tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-343794902024-02-28T02:50:40.048-08:00Intelligent DesignDiscussing the concepts surrounding intelligent design, its use in various scientific fields, debating faulty logic, discovering the humor of human thinking.Lee Penickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10220839564066969299noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34379490.post-29755449026909883472008-03-19T22:17:00.000-07:002008-03-19T22:24:14.627-07:00An interview on Darwinism with Dr. Berlinski<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8iFnyCjcodY&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8iFnyCjcodY&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>Lee Penickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10220839564066969299noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34379490.post-23751465325635863882008-03-03T20:10:00.001-08:002008-03-03T20:10:46.293-08:00Comic proof of ID!!Lee Penickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10220839564066969299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34379490.post-64498444126224582092008-03-03T19:46:00.000-08:002008-03-03T19:56:49.564-08:00The Uncommon Descent web siteThe Uncommon Descent web site is well worth checking out. As they say:<br /><br />Uncommon Descent holds that...<br /><br />Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution -- an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.<br /><br />DaveScot gives a nice summary of Biochemistry Professor M.Behe’s "Edge of Evolution" and Cornell geneticist J.Sanford’s "Genetic Entropy".<br /><br />Here's a snippet,<br />"All the negative reviews I’ve read of EoE nitpick at minutae while dodging the big picture. The big picture is that P.falciparum under intense scrutiny for billions of trillions of generations did exactly what ID theorists predicted - next to nothing. In contrast the ID deniers tell us over and over that the same evolutionary mechanism (RM+NS), in orders of magnitude fewer generations, turned a lizard into a lemur."Lee Penickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10220839564066969299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34379490.post-48698582779511616222008-03-01T12:56:00.000-08:002008-03-01T13:06:03.649-08:00Ph.D. John West to present at Columbia Basin College<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhogWDYfQkSYLWACatg2TOPnnJgNnhE_Dn5_HGjMJZUG5Wlrn8_yrj9ohYr6zsVWQZZVZdMEKsu5Ky_qAmGG4Qj2UbcVWaP-ZOUBvfK1JPNPlSv1KR05VUDphYxNyEA-ejUnSJb/s1600-h/Darwin+Day+in+America.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhogWDYfQkSYLWACatg2TOPnnJgNnhE_Dn5_HGjMJZUG5Wlrn8_yrj9ohYr6zsVWQZZVZdMEKsu5Ky_qAmGG4Qj2UbcVWaP-ZOUBvfK1JPNPlSv1KR05VUDphYxNyEA-ejUnSJb/s320/Darwin+Day+in+America.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5172882307254304578" /></a><br />Dr. West will be presenting at 6:30 PM at CBC on 3/4/08.<br /><br />Location is Gjerde Center on the CBC campus. (Blgd H)<br /><br />There is No cost and it's open to the public.<br /><br />The general topic will be Darwin in education. There will be a question period at the end of the presentation.<br /><br />Dr. West's recent book is "Darwin Day in America"Lee Penickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10220839564066969299noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34379490.post-9377995778290545152008-03-01T08:30:00.000-08:002008-03-01T08:52:43.950-08:00What Can ID Tell Us About The Designer?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjriEf9HW7RwZxSPdDBavJPyc7xfXGjXNWSlpPwr_dtUEa7i0d7VTWq9pthdJPcjS0if3FLPJkoUebiwBySb2wBnTU9TbGh6snlBTRbspPgx9vuo_na9PdMYqeLdg9_4ugiMO_b/s1600-h/salvo4.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjriEf9HW7RwZxSPdDBavJPyc7xfXGjXNWSlpPwr_dtUEa7i0d7VTWq9pthdJPcjS0if3FLPJkoUebiwBySb2wBnTU9TbGh6snlBTRbspPgx9vuo_na9PdMYqeLdg9_4ugiMO_b/s320/salvo4.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5172815013706710834" /></a><br />Salvo magazine had a great issue that just came out...focusing on Intelligent Design.<br /><br />Jay Richards wrote one article titled, " What Can ID Tell Us About The Designer?"<br /><br />He ended his article with a paragraph worth repeating and remembering.<br /><br />"Given the scope of evidence for design in nature, from biology to cosmology, we see that the designer must be able to create self-replicating nanotechnology, and to set up the basic properties of matter. This agent is, to say the least, creative, smart, and powerful. That might not tell you what to do with your life, but it certainly tells you something."<br /><br />It's sadly ironic that we see University biology teaching that life is the product of an unintentional, purposeless process, where humans are an accident, and at the same time, we see University shooting after shooting. Is there a correlation, a causation?<br /><br />It's sad that there is so much evidence for design, yet our schools teach a philosophy of meaningless and no purpose. Maybe we are tragically reaping exactly what we sow...a generation without perceived purpose or meaning.Lee Penickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10220839564066969299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34379490.post-32515487468913659872008-02-23T09:09:00.000-08:002008-02-24T14:21:35.255-08:00EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRiaOhyphenhyphenFFQ28C2cj2UvT0k-NJ_mFjCE0OKZzJs0lAe43OfoTxjK6rPbd3sqsJnp_QBni8CwFwj9Htzw_1xG8womhi7A618cVESqp-OzeLjeN6P0EN-ZF7hXNLXZYoUz5w3LRYB/s1600-h/expelled-120x600.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRiaOhyphenhyphenFFQ28C2cj2UvT0k-NJ_mFjCE0OKZzJs0lAe43OfoTxjK6rPbd3sqsJnp_QBni8CwFwj9Htzw_1xG8womhi7A618cVESqp-OzeLjeN6P0EN-ZF7hXNLXZYoUz5w3LRYB/s400/expelled-120x600.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5170674013739311266" /></a><br />In a controversial new satirical documentary, author, former presidential speechwriter, economist, lawyer and actor Ben Stein travels the world, looking to some of the best scientific minds of our generation for the answer to the biggest question facing all Americans today: <br /><br />Are we still free to disagree about the meaning of life?<br /><br />Or has the whole issue already been decided…<br />while most of us weren’t looking?<br /><br />The Issue:<br />The freedom to legitimately challenge “Big Science’s” orthodoxy…without persecution.<br /><br />The debate over evolution is confusing and to some, bewildering: “Wasn’t this all settled years ago?” The answer to that question is equally troubling: “Yes…and no.” <br /><br />The truth is that a staggering amount of new scientific evidence has emerged since Darwin’s 150-year-old theory of life’s origins. Darwin had no concept of DNA, microbiology, The Big Bang, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity or of the human genome. <br /><br />Each of these discoveries has, in one way or another, led a growing number of scientists to reconsider the simple view espoused by Darwin that life is a random, purposeless, chance occurrence. The universe, and life itself – is turning out to be far more complex and mysterious – than Darwin could possibly have imagined.<br /><br />Darwin’s theory isn’t a single idea. Instead, it is made up of several related ideas, each supported by specific arguments. Of the three, only Evolution #1 can be said to be scientifically “settled.”<br /><br />Evolution#1: First, evolution can mean minor changes in features of individual species – changes that take place gradually over a (relatively) modest period of time. <br /><br />Evolution # 2: The Theory of Universal Common Descent - the idea that all the organisms we see today are descended from a single common ancestor somewhere in the distant past. This theory paints a picture of the history of life on earth as a great branching tree, from a single cell that “somehow” materialized.<br /><br />Evolution#3: A cause or mechanism of change, the biological process Darwin thought was responsible for this branching pattern. Darwin argued that natural selection had the power to produce fundamentally new forms of life. Together, the ideas of Universal Common Descent and natural selection form the core of Darwinian evolutionary theory. “Neo – Darwinian” evolution combines our knowledge of DNA and genetics to claim that mutations in DNA provide the variation upon which natural selection acts.<br /><br />When you see the word “evolution.” You should ask yourself, “Which of the three definitions is being used?” Because arguments and evidence supporting #1 do not support #2 or #3!<br /> <br />What Is Intelligent Design?<br /><br />The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. <br /><br />“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” rejects the notion that “the case is closed,” and exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy.<br /><br />The Controversy<br />The American public’s awareness and beliefs vis-à-vis our government’s expanding role in defining the curriculum in America’s schools, universities and institutions of science.<br /><br />Neo-Darwinian theory contends that life is the result of a random, purposeless process.<br /><br />Neo – Darwinian theory is taught in schools as if it is the only plausible scientific explanation of how life originated and developed. Yet Intelligent Design theory has recently emerged to challenge neo-Darwinian theory. <br /><br />Both are scientific theories, and the debate is therefore legitimate. Why is the debate being suppressed?<br /><br />At stake are two very consequential views of existence: Is life purposeful, and intelligently designed? Or is it random and purposeless?