A Reminder: Your Brain Alone Is Not Reliable

Recently, I have received a great deal of push-back on my Facebook page regarding some topics, for example: chiropractic, acupuncture, corporal punishment, GMOs, and nuclear power. Frankly, their arguments are no different than the Intelligent Design folks. As I frequently say, tell me what other than the consensus of scientists actually working in the discipline under discussion will give you a better understanding of reality regarding such.

Regarding consumer products, including food from GMOs, unfortunately, there is a strong unsupported conspiracy theory that for-profit corporations cannot perform unbiased scientific studies. Should we ignore any research funded by companies or special interest groups? Certainly not. These groups provide invaluable funding for scientific research. Furthermore, science has many safeguards in place to catch instances of bias that affect research outcomes. Ultimately, misleading results will be corrected as science proceeds. (link)(link)

Intelligent Design Debunked By Proponent

If one is not skilled in science-based thinking, it is easy to be deceived. The anti-evolution crowd continues to promote the unfounded "Intelligent Design" hypothesis as science. Click on the link below for a podcast exposing the false foundation of such:

Theorist Accidentally Produces Evidence Against Intelligent Design

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

We May Not Be So Special

"Was life on Earth a fluke? Perhaps not. New research suggests that the emergence of life on Earth, while far from a guaranteed outcome, was in fact a probable event – although the odds of intelligent life evolving remain rather less favourable."

I sure wish the religious who talk about "intelligent design" would learn more about physics, cosmology, mathematics, and how the natural world, the only one we really "know", operates.

Click on the link below:

Astronomer Calculates The Odds of Life Emerging on Earth

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.

Intelligent Design And Mass Extinctions

"Biologists suspect we’re living through the sixth major mass extinction. Earth has witnessed five, when more than 75% of species disappeared."

With the history of life on Earth, how can anyone honestly see a loving intelligent designer behind it?

The Big Five Mass Extinctions

The Ignorance Of Accepting "Microevolution" But Not "Macroevolution"

"In that sense—in invoking unspecified limits to microevolution that can’t be overcome except by God—the Intelligent Design crowd is exactly the same as their less sophisticated ancestors."

Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ Darwin

The Lost City

"It is important to understand our 'intelligent design bias', not to dismiss such hypotheses out of hand, but to remain cautious and maintain a healthy skepticism."

It’s important to remember that in order to conclude that an anomaly is the product of deliberate artifice, we need further evidence.

Intelligent Design?

"Evolution constructed our bodies with the biological equivalent of duct tape and lumber scraps."

Seriously, it doesn't take much thought from those who design structures for function, safety and efficiency to come up with something better.

Top 10 Design Flaws In The Human body

Intelligent Design - Rational Wiki

15 answers to Creationist nonsense

Not Only Is God Of Bad Character, He Is A Bad Designer

If one thinks that reality has an transcendent purpose and is intelligently designed, how would a random, purposeless reality be different from what we have now?

Freethought Radio interviews Dr. Abby Hafer on God: Bad Character, Bad Designer

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