"Something From Nothing" Explained In Two Minutes

Click below for a concise YouTube video that explains what science knows about the controversial hypothesis that the universe came from nothing:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Ej4Xj-w03CI

Evolution Is True (Full-Stop)

"Many of us are returning to work or school after spending time with relatives over the summer period. Sometimes we can be left wondering how on earth we are related to some of these people with whom we seemingly have nothing in common (especially with a particularly annoying relative).

"However, in evolutionary terms, we all share ancestors if we go far enough back in time. This means many features in our bodies stretch back thousands or even millions of years in our great family tree of life.

"In biology, the term "homology" relates to the similarity of a structure based on descent from a shared common ancestor. Think of the similarities of a human hand, a bat wing and a whale flipper. These all have specialist functions, but the underlying body plan of the bones remains the same.

"This differs from "analogous" structures, such as wings in insects and birds. Although they serve a similar function, the wings of a dragonfly and the wings of a parrot have arisen independently, and don't share the same evolutionary origin.

"Here are five examples of ancient traits you might be surprised to learn are still seen in humans today."

Click on this link for all any reasonable person needs to fully accept evolution as a reality.

Creationism Vs Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis: the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process. (link)

This blog has posted several times on the subject (link). There is little doubt that, eventually, science will confirm it as a fact, as confirmatory evidence continues to mount. However, conservative Christians continue to hold unsupported dogma in defense of their anti-evolution beliefs. Click on the link below for a video exposing the bad arguments against abiogenesis:

Creationist Misrepresents Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis: Closer To Understand It

"Diverse microbial life existed on Earth at least 3.75 billion years ago, suggests a new study led by UCL researchers that challenges the conventional view of when life began. 

"For the study, published in Science Advances, the research team analyzed a fist-sized rock from Quebec, Canada, estimated to be between 3.75 and 4.28 billion years old. In an earlier Nature paper*, the team found tiny filaments, knobs, and tubes in the rock which appeared to have been made by bacteria. 

"However, not all scientists agreed that these structures – dating about 300 million years earlier than what is more commonly accepted as the first sign of ancient life – were of biological origin. 

"Now, after extensive further analysis of the rock, the team has discovered a much larger and more complex structure – a stem with parallel branches on one side that is nearly a centimeter long – as well as hundreds of deformed spheres, or ellipsoids, alongside the tubes and filaments." (link)

The Case FOR And AGAINST Fine Tuning

"Arguments for fine-tuning: Physics has many constants like the charge of the electron, the gravitational constant, Planck’s constant. If any of their values were different, our universe, as we know it, would not be the same, and life would probably not exist."

Click on the link below for one of the best cases for fine-tuning of our reality. The bad news for theists: it's still not enough to put God in the gap of our knowledge.

Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?

Don't look to PragerU for an objective answer

Intelligent Design And Science

"Intelligent design (ID), according to the Discovery Institute, is defined as follows:

• “Intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

"The primary scientific criticism of ID is that it is not a legitimate scientific theory, but rather a transparent attempt at recasting religious faith (creationism) in scientific-sounding jargon. But ID lacks the minimal criteria to be considered science. ID proponents, of course, reject this argument because the entire purpose of ID is to masquerade creationism as a scientific theory.

"Much of the discussion on this question focuses on the specific point of whether or not ID can be falsified – can it theoretically be proven false by scientific evidence. ID proponents say yes, scientists generally say no."

Click on the link below for an analysis of this topic:

Is Intelligent Design Falsifiable?

Why scientists dismiss "Intelligent Design"

https://www.amazon.com/Not-Very-Intelligent-Design-intelligent-ebook/dp/B07C13NV5M

More Arguments From Ignorance To Attack Evolution

"While they differ on how much real Darwinian evolution really occurred (Michael Behe, for instance, says he has no problem with “common ancestry”), and whether the Earth is old or young, the IDers are united in spending their time attacking evolutionists on nonscientific grounds as well as emphasizing the things that evolution hasn’t yet explained, all while ignoring the great sea of evidence for evolution around them."

One thing that neither the DI nor Ferguson deals with is the pervasive evidence for human physical evolution as seen in the fossil record.

The Disease Spreads

"We have both had encounters with creationists. They come in all shades and represent all major denominations. They live in cities and in rural areas. Some are well educated, some belong to the establishment, others don’t. Some are well organized and well funded, others are not. Several are dedicated to a cause, many as missionaries with the role of spreading the word of divine creation as opposed to evolution; others keep to themselves. But despite their differences, they have something in common—they are all Europeans."

Creationism Invades Europe

What Religion Can Do To An Intelligent Person

It is astounding to think that this person was deciding legal disagreements at the highest level of the USA. Please also note, this is just one example of how his religious dogma interfered with science and justice.
(source for quote) 

The Word "Freedom" Is Misused By The Religious Right

Just like "Religious Freedom", "Academic Freedom" is a code word.  Beware of the camel's nose under the tent.

The Purpose of “Academic Freedom” Laws is to Promote Creationism

Anti-Science With Taxpayer Funds

Map: Publicly Funded Schools That Are Allowed to Teach Creationism.

Evolution 2.0?

First there was Creationism.   That was defeated decades ago.  Then, there was Intelligent Design.  That was defeated with the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial in 2005: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District.

Now the apologists are trying a new challenge to the consensus of the experts in evolutionary biology called Evolution 2.0:

http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Is-it-time-for-Evolution-2.0-Perry-Marshall-vs-PZ-Myers

The Not So Intelligent Designer

This week's Humanist Hour podcast presented an interview with Abby Hafer, in which she talked about her new book, The Not-So-Intelligent Designer: Why Evolution Explains the Human Body and Intelligent Design Does Not.  The podcast was a clear and easy-to-understand refutation of Creationism and Intelligent Design.  Enjoy.

http://thehumanist.com/multimedia/podcast/the-humanist-hour-178-dr-abby-hafer-on-unintelligent-design

Teach Creationism In Science Class?

"Creationism is presented as a sociopolitical controversy rather than a scientific controversy. I emphasize that there is no question about the validity of evolution as an explanatory model, and I present creationism as a political or ‘denialist’ movement rather than a competing theory with its own strengths and evidence. I then present several common assertions from creationism (e.g., that there are no transitional fossils), and refute them using scientific evidence. At the same time, I explain several of the common logical fallacies that are evident in creationist arguments. I encourage students to ask questions, and force me to defend my statements. I then ask them to attempt to generate hypotheses and tests of creationism. Their struggles with this task lead them, logically, to the conclusion that many creationist assertions are unfalsifiable and therefore nonscientific."

I agree with this approach, IF the teacher is skilled and knowledgeable with such. Other approaches don't seem to work very well against the "True Believers."

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/06/why_creationism_belongs_in_science_class.html