<br /><br />Question #1:<br />Knowing this - should our government be engaged in official, de facto promotion of the exclusively secular, materialist worldview inherent in neo-Darwinian theory in our nation’s public schools, universities and research institutions? Why? <br /><br />Question #2:<br />There is growing support among scientists that there is evidence of intelligent design operating in nature. Yet these scientists, researchers and educators are being routinely persecuted for their scientific views. Who is behind this persecution? Why is this happening in America? How did this situation develop?<br /><br />Question #3:<br />Should the enterprise of science somehow be treated differently from all other forms of human knowledge, and accorded a special privilege that exempts it from robust debate or inquiry, especially when such debate or inquiry may alter viewpoints that raise important questions concerning larger issues that extend beyond the limits of science itself?<br /><br />“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” presents a point-of-view so powerful, that it literally forces a re-examination of these issues.<br /><br />What’s At Stake (and why is it important)?<br />We all know that ideas have consequences.<br /><br />And our country was founded on principles of free and open debate.<br /><br />The differences between these two worldviews are certainly consequential. So…why the suppression of scientific debate? <br /><br />If in our publicly funded schools, universities and institutions our children continue to be taught only this: that all life on earth is the result of a purposeless, meaningless and undirected process of random mutation and natural selection…<br /><br />What are the consequences over time of teaching this one-sided worldview as if it were fact rather than theory?<br /><br />How will ideas of morality change, if life is thought to be purposeless and undirected?<br />How will the role of Government change, if the individual is taught by The State that one is accountable only to ones self? <br />How will the role of “science” change, if “Big Science” alone determines our worldview?<br /><br />Such a change in our government’s official policy represents a deeply troubling shift in our cultural identity and a radical departure from the very principles upon which our country was built. America is the first Democracy that was founded on the distinctive worldview that “a Creator” conferred “inalienable rights” on human beings, rather than the State, or another institution, such as “Big Science.” <br /><br />So…how was it decided that the teaching of such a profoundly different worldview should become the official position of the United States of America’s public institutions?<br /><br />Who was behind the decision? And…why?<br /><br />“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” looks to scientists on both sides of the issue…and reveals some truly shocking answers.Lee Penickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10220839564066969299noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34379490.post-38200954350850802462007-11-16T13:37:00.001-08:002007-11-16T13:42:01.565-08:00Darwin challenged, research censoredMore evidence concerning the objectivity of Darwinian scientists.<br /><br />"Here's what's going on: Somebody within the scientific community let [Baylor dean Ben] Kelley know that Marks was running a website that was friendly to intelligent design. Such a thing is completely unacceptable in today's university system – even at a Christian institution. Kelley was probably told to have the site shut down immediately or suffer the consequences," Ruloff said.<br /><br />"What are those consequences? The ultimate penalty is to have Baylor marginalized by being designated as not a 'legitimate institution of higher learning.' So designated merely for the 'crime' of allowing Neo-Darwinism to be questioned, since conventional elitist wisdom holds it's no longer a theory but an inviolable truth."Lee Penickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10220839564066969299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34379490.post-15818305197112697302007-11-15T20:37:00.000-08:002007-11-16T08:19:35.460-08:00PBS - Intelligent Design on Trial<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA7b1JKsn2CEZFyFpy6ZtggnLXSew51SqK7iWz1i6gQ_t6PokHKJif2u8q1VSqR2-3Gfz7bFnbOV_tbp_-ErrnGeVzX4WJtB5fLWD8zoii8s1oHx65jRNF00VA2S_Bm2ADoMv8/s1600-h/the+marketing+of+evil.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA7b1JKsn2CEZFyFpy6ZtggnLXSew51SqK7iWz1i6gQ_t6PokHKJif2u8q1VSqR2-3Gfz7bFnbOV_tbp_-ErrnGeVzX4WJtB5fLWD8zoii8s1oHx65jRNF00VA2S_Bm2ADoMv8/s400/the+marketing+of+evil.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5133473477136287634" /></a><br />And I thought reporters and journalists were supposed to be fair, impartial reporters of the news. PBS cured me of that false impression after I watched their TV special on the trial at Dover which aired on November 13th.<div><br /></div><div>If that PBS show was a trial, it was old Soviet era style. Fairness and objectivity were things to only be wished for. Truth got the gulag.</div><div><br /></div><div>Here's a link that points out some of the errors of the producers ways...</div><div><br /></div><div>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/pbs_airs_its_inherit_the_wind.html<br /><br /></div><div>And the picture of the Book in the upper right corner...that happened by chance to insert itself into this blog. If billions and billions of pieces of information can come together by natural forces without intelligence and cause the first life, then certainly that picture could get into this blog in the same manner. The electrons just arranged themselves that way by chance.</div><div><br /></div><div>Something tells me the average Darwinist won't believe a coincidence involving one picture and one blog, but will believe a coincidence involving billions of informational pieces that are complex and specified.</div><div><br /></div><div>Does any Darwinist know the origin of the first biological information enabling life? PBS didn't bother to mention issues like that as they ran what amounted to a 2-hour commercial for their favorite philosophy.</div>Lee Penickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10220839564066969299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34379490.post-13971521228991703632007-11-13T21:08:00.000-08:002007-11-15T20:23:01.226-08:00One Changed Mind<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMMfmtMvBx867q4DYcKadiknhjybANR4OOTA5GkSxMyWFGT2KViKWyY9AJ38xpxjhK_0RJvhmnTsgbzrzCYrBTCyfe0RAjlRAyFqP7awsMY8BoWP-DGZJhflijOJ3TCqwMH3v4/s1600-h/flew+book.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMMfmtMvBx867q4DYcKadiknhjybANR4OOTA5GkSxMyWFGT2KViKWyY9AJ38xpxjhK_0RJvhmnTsgbzrzCYrBTCyfe0RAjlRAyFqP7awsMY8BoWP-DGZJhflijOJ3TCqwMH3v4/s320/flew+book.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5132561108853914674" /></a><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">"There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind" </span><div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div>Antony Flew - on why decades of atheism wasn't correct after all.</div><div><br /></div><div>I imagine Richard Dawkins has removed Antony from his Christmas list...and the traditional plastic transitional fossil will not be given this year.</div><div><br /></div><div>I wonder if the plastic transitional fossils climbed mount improbable, or were they designed by a Toy company? Perhaps Richard wouldn't be able to tell either way. </div></div>Lee Penickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10220839564066969299noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34379490.post-89839336328050135202007-11-07T19:31:00.000-08:002007-11-07T19:56:39.394-08:00Dr. Scott Chambers Podcast - Cosmological Fine TuningThe Tri-Cities own Dr. Scott Chambers was recently featured on a Discovery Institute podcast,<br />“Cosmological Fine Tuning and the Multiverse Model” October 22, 2007<br /><br />Dr. Chambers explains:<br />• his current research and interest in the debate over evolution and ID,<br />• how the evidence for the fine-tuning of the universe and the fundamental constants of physics lead scientists to an inference of design,<br />• the multiverse hypothesis.Lee Penickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10220839564066969299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34379490.post-39118774553150213742007-11-06T17:30:00.000-08:002007-11-07T19:39:02.261-08:00Doctors who doubt Darwinism<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitEyT25t84evSiQlI6gaaWXK0hLeEUqAEa3kSLY0va15EBJUSOFRfYijqiUAuhoEhAi8v3wXZ0q1MEKMyV648OWtCoVr5P7K4eVKwqz1KkpCo7uymiIv8aBH52M0IVDPKgE3uR/s1600-h/billinks.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitEyT25t84evSiQlI6gaaWXK0hLeEUqAEa3kSLY0va15EBJUSOFRfYijqiUAuhoEhAi8v3wXZ0q1MEKMyV648OWtCoVr5P7K4eVKwqz1KkpCo7uymiIv8aBH52M0IVDPKgE3uR/s400/billinks.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5129906305789033058" /></a>Just when scientists were trying to tell the world that Darwinism was a fact of science...look who shows up to spoil the party!<div><br /></div><div>Doctors who doubt the philosophy that chance is the father of everything.</div><div><br /></div><div>Take a look at their web site via the link above.</div><div><br /></div><div>or Dr. Simmons new book:</div><div><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Billions of Missing Links </span></div><div>by Dr. Geoffrey Simmons<br /></div>Lee Penickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10220839564066969299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34379490.post-69275526641263513922007-11-02T20:22:00.000-07:002008-02-24T14:20:37.556-08:00Was Intelligent Design the cause of this Pretty Blue Planet?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimV-kDL0_F5Q08sezJenE215k3CdYt9ziods1oipKoYHLV3m_ITiSSQtkIBH4G3xfK1HommHV_hUtSOoSLv0SEdJyyppzCp2cV5ITU7UQwjhOcCS6jwEo2N2HcCa4U5a6GNmYR/s1600-h/pbp+pic.