Bill Pratt | April 30, 2009
Not very well, unless you believe that fairy tales from evolution’s past count as evidence. This excerpt comes from A. N. Wilson in a recent article he wrote for the New Statesman. The phenomenon of language alone should give us pause. A materialist Darwinian was having dinner with me a few years ago and we [...]
Bill Pratt | March 22, 2009
No, even though I often hear Christians talk as if it does. Many believe that if you interpret the “days” in Genesis to be long periods of time and you accept the current scientific consensus that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, then you are “siding” with evolution. The ironic thing is that [...]
Bill Pratt | March 12, 2009
Yes, that’s exactly what he said in the movie, “Expelled.” As long as the intelligent designer isn’t God, Dawkins is happy. Check out the movie clip at Wintery Knight. It’s well worth the visit.
Bill Pratt | March 11, 2009
Philosopher Ken Samples, in a recent “New Reasons to Believe” (Vol 1 , No 1) publication, argues that naturalistic evolution cannot explain how human beings can have true beliefs about anything. Naturalistic evolution posits that there only exists the material, natural world around us. Everything that exists is the result of random, material processes working [...]
Bill Pratt | February 28, 2009
Dr. Philip Skell, in a recent article posted on Forbes.com, says “no.” Skell correctly separates the study of origin science from experimental sciences in the world of biology. These are two distinct realms which Darwinists have become completely blind to. Skell writes that Darwinists “overstate both the evidence for Darwin’s theory of historical biology and [...]
Bill Pratt | February 14, 2009
The final ethical system we will analyze is known as the immanent purpose view. This view holds that “there is no reason why something rather than nothing exists, that there is no purpose for human history, that there is no life after death, and that humans are the result of a blind process of evolution.” The [...]
Bill Pratt | February 10, 2009
In the previous post, we introduced the ethical theory of optimistic humanism. In this post, we will start to analyze optimistic humanism in order to see whether it can adequately explain morality. Many of the same objections can be cited for optimistic humanism as were cited for social Darwinism because both base their ethics on [...]
Bill Pratt | February 9, 2009
In previous posts, we have built an understanding of seven aspects of morality that seem to be true. Following those posts, we examined a popular ethical system in the early 20th century known as social Darwinism, and we found that it utterly fails to explain what we know of moral norms. But social Darwinism is [...]
Bill Pratt | February 7, 2009
Continuing from yesterday’s post on What Is Wrong With Social Darwinism? Part 1: Fourth, morality is characterized by an “oughtness” that weighs upon us before we act. It is prescriptive, not descriptive. Ethics derived from evolution, however, are only descriptive. Ethicist Francis Beckwith offers the insight that evolutionary ethics only tells us “what behaviors in [...]
Bill Pratt | February 6, 2009
As we saw in the previous post describing social Darwinism, it was a disastrous experiment for mankind in the twentieth century, but need it have been? Certainly some dastardly individuals justified their tyrannical reigns with it, but we must take a sober look at the theory and evaluate its ability to explain the moral truths [...]
