On Creationism

Günter Bechly is a creationist, but he is unusual in having some real science credentials. It could be argued that that means he knows what realise science is and should know better, but religion somehow blinds people to the faults in their own arguments. Like all creationists he prefers to use podcasts and videos to promote his nonsense, but here is one paper that got offered to my by a guy on a forum as though it makes a good argument. New Fossil Human Species Thwarts Core Darwinian Predictions Science is Tentative​ The first paragraph is about how human evolutionary history is being re-written as new evidence comes to light. Bechly seems to think this somehow invalidates evolution. It does not. This is how science is done. Right from the start he shows us he prefers the certainty of never-changing dogma to the tentative and changeable world of science. "I can hardly resist the temptation to say “I told you so,” or to jokingly remark, “Oops, they did it again.” "​ I can pre

This is an argument presented by JP Moreland here (he credits Alexander Pruss): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371750736_The_Modal_Argument_and_a_Rejoinder_to_Contingent_Physicalism From the paper, the argument is: (1) The Indiscernibility of Identicals & (x=y)→•(x=y). (2) POs are essentially, wholly, and intrinsically physical and SSs are essentially, wholly, and intrinsically immaterial.  (3) Possibly, I exist, and no POs exist.  (4) My physical body is a PO. (5) Therefore, possibly, I exist without my physical body existing. (6) Therefore, it is not the case that I am essentially, wholly, and intrinsically my body or any PO. (7) I am essentially, wholly, and intrinsically either a PO or SS. (8) Therefore, I am essentially, wholly, and intrinsically a SS. PO stands for "physical object" while "SS stands for spiritual substance". Elsewhere he gives a more simplistic summary: I am possibly disembodied (I could survive without my brain or body).​ My bra