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimV-kDL0_F5Q08sezJenE215k3CdYt9ziods1oipKoYHLV3m_ITiSSQtkIBH4G3xfK1HommHV_hUtSOoSLv0SEdJyyppzCp2cV5ITU7UQwjhOcCS6jwEo2N2HcCa4U5a6GNmYR/s320/pbp+pic.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5170675186265383106" /></a><br />The Intelligent Design vs. Materialism debate is perhaps one that will never go away. The debate involves more than data as preliminary assumptions and prior biases become vitally important in determining how a person interprets the data and ultimately forms it into some sort of a working worldview that influences their life.<br /><br />Many scientists are very committed to a materialistic framework. This commitment to a materialistic worldview was clearly demonstrated by Professor Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, when he said,<br /><br />“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”<br /><br />However, when searching for causes in science (especially when dealing in origin science as opposed to operational science) confining the answers to “material causes” from the beginning has the effect of predetermining the end result. If the objective of the search is to find materialistic causes, then perhaps a scientist operating under this paradigm has won, for no other result will be found. If the objective is a true determination of a “cause” responsible for an “effect” then the scientist may have lost - just as those who provided the funding and depended on the result may have lost.<br /><br />While our world is stressed with present day problems (violence, war, poverty and more) on a grander scale it’s a beautiful place! I hope you will take a look at the attached PDF file. Within the beauty of our universe and planet there is a message, if we just take the time to look, listen, and consider what we are being told.<br /><br />As the presentation demonstrates, effects have causes, and the causes must exist in time prior to the effect. Just as I don’t see my son being the cause of my father, you too may find it hard to see how Professor Richard Lewontin’s “materialism” can explain the formation of the universe and the materialistic forces he now likes to study. (Or stated in a stronger manner, just as my son can’t be the cause of his grandfather, material forces can’t go back in time and create themselves or anything else before they existed.)<br /><br />Since we live in a world where the cause comes before the effect, the origin of the universe and origin of life become very interesting topics with meaningful implications.Lee Penickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10220839564066969299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34379490.post-57647341339615637442007-10-31T20:34:00.000-07:002007-11-02T20:25:47.379-07:00Intelligent Design - The Origin of Biological Information<div align="left"><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="color:#000000;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGI_RTjTlq5RioWuH9IvMkfho_VzT7Tcuv5T7vI4cCh3vN_xzYSpGcjvS6c70w3PbAd5rTyqngo1CxQAnbaljJ7D72e_0b8wSt6vIHJwUD2PN-M04XFLv03oD9JBPLNsjLQe1z/s1600-h/DNA+II.jpg"></a>In this interesting video, a prominent defender of Darwinian evolution, Dr. Richard <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Dawkins</span>, says the selective accumulation of lucky mutations can explain biological information.<br /></span></span></div><br /><span style="color:#000000;"><span style="color:#000000;">This view is challenged by:</span> </span><br /><ol><li><span style="color:#000000;">biophysicist, Dr. Lee <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Spetner</span>, in Israel, </span></li><br /><li><span style="color:#000000;">molecular biologist, Dr. Michael <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Denton</span>, in New Zealand</span></li><br /><li><span style="color:#000000;">In Germany, Dr. Werner <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Gitt</span>, an information scientist, explains that evolutionary processes cannot produce new information.</span></li><br /><li><span style="color:#000000;">in Australia, biologist Dr. Don Batten shows there are clear limits to biological change--frogs will always breed frogs.</span></li></ol><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfuelv-WWaSjkAqUzFya_29snTG1rttWtVlKZGlqkmKUxy1Z0Zc2x70A8Ipd2lcgAn8Ik7xJUPKzf7qgpCl77kaVnNpeUYfVykqoQqXiUcT_vGWnKLJ8akAEqCUIz6YHKOmetC/s1600-h/frog+to+a+prince.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5127732987912747586" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfuelv-WWaSjkAqUzFya_29snTG1rttWtVlKZGlqkmKUxy1Z0Zc2x70A8Ipd2lcgAn8Ik7xJUPKzf7qgpCl77kaVnNpeUYfVykqoQqXiUcT_vGWnKLJ8akAEqCUIz6YHKOmetC/s320/frog+to+a+prince.bmp" border="0" /></a> <p align="center"><span style="color:#000000;">Watch <strong>"From a Frog to a Prince"</strong></span><br /><a href="http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/from_frog_toprince.html">http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/from_frog_toprince.html</a></p><span style="color:#000000;">In this video you will see:</span><br /><br /><p><span style="color:#000000;">Richard <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Dawkins</span> can't answer the most important question asked, and then continues by answering a different question. </span><br /></p><p><span style="color:#000000;">A good demonstration of the "fact" of evolution and just how sound the logic <em>isn't</em>.</span></p><p><span style="color:#000000;">A good example of scientists who don't believe <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Neo</span> Darwinism is correct.</span></p><span style="color:#000000;">A good example of research that doesn't support the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Neo</span> Darwinian theory.</span>Lee Penickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10220839564066969299noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34379490.post-59029194620479149332007-10-26T09:39:00.000-07:002007-10-30T21:44:31.256-07:00Microsoft forges ahead with “MM” and “NMS” software development intelligent design technologyWouldn’t it be funny if…<br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/512/1314/1600/microsoft.jpg"></a><br /><br />Microsoft announced drastic layoffs in software architects and software engineers as they modify their software design paradigm. Stating they have been minimized, marginalized and kept in the “dark ages” by employing design methodologies in the past, Microsoft has now embraced the results of evolutionary theory having seen that unintelligent, unguided, random changes combined with natural selection have produced functionally integrated, irreducibly complex marvels of engineering and information processing. “The brilliance of nature exceeds our own efforts in this are<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihrMBfYnv7mxBD7IQ1Kwogq9iySsLuVJ0XU0woq4gVOTwEp04O1BPsJnFcFpjRnv1AvynU-dmI2UlYTAh9afyZcvGgLq2AIrgvUlim4QZeYf91b9c3hk9ffHDo4lZ-N6C5jdgy/s1600-h/bytes-ch.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5125686719464045106" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihrMBfYnv7mxBD7IQ1Kwogq9iySsLuVJ0XU0woq4gVOTwEp04O1BPsJnFcFpjRnv1AvynU-dmI2UlYTAh9afyZcvGgLq2AIrgvUlim4QZeYf91b9c3hk9ffHDo4lZ-N6C5jdgy/s320/bytes-ch.jpg" border="0" /></a>a. It’s time for change!”<br /><br /><br />Microsoft began software development with this new natural method some time ago and products have been shipped. “All of planet earth is benefiting form this new method”<br /><br />When pressed for more detail, spokesman stated that after going on a reading retreat some years ago, senior management read “The Blind Watchmaker” and quickly felt certain they could implement a “blind software development process”. “In simplest form, we mimic Nature… with our “Mutational Magic” software development tool we randomly changed the code in a manner analogous to DNA mutation in nature. “Mutational Magic” can produce point mutations (where a “0” is substituted for a “1” in the code), random deletions of code sections, and copying errors where a section of code is copied and randomly placed in a new location.<br /><br />Bill Gates said “We are wildly enthusiast about this breakthrough. Not only does “Mutational Magic” offer new hope for software development, it is being followed up with “Natural Market Selection”. Sure, most software mutational events will lead to nonfunctional code, but that will be handled by NMS. Once people buy the version that doesn’t work, word will spread and sales will drop. That version will go extinct as sales plummet and better performing versions of the software will sell better. Those better selling version will be further altered by “mutational magic”. We envision a radical new paradigm of natural evolving software that is like nothing the public has ever seen!”<br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/512/1314/1600/sunmicro.jpg"></a>Google refused to comment but is believed to be working on their own version of Mutational Magic that will work on-line and allow consumers to mutate their personal computer files. “Why mutate only the programs, consumers have a right to mutate their data files too!”<br /><br />Sun Microsystems responded, that “We have been concerned with Apple Computer’s resurgence lately and especially the iPod. We’ve embraced the concept behind Mutational Magic and have a new product coming out soon that mutates songs for download to the iPod. We apologize for those homes used in our market analysis, but the hearing damage caused by the mutational combining of “Kid Rock” with “God Bless America” is believe to be short lived. Surely Natural Market Selection will make this version a low seller and it will run its course.