is false, each line of evidence needs to be overturned. Each aspect of the theory needs to be falsified. Evolut...

Darwin Day was last week, or as religious apologists call it "question evolution day." In that spirit, I posed a question to those not sold on the theory. What aspect(s) of evolution do you have a problem with? Is it that you don't believe in heritability? Is it that you don't believe natural selection is a sufficient mechanism to propagate beneficial genes and weed out harmful or useless genes? Is it that you don't believe in genetic mutation? There was one apologist who answered saying that they didn't believe in heritability--he actually didn't believe that traits were based down from parent to child. I asked if he noticed that black parents typically have black kids and that tall parents usually have tall kids, but to that he said anecdotal evidence can't be used to show anything. Luckily, only one respondent went to this extreme a denial. There was another apologist who didn't believe natural selection is a sufficient mechanism for the theory....

�God of the gaps� is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. (from Wikipedia) History has shown us that many gaps can and have been filled as scientific knowledge grows. So much so, in fact, that it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there is a natural explanation for our remaining gaps. Theists tend not to come to this conclusion, for obvious reasons, but I wonder how long this conclusion may be avoided. I wonder how much longer this theological perspective will have any semblance of relevancy. The best example of a closed gap is Darwin�s shutdown of the argument from design. Of course, I realize there are still fringe individuals and backward denominations that dismiss evolution as a valid explainer of the world�s biological complexity, but if the slow-to-come-around Catholic Church is on board, it�s safe to say that the others are simply in denial. From most of my interactions with honest t...

I admit, I�m a strange bird. I�m always keeping an eye out for content for this blog which has me coloring even the most secular interactions in my day-to-day as metaphors for religion. When I see something that inherently does have religious themes, I�m so distracted about how to leverage it into a post that I stop living in the moment. This weeks opening movie, Man of Steel , has inherent Christian themes--yet I barely realized until retrospection. This goes to show, as much as I think about Jesus, I think even more about Superman. Spoilers follow. Sure, Man of Steel depicts Kal-El as a miraculous birth who grows up to stand beside stainglass windows of JC and float out of space ships crucifixion-style, but as I said before, I barely noticed in the awesomeness that is Superman. The only thing that bothered me enough to take me out of the flick was a mid-fight speech in which General Zod�s right-hand woman waxed poetic about the merits of evolution over morality. To sum up, she said...

For this to make sense, please check out my post exchange with Dr. Luke Conway here and here . You might as well check my Rebuttal, Part One  and Rebuttal, Part Two also. I�ve covered the moral argument for God multiple times on this blog and consider it the worst argument in the long, sad history of apologetic arguments. The only way I can address this again and remain sane is if I break up Dr. Conway�s post and address it in segments. The bold bits are the words of The Apologetic Professor. Here it goes. Theism provides a more coherent view of morality than atheism. No, it doesn�t. It doesn�t. It. Does. Not. If you are an atheist, you believe in a universe that has absolutely no moral will. This part is true. I believe the universe has no will, moral or otherwise. The materialist must assume that I have a moral will for the same set of reasons that I have blue eyes or a love of the Indigo Girls, or that the sky appears blue or rocks are solid substances � they are the...