An interview on Darwinism with Dr. Berlinski

Comic proof of ID!!

The Uncommon Descent web site

The Uncommon Descent web site is well worth checking out. As they say:

Uncommon Descent holds that...

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.

DaveScot gives a nice summary of Biochemistry Professor M.Behe’s "Edge of Evolution" and Cornell geneticist J.Sanford’s "Genetic Entropy".

Here's a snippet,
"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."

Ph.D. John West to present at Columbia Basin College

Dr. West will be presenting at 6:30 PM at CBC on 3/4/08.

Location is Gjerde Center on the CBC campus. (Blgd H)

There is No cost and it's open to the public.

The general topic will be Darwin in education. There will be a question period at the end of the presentation.

Dr. West's recent book is "Darwin Day in America"

What Can ID Tell Us About The Designer?

Salvo magazine had a great issue that just came out...focusing on Intelligent Design.

Jay Richards wrote one article titled, " What Can ID Tell Us About The Designer?"

He ended his article with a paragraph worth repeating and remembering.

"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."

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?

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.

EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

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:

Are we still free to disagree about the meaning of life?

Or has the whole issue already been decided…
while most of us weren’t looking?

The Issue:
The freedom to legitimately challenge “Big Science’s” orthodoxy…without persecution.

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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!

What Is Intelligent Design?

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.

“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.

The Controversy
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.

Neo-Darwinian theory contends that life is the result of a random, purposeless process.

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.

Both are scientific theories, and the debate is therefore legitimate. Why is the debate being suppressed?

At stake are two very consequential views of existence: Is life purposeful, and intelligently designed? Or is it random and purposeless?

Question #1:
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?

Question #2:
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?

Question #3:
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?

“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” presents a point-of-view so powerful, that it
literally forces a re-examination of these issues.

What’s At Stake (and why is it important)?
We all know that ideas have consequences.

And our country was founded on principles of free and open debate.

The differences between these two worldviews are certainly consequential. So…why the suppression of scientific debate?

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…

What are the consequences over time of teaching this one-sided worldview as if it were fact rather than theory?

How will ideas of morality change, if life is thought to be purposeless and undirected?
How will the role of Government change, if the individual is taught by The State that one is accountable only to ones self?
How will the role of “science” change, if “Big Science” alone determines our worldview?

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.”

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?

Who was behind the decision? And…why?

“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” looks to scientists on both sides of the issue…and reveals some truly shocking answers.

Darwin challenged, research censored

More evidence concerning the objectivity of Darwinian scientists.

"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.

"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."

PBS - Intelligent Design on Trial

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.

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.

Here's a link that points out some of the errors of the producers ways...

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/pbs_airs_its_inherit_the_wind.html

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.

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.

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.

One Changed Mind

"There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind" 

Antony Flew - on why decades of atheism wasn't correct after all.

I imagine Richard Dawkins has removed Antony from his Christmas list...and the traditional plastic transitional fossil will not be given this year.

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.