<br /><br />Not to be outdone, the IRS is implementing a $37 billion dollar program to upgrade its federal income tax software employing a similar approach to MM and NMS. “Those taxpayers filing on-line returns will benefit the most. While some may run into legal problems because of non-productive mutations, those getting beneficial mutations should benefit greatly from our efforts.”<br /><br />A London based think tank entered the excitement, voicing its concern that the vast majority of mutations are not beneficial, but indeed harmful. “We must emphasize that this will not lead to “software success”. Well designed software will be destroyed and riddled with errors as harmful mutations corrupt a designed code built for a purpose to perform a specific function”<br /><br />The lobbyist group, “Blinded by Naturalism” says this is not so. That “software success” is defined as “making progress by code mutation”. That any other method of developing software is not “software success” and could not be considered software success or even successful software. Outraged, they plan to file suit against anyone claiming their software is successful unless it meets this stringent definition.<br /><br />The ASLU, (American Software Lawyers Union) protested vehemently on CNN. This is an outrage. We don’t know why just yet, but we have a right to be outraged! Any negative comment about Mutational Magic or Natural Market Selection may be unconstitutional. We have money, we must sue!<br /><br />Shortly after appearing on CNN, the Google News reported over 500 similar articles in leading newspapers describing the silliness of doubting “Mutational Magic”. The phrase, “Mutational Magic is a fact of Software Success” was prevalent in 97% of the articles. They concluded that anyone that thought otherwise was trying to export all software functions to foreign countries for minimum wage.<br /><br />Later in the day, Microsoft was asked to comment on the sales of its new products. They had no comment as the recently installed version of Excel was not totaling properly and new sales figures were unavailable.<br /><br />Similarly, the NASDAQ was asked to comment on any change in stock price for Microsoft, but also had no comment, sighting a recently installed operating system that was not allowing them to track stock prices.<br /><br />Just before this went to press, the ASLU clarified their position, “Yes we are slightly left of anything else in your field of view”.<br /><br />All interviewees were asked what evidence exists demonstrating that MM and NMS will generate complex computer code:<br /><br />Microsoft responded, “It’s a fact of computer science, and Google has been researching it, they have the evidence.”<br /><br />Google responded, “It’s a fact of computer science, there’s a rumor Apple’s iPod used these techniques during development”.<br /><br />Sun Microsystems responded, “It’s a fact of computer science, Google is cutting edge, the water cooler talk says they have the evidence”.<br /><br />Apple said, “You can download our response for $.99 from our web site”<br /><br />Richard Dawkins, author of the “The Blind Watch Maker” was unavailable for comment. His publicist stated he’s in seclusion working on his next novel, “The Blind Heart Surgeon”.Lee Penickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10220839564066969299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34379490.post-1158375123230791392006-09-15T19:42:00.000-07:002007-10-25T20:25:17.051-07:00Intelligent Design - Would Dawkins Argue for Design If It Would Save His Life?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4157/2778/1600/abiocor-hand%20II.0.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; width: 286px; cursor: pointer; height: 286px;" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4157/2778/320/abiocor-hand%20II.0.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" >On the lighter side…<o:p><br /></o:p></span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" >Modern Medicine faces a crisis!<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>Millions of dollars of medical equipment is at risk of being misplaced, improperly maintained, and possibly lost forever. Patients’ lives are at stake.<o:p><br /></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" >The FDA has approved the AbioCor fully implantable artificial heart for dying heart failure patients who are too old or too sick for a heart transplant.<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>Incredibly, once implanted, these artificial hearts may be “lost”.<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>According to many Darwinists, biological sciences supposedly have no ability to distinguish between a natural vs. intelligent cause, so some years down the road, society is at risk that neither X-ray, open heart surgery, inspection, or direct visual comparisons will be able to distinguish an artificial heart derived via intelligent causes from a real human heart (which biologists claim is the result of the purposeless forces of natural selection acting upon random mutations).<o:p><br /></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" >Imagine the scenario where:</span></p><ul><li><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" >the original surgeon who implanted the artificial heart is no longer living</span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" >the patient is unconscious</span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" >the patient’s medical records are missing or destroyed<o:p></o:p></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></li></ul><p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><o:p></o:p>Without intelligent design theory, how would a medical team determine the patient has an artificial heart and therefore needs routine maintenance, such as, battery, valve, or unit replacement?<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>The biologist supposedly has no detection techniques to discriminate between natural law, random chance, and intelligence as causal factors or originating the heart so how can they discriminate between a human heart and an artificial heart?<o:p> </o:p></span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><o:p></o:p></span></p><ul><li><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" >Complexity won’t help, biologists already tell us the eye and brain are naturally evolved structures, so the observed complexity of the artificial heart won’t make the case for detecting the design of the artificial heart</span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" >Function won’t do it, biologists already tell us the flagellum is naturally evolved and its mega-rpm propeller far exceeds the beats per minute of any heart</span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" >Form won’t do it, we can’t assume that metal, plastic, or even a battery is the product of intelligent cause, for that’s simply a ‘god-in-the-gaps’ approach we are told.<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>Give research more time and funding, they simply haven’t yet found the natural law that is responsible for making ni-cad batteries!</span></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">Here’s the clincher (we might think).</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> Information was found in the hearts ROM chip with instructions to increase the heart beat during certain physiological conditions. But wait, information is no empirical marker of intelligence, for monkeys with typewriters, or sticks in an ocean wave, both leave informational patterns on the medium of paper and sand.<br /></span></li></ul><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><o:p></o:p></span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" >Alas, the medical team couldn’t tell a real heart from an artificial heart. Therefore, the battery wasn’t changed, the artificial heart wasn’t replaced every five years, etc. The hypothetical patient dies.<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>Could this be the necessary result of applying evolutionary assumptions to medicine?<o:p><br /></o:p></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" >Of course the biological community is not this badly misinformed about the difference between the causal factors of natural law, random chance, and design.<span style="font-size:0;"> </span><o:p><br /></o:p></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" >Imagine our hypothetical patient is the brilliant, Neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins. Also imagine:<o:p></o:p></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><ul><li><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" >that he knows he’s had an artificial heart transplant</span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" >the original surgeon has died</span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" >and his medical records are lost</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></li></ul><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><o:p><br /></o:p></span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><o:p></o:p></span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" ><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4157/2778/1600/abiocor-in-torso-labelslarg%20II.0.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 377px; height: 439px;" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4157/2778/320/abiocor-in-torso-labelslarg%20II.0.jpg" border="0" /></a>Much to his chagrin, it’s time for a battery replacement and no one in the medical community believes Dawkins when he claims he has an artificial heart. He knows, however, if he doesn’t get the new battery, he dies.<o:p><br /></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" >What would Dawkins do?<span style="font-size:0;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><ul><li><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" > Would he appeal to our common sense, believing that we can simply tell from the intrinsic properties of the artificial heart that it’s not a product of natural law or random chance? (Can’t you foolish people see this was designed, now replace the battery!)</span></li><li><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" >Would he attempt to locate some portion of the artificial heart that is irreducible complex and then begin to argue Dr. Behe’s case that irreducible complexity is a result of intelligent design?</span></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">Would he focus on the informational content of the ROM chip and argue that complex specified information is the result of intelligent design, not natural law or chance?<br /></span></li></ul><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;" >Clearly, we don’t know what Dawkins would do in this hypothetical case, but we can be pretty sure he would do something since he now sees design (literally within him) and is motivated to argue its existence.<span style="font-size:0;"> </span>We can be pretty sure he would argue for design and probably make a convincing case for it too… and why not? After all, he would have a lot of good information and scientific arguments to draw from, and his life would depend on it!<br /><br />Lee Penick<o:p></o:p></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span>Lee Penickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10220839564066969299noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34379490.post-1158217781731604862006-09-14T00:07:00.000-07:002007-10-31T22:16:15.550-07:00Dear Editor, University of Virginia magazine - Intelligent Design<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4157/2778/1600/UVA.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4157/2778/320/UVA.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" >I would like to comment on the letter written by the UVA biology faculty when they responded to the article “Ultimate Questions”. My comments are in blue and indented. I feel the faculty letter has misrepresented the theory of intelligent design and employed several popular, but less then proper, debating tactics to try and win the favor of the <span style="color:#3333ff;">reading audience. Several pieces of false information were also provided regarding the lack of evidence for ID, and </span></span><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;color:black;"><span style="color:#3333ff;">the supposed lack of journal publications for ID.</span> </span><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" ><br /><br />Given that ID is based on the empirical observable evidence, and not derived from any religious text, it was surprising that the faculty brought up religion several times. What is their agenda or motive for bringing religion into a science debate over origins and biological complexity and design? Why do they not debate the facts and leave the straw man and ad hominem arguments to lesser minds?<br /><br /></span><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255)">Sincerely</span><br /><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255)"></o:p><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255)">Lee Penick</span><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255)">82’ USAFA, </span><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 /><st1:state style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255)"><st1:place>Colorado</st1:place></st1:state><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255)">86’ </span><st1:place style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255)"><st1:city>Wright State University</st1:city>, <st1:state>Ohio</st1:state></st1:place><br /><o:p></o:p><br />We were distressed by the article "Ultimate Questions," not because it raised questions about scientific theory and observations, but rather because it failed to properly characterize the religious basis for an increasingly vocal attack on science.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" >Straw man attack – ID makes an inference from the biological evidence and does not represent an attack on science. No evidence is presented here to support that misleading claim.</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;">The article failed to state that the purpose of the IDEA Club is not merely to debate evolution and religion, but (as stated in their charter) to "promote, as a scientific theory, the idea that life was designed by an intelligent designer." The argument that has been made is that gaps in scientific knowledge can be used to prove a supernatural and theological explanation for natural phenomenon. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" >Straw man. ID does not argue for the supernatural, it supports the ability to distinguish between an intelligent cause vs. a natural or non-intelligent cause. This is well documented in PhD Dembski’s writings. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding about the theory of intelligent design or a purposeful attempt to misrepresent it.</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;">This is an attempt to disguise theology as science, and the simple conclusion would be that the less we know, the greater is the support for supernatural explanations. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" >This attempts to misleadingly frame the ID theory without understanding it. We actually know a lot about intelligent causes and use this methodology for archeology, SETI, forensic science, encryption, and detection of ID in biological systems.</span><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" > </span><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" >This is also well documented in the literature and is surprising that a science dept would not know this or portray it correctly.</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;">The great advance of the Enlightenment has been the search for natural explanations for natural phenomena. While the article appears to represent a balanced view of the controversy, arguments from the proponents of intelligent design are presented without rebuttal. It might be assumed by a reader who is not an expert that valid flaws in evolutionary theory have been exposed. For example, a sidebar in the article presents the example of the bacterial flagellum, a seemingly complicated apparatus used for swimming that contains approximately 40 different proteins. According to the proponents of intelligent design, it "could not have started unless an intelligent agent put the right pieces in place, together at the same time. Proponents of intelligent design argue that the likelihood that such complexity, with so many dependent parts, arose randomly is virtually nil." What the article fails to discuss is that the flagellar assembly is known to be homologous, that is to share common origins, with the bacterial Type Three Secretion System, and thus evolution can explain how a secretory system evolved into one capable of both secretion and motility.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" >This plays loose and free with the facts.</span><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" > </span><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" >This is an assumption based on similarity, and not experimental evidence.</span><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" > </span><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" >Correlation in looks or biological parts does not demonstrate much less prove the causal method of origin.</span><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" > </span><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" >Dembski said it well when answering a critic who brought up a similar charge:</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 1in"><span style="font-size:100%;">“Miller is presupposing precisely the point in question, namely, whether evolution, a materialistic form of it, can bring about biological complexity. Sample enough organisms, and you’ll find structures in different states of complexity that perform the same basic function. But arranging such structures according to some similarity metric and then drawing arrows marking supposed evolutionary relationships does nothing to show whether these systems in fact evolved by material mechanisms. Similarity may suggest evolutionary relationships, but evolution is a process, and the evolutionary process connecting similar structures needs to be made explicit before the similarity can legitimately be ascribed to evolution. Miller’s analysis never gets that far. He gestures at similarities but never demonstrates how evolution accounts for them.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 1.5in;font-family:arial;" ><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;"><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255)">William Dembski</span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p><o:p><br /></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;">We think that the attention given to ID is due to the lack of understanding about evolution. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" >There is truly a controversy that should be taught.</span><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" > </span><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" >There are large disagreements over what mutations and natural selection can account for in biology.</span><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" > </span><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" >ID supports teaching this controversy so that students are educated and not indoctrinated.</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;">It is safe to assume that if the IDEA Club was constituted to promote as a scientific theory the notion that earthquakes are caused by God, and not by plate tectonics, it would receive less favorable coverage. Unfortunately, earthquakes are accepted by more people as a natural phenomenon than is biological evolution. According to the Pew Survey, approximately 50 percent of adults in the <st1:country-region><st1:place>United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> believe that humans first appeared on the earth in their present form within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years. The notion that humans actually evolved from more primitive life forms, supported by vast amounts of data from fields as diverse as paleontology and molecular genetics, is antithetical to those who do not accept evolution. If humans are the product of an intelligent design, should we also conclude that pathogens, such as <i>Salmonella</i> and HIV, responsible for killing millions of children every year, are also intelligently designed?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" >Straw man. Does not deal with the markers of Irreducible complexity and Complex Specified Information as empirical markers of ID. Is this truly the extent of the faculties understanding of the theory of intelligent design. This is embarrassing. Why not use science and utilize the techniques of ID to determine if there are portions of “Salmonella and HIV” that qualify as IC or CSI?? The number of people killed does not influence the outcome of this study.</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;">Why is the concept of evolution so troubling to proponents of ID? Not only does evolution clash with religious dogma, but it undermines the significance that some would like to give to the place of humans in the universe. Most people are unaware of the resistance 400 years ago to the notion that the earth revolves around the sun, a climate that led to Galileo’s public recantation of this notion under the threat of torture. The opposition to a heliocentric theory of the solar system was due to the conflict with religion, and was sustained by the desire to imagine that we occupy a special place in existence. It appeared more comforting to those who opposed Galileo to believe that we were the center of the universe, rather than that the earth is one of many planets that revolves around the sun, which is but one of many stars. It is quite disappointing that 22 percent of <st1:country-region><st1:place>U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> adults recently surveyed by the <i>Washington Post</i> (reported in the March 30 issue) thought that the sun revolves around the earth, rather than vice versa, so while progress has been made since the time of Galileo, it is not as rapid as one might have hoped.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" >How does this relate to ID and its ability to detect design vs. natural cause or chance occurrence?</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;">The current conflict between the science of evolution and attempts to teach creationism or ID disguised as science can be seen in the same light as the resistance to a heliocentric theory of the solar system. It may be more comforting to some to imagine that we were created in our present form than that we share common origins with chimpanzees, mice and even bacteria. The article did a disservice to the extensive body of data in support of evolution by placing the religiously motivated remarks of a few on a seemingly equal footing with real observations and experiments. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; COLOR: rgb(51,51,255)"><span style="font-size:100%;">What religious motive…ID is supported by Jews, Muslims, Christians, agnostics, and A. Flew who was a prominent atheist. Whose religion or lack of religion is being supported here? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" >Where have you observed macro evolution (not micro) or have experiments to show it? When we look at the causal history of any irreducible complex item </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><i style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255)">where we actually know the cause for sure</i></span><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" >, when has it NOT been the product of intelligent design?</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;">It was stated that "Few peer-reviewed scientific studies [in support of ID] have been published in the major scientific journals," but a more accurate statement would be that no peer-reviewed scientific studies in support of ID have ever been published in any major scientific journal.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" >False statement.</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in;font-family:arial;" ><span style="font-size:100%;">1) Discovery Institute Bibliography w/ peer reviewed articles which challenge evolution <a href="http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1127">http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1127</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in;font-family:arial;" ><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in;font-family:arial;" ><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in;font-family:arial;" ><span style="font-size:100%;">2) Discovery Institute list of peer reviewed articles which support ID <a title="http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC - Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science - MainPage&id=2640" href="http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science%20-%20MainPage&id=2640">http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science%20-%20MainPage&id=2640</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><st1:place>Jefferson</st1:place> recognized that reasoned debate and the free exchange of ideas constituted the very core of democracy in <st1:country-region><st1:place>America</st1:place></st1:country-region>. However, theories such as ID, that invoke religious themes due to a purported lack of scientific facts, have no credibility or standing in the teaching of science in the <st1:country-region><st1:place>United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; COLOR: rgb(51,51,255)"><span style="font-size:100%;">ID is based on the empirical observable evidence. It does not derive from any religious text. ID does not bring up religion, why do these biologist? What is their agenda or motive for bring religion into a science debate over origins and biological complexity and design?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; COLOR: rgb(51,51,255)"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" >The term “purported lack of scientific facts” is used above, but the unawareness of scientific facts is not the same as the facts not existing.</span><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" > </span><span style="COLOR: rgb(51,51,255);font-size:100%;" >In this case, it may simply be that the faculty who signed this letter did not agree with or were possibly not aware of the facts. Here is a very short summary:</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;">Over the last 4-5 decades, biochemists have made progress toward understanding life's chemistry. The cell's major biochemical systems have been identified and characterized. These advances have exposed numerous features that provide strong evidence in favor of the intelligent design argument.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i><span style="color:blue;">Chicken-and-egg systems: </span></i></span><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;">Many biochemical systems are called chicken-and-egg systems (after the old conundrum, "Which came first: the chicken or the egg?") because they consist of components that require each other for the components to be produced. For example, ribosomes make proteins, yet they in turn consist of proteins. Proteins can't be formed without ribosomes (proteins), and ribosomes (proteins) can't be made without proteins!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0.45pt 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i><span style="color:blue;">Fine-tuning and high precision: </span></i></span><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;">Long recognized as design features, fine-tuning and high precision traditionally signify a device's superior engineering and craftsmanship. Many biochemical structures and activities depend on precise location and orientation of chemical groups in three-dimensional space, just-right chemical composition, and exacting chemical rates. Molecular fine-tuning is a defining property of life's chemical systems. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i><span style="color:blue;">Compositional fine-tuning and complexity of cell membranes: </span></i></span><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;">These structures form the cell's external and internal boundaries and require precise chemical compositions to assemble. Cell membranes possess vast complexity: Both reflect design. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i><span style="color:blue;">Molecular motors: </span></i></span><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;">These protein complexes are found inside the cell and are literal machines. Many possess an eerie resemblance to man-made machines. A new special issue of Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter edited by Joseph Klafter and Michael Urbakh contains invited papers from some of the world's greatest experts on molecular motors. Macro-scale thermodynamic engines convert the random motion of fuel-produced heat into directed motion. Such engines cannot be downsized to the nanometer scale, because thermodynamics does not apply to single atoms or molecules, only large assemblies of them. A great challenge for the field of nanotechnology is the design and construction of microscopic motors that can transform input energy into directed motion and perform useful functions such as transporting of cargo. Today's nanotechnologists can only look in envy at the biological world, where molecular motors of various kinds (linear, rotary) are very common and fulfill essential roles.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i><span style="color:blue;">Biochemical information systems: </span></i></span><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;">Experience teaches that intelligible messages come from intelligent sources. The cell's biochemical machinery (proteins, DNA, RNA, and oligosaccharides) is information-based and therefore its logical to infer that it comes from an intelligent source. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i><span style="color:blue;">Genetic code: </span></i></span><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;">Encoded information indicates intelligence beyond the mere presence of information. An intelligent being must develop and employ the code. The cell's information exists in a coded format that defines the cell's information systems. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0.95pt 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i><span style="color:blue;">Genetic code fine-tuning: </span></i></span><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;">The rules that comprise the genetic code are better designed than any conceivable alternative code to resist error caused by mutations. This fine-tuning powerfully indicates that a superior intelligence developed the cell's information systems. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0.95pt 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i><span style="color:blue;">Preplanning: </span></i></span><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;">Planning ahead indicates purpose and reflects design. Many biochemical processes consist of a sequence of molecular events and chemical reactions. Often the initial steps of these pathways elegantly anticipate the final steps. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i><span style="color:blue;">Quality control: </span></i></span><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;">Designed processes incorporate quality-control procedures to ensure efficient and reproducible manufacture of quality product. Many biochemical operations employ sophisticated quality control processes.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0.45pt 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i><span style="color:blue;">Molecular convergence</span></i></span><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;">: Several biochemical systems and/or biomolecules found in different organisms are structurally, functionally, and mechanistically identical. Yet they appear to have independent origins. Given the complexity of these systems, it is not rational to conclude that blind, random, natural processes independently produced them. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0.45pt 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i><span style="color:blue;">Man can't </span></i></span><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;">do it <i>better: </i>Humans' attempts to duplicate the cell's complex and elegant chemical processes in the laboratory frequently fail. When scientists can mimic these systems, their best efforts are crude cumbersome, and inefficient. How can blind, random events account for the elegance of life's chemistry when the world's best researchers fail?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0.45pt 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;">The collective weight of evidence argues design and this was a short summary without great detail. When complex specified information (CSI) is used as an empirical marker for design, it is used such that the probability is equal to or less than one chance in 10^150. This is explained in detail in Dembski’s writings. So an item that fits this criteria isn’t just complicated or complex, it exceeds the probabilistic resources of a 15 billion year old universe to produce by chance.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0.45pt 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0.45pt 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;">This is hardly a “God in the Gaps” approach, and while there is strong resistance to ID in academia, there are also interested academics who are turning to ID as a method to truly research origins and follow the evidence they are discovering in microbiology. Why should we fear the evidence, unless we are protecting an ideology?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0.45pt 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0.45pt 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;">Lee Penick</span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;color:blue;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;"><br /><i>Adler, Paul N. – Department of Biology<br />Auble, David T. – Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics<br />Bauerle, Ronald H. – Department of Biology<br />Beyer, Ann L. – Department of Microbiology<br />Bradbeer, Clive – Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics<br />Brautigan, David L. – Department of Microbiology<br />Brown, Jay C. – Department of Microbiology<br />Bullock, Timothy N. – Department of Microbiology<br />Burke, Daniel J. – Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics<br />DeSimone, Douglas W. – Department of Cell Biology<br />Dutta, Anindya – Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics<br />Egelman, Edward H. – Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics<br />Fox, Jay W. – Department of Microbiology<br />Grigera, Pablo R. – Department of Microbiology<br />Hamlin, Joyce L. – Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics<br />Hammarskjold, Marie-Louise. – Department of Microbiology<br />Horwitz, A. Rick – Department of Cell Biology<br />Kedes, Dean H. – Department of Microbiology<br />Khorasanizadeh, Sepideh – Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics<br />Kupfer, Gary M. – Department of Microbiology<br />Lannigan, Joanne A. – Department of Microbiology<br />Ley, Klaus – Department of Biomedical Engineering<br />Li, Chien – Department of Pharmacology<br />Li, Rong – Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics<br />Lindorfer, Margaret – Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics<br />Lynch, Kevin – Department of Pharmacology<br />Macara, Ian G. – Department of Microbiology<br />Macdonald, Timothy L. – Department of Chemistry<br />McDuffie, Marcia J. – Department of Microbiology<br />Menaker, Michael – Department of Biology<br />Minor, Wladek – Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics<br />Moskaluk, Christopher A. – Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics<br />Nakamoto, Robert – Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics<br />Noramly, Selina – Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics<br />Osheim, Yvonne – Department of Microbiology<br />Rissman, Emilie – Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics<br />Rivera-Nieves, Jesus – Department of Internal Medicine<br />Roberts, Margo R. – Department of Microbiology<br />Ross, William G. – Department of Internal Medicine<br />Schwartz, Martin A. – Department of Microbiology<br />Smith, Michael F. – Department of Microbiology<br />Stukenberg, P. Todd – Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics<br />Tamm, Lukas K. – Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics<br />Taylor, Ronald P. – Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics<br />Thompson, Thomas E. – Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics<br />Wertz, Gail W. – Department of Pathology<br />White, Judith M. – Department of Cell Biology<br />Wiener, Michael C. – Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics<br />Wotton, David – Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics</i></span></p>Lee Penickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10220839564066969299noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34379490.post-1158215333355902252006-09-13T23:22:00.000-07:002007-10-25T20:09:20.527-07:00Intelligent Design Theory in Sports Medicine<div style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4157/2778/1600/floyd%20landis.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; CURSOR: pointer" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4157/2778/320/floyd%20landis.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><b><span style="font-family:Arial;">- Detecting Enhanced Performance</span></b></span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><b><span style="font-family:Arial;"><?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><o:p></o:p></span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><o:p></o:p></span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><o:p></o:p></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align="center"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align="center"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"><o:p></o:p></span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">It’s sad to see a hero fall, but this hero may have served the greater good: truth. 2006 Tour de France winner Floyd Landis may have fallen from grace as a world-famous cycling super star, but his story demonstrates intelligent-design reasoning in action in a biological-science setting. Apparently there are certain features in biological systems that are best explained by an intelligent cause, as opposed to a natural cause, such as elevated levels of testosterone.<o:p></o:p></span> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">According to the Associated Press, after his second doping sample tested positive for higher-than-allowed levels of testosterone, Landis was fired by his cycling team and the Tour de France no longer considered him the 2006 champion.</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">The head of </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 /><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family:Arial;">France</span></st1:place></st1:country-region></span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">'s anti-doping commission said the samples contained synthetic testosterone, indicating that it came from an outside source. The second or "B" sample “confirmed the result of an adverse analytical finding" in last week's "A" sample, the International Cycling Union (ICU) said.</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">Pierre Bordry, who heads the French anti-doping council, said the lab that found higher-than-allowable levels of the hormone in both samples also discovered synthetic testosterone.</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">"I have received a text message from Chatenay-Malabry lab that indicates the 'B' sample of Floyd Landis' urine confirms testosterone was taken in an exogenous way," Bordry told The Associated Press. Landis had claimed the testosterone was "natural and produced by my own organism."</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">Tour de France director Christian Prudhomme said Landis no longer was considered champion, but the decision to strip him of his title rests with the ICU.</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">"It goes without saying that for us Floyd Landis is no longer the winner of the 2006 Tour de France," Prudhomme told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "Our determination is even stronger now to fight against doping and to defend this magnificent sport."</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">If stripped of the title, Landis would become the first winner in the 103-year history of cycling's premier race to lose his Tour crown over doping allegations. Landis' spokesman, Michael Henson, confirmed recently that the rider had tested positive for a testosterone-epitestosterone ratio of 11:1, well above the 4:1 limit.</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">Earlier, a <i>New York Times</i> report cited a source from the ICU saying that a second analysis of Landis' "A" sample by carbon isotope ratio testing had detected synthetic testosterone, meaning it was ingested.</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">Since the Phonak team was informed of the positive test on July 27, Landis and his defense team have offered varying explanations for the high testosterone reading: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><ul><li>Cortisone shots taken for pain in Landis' degenerating hip</li><li></span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">Drinking beer and whiskey the night before</span></li><li><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">Thyroid medication</span></li><li><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">His natural metabolism</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">According to Neo-Darwinists, Landis can’t be a cheater because science is limited and cannot detect intelligent causes in biological structures. Indeed, according to the logic and evidence presented at the recent <i>Kitzmiller v. Dover</i> case in </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><st1:state><st1:place><span style="font-family:Arial;">Pennsylvania</span></st1:place></st1:state></span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">, a search for causes apart from unguided material causes is “not science” if one is dealing with the biological sciences. According to the Dover Darwinists, science is not allowed to go beyond the thought of unguided material causes, and apparently any substance or apparatus found in a biologic body must have arrived there via naturalistic means. But what are we do to when we detect clear evidence of intelligent causes in nature?</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">Surely if a micro-machine like a flagellum (which can spin at up to 100,000 rpm to provide propulsion and operate in both forward and reverse) is the result of natural causes and nothing more, then the minor issue of elevated testosterone must be naturalistic in cause also? (I say this tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps the same type-III secretory system that Neo-Darwinists postulate evolved into the flagellum may have just as well secreted extra testosterone into Landis in a purely naturalistic way - despite the evidence and odds.)</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">Intuitively, if a blind watchmaker is responsible for the biological cascade that enables blood to clot when Landis and friends take a tumble and get some road rash, then perhaps this incredible blind watchmaker also made some extra testosterone for Landis. We simply don’t realize that Landis and those before him are evolving into a family of super-cyclists, far more fit than his cycling friends. “Better cycling through superior chemical evolution!”</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">In seriousness, in the relatively simple case of Landis, we don’t put much faith in the just-so-stories of:</span></p><ul><li><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">Beer and whisky before the race</span></li><li><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">Type-III secretory system injecting extra testosterone into his system</span></li><li><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">His superior ancestral evolution into a testosterone-laden cyclist able to soundly defeat the less fit</span></span></li></ul><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">Instead the cycling and scientific communities see this as a rather simple case of cheating to enhance performance. Once again, we observe that science is quite able to detect that there are certain features of biological systems that are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than a naturalistic cause, and the elevated testosterone levels of Landis’ biological system is being explained by both the cycling authorities and scientific studies as the result of an intelligent cause.</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">While the verdict of intelligent cause vs. natural cause is clear, there is still no determination of who invoked the “intelligent cause.” We don’t know if:</span></p><ul><li><div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">Landis took banned substances knowingly</span></div></li><li><div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">A trainer slipped them into his food or drink before a race</span></div></li><li><div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">A competitor contaminated his food or drink in a deliberate act to disqualify Landis</span></div></li></ul><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">True to the theory of intelligent design, we don’t necessarily have the evidence to determine who or what the intelligent agent is that committed the intelligent act, but we do have the capability to distinguish between intelligent cause and non-intelligent cause (natural cause).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><?xml:namespace prefix = v /><v:shape id="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75"></v:shape></span> </p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">Greg LeMond, the first American to win the Tour said, "When I heard it was synthetic hormone, it is almost impossible to be caused by natural events. It's kind of a downer… I hope Floyd will come clean on it and help the sport. We need to figure out how to clean the sport up, and we need the help of Floyd."</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">A telling similarity exists between cycling and the biological sciences, and perhaps a rephrasing of LeMond’s statement will make it clear: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">“When I heard there was irreducible complexity and complex specified information inside biological systems, it is almost impossible to be caused by natural events. I hope those scientists with a prior commitment to methodological naturalism will come clean and help out science. We need to figure out how to clean up this aspect of science, and we need the help of all scientists to honestly consider intelligent causes not just in sports medicine, archeology, forensic science, cryptology, copyright violations, and the search for extra-terrestrial life (where it is already used extensively), but in <u>all</u> science, including biological science, evolutionary biology, and origin-of-life research.”</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">It is sad to see a hero fall, and Landis may have unknowingly served the greater good, for his case has brought to the public’s eye the prevalence of the use of causal determination and science’s ability to differentiate between a natural and intelligent causes within biology. The theory and techniques of intelligent design are not outside science, they are used by science with regularity in a variety of scientific fields.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="postbody" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Lee Penick</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="postbody" style="font-size:100%;"><b><span style="font-family:Arial;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">Many thanks to Dr. Paul Nelson for the conceptual idea for this article and for his writings on <b><a href="http://www.idthefuture.com/">http://www.idthefuture.com/</a></b></span></p>Lee Penickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10220839564066969299noreply@blogger.com2