two or three . net

When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’

Here's the abbreviated list from a good article from the American entitled When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’. You can also hear an interview with the author at ID the Future.

1. When different claims get bundled together.
2. When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate.
3. When scientists are pressured to toe the party line.
4. When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish.
5. When dissenting opinions are excluded from the relevant peer-reviewed literature not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but as part of a strategy to marginalize dissent.
6. When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented.
7. When consensus is declared hurriedly or before it even exists.
8. When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus.
9. When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution.
10. When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies.
11. When the “consensus” is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with uncritical and partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as objectively as possible.
12. When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus.

The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin

What is it in us that likes to poke at the monkey in the cage?  Insecurity, playfulness, original sin?  The monkey I love to torment is the evolutionary believer - why?  Because I once was one.  As a trained Biochemist, I found creationists maddeningly ignorant - until I started reading up on the facts (or lack thereof) and realized that it was *I* who had been brainwashed (See On Leaving Evolution and Conned by Evolution or even Mass Delusion)

Books like this new one, The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin, are aimed squarely at uncritical believers, evaluating Darwinism not only from the scientific perspective, but the sociological and historical as well.  Here's a little of the description from the publishers, American Vision:

In The Darwin Myth, Wiker reveals:

• Why Darwin didn't "discover" evolution
• How Darwin set out to create a godless version of evolution
• Why many of his best friends and allies criticized Darwin's theory, and how he never refuted their objections
• How "social Darwinism" is not a misapplication of Darwinism, but is Darwinism
• Why Darwin's theory supported natural slavery, an institution he abhorred
• How much of what we know about Darwin comes from his Autobiography--which at key points is downright misleading
• How Darwin helped make ideological atheism the battle cry of science

Instructive and illuminating, The Darwin Myth casts aside Darwinism's politically correct veneer and offers a critical, scientific analysis of Darwin's life and his history-changing theory.

Examining the historical and logical links between Darwin and eugenics

In the latest podcast over at Reasonable Doubt, the resident atheists discuss my comment on their blog, where I suggested that there is a historical link between Darwinism and Nazism.  Naturally, since I attacked their religion science worldview, they took issue with me.

Unfortunately, their interesting, amusing and often profanity-laden podcast (I say that with some affection but not admiration ;) often misrepresented my points, and created a few straw men to boot.

I ask you fellas (challenge you?) to address your 'mistakes' in a future podcast. Like you, I don't enjoy being ridiculed or misrepresented. Here's my response to your discussion.  I hope these clear things up and lead to reasoned argument!

Darwin's Darkest Hour premiers on Nova Oct. 6

Even if the Charles Darwin bio-pic Creation, now in UK theaters, can't find a distributor, PBS will be airing it's own ode to Darwin on Oct 6, entitled Darwin's Darkest Hour.  This film looks interesting b/c it explores how his theory affected his faith and that of his believing wife.  Interestingly, this actor playing Darwin recently also played Jesus in The Gospel of John (2003).  Funny that he got to play the leaders of two powerful, opposing religions world views!

I really love these pics because they really bring up the whole issue of evolution, which ought to be examined in the light of true skepticism.

I think evolutionary theory is not only erroneous, but is probably one of the most mistaken and deleterious theories ever to grace the world (up there with Islam), having influenced Hitler and American eugenics, and having adulterated good science, not to mention needlessly undermining people's confidence in the Bible. 

I just hope people will also get to see the films that are less hagiographical, and more critical of Darwin and Darwinism, such as:

• Darwin's Dilemma
• Expelled
• The Privileged Planet
• Darwin: The Voyage That Shook the World

Enjoy this trailer for Darwin's Darkest Hour (after the jump)

British film 'Creation' can't find a U.S. distributor?

Atheist, Darwinist, and Christian websites are abuzz about the British bio pic of Charles Darwin, because it seems that the British producer is having trouble finding an American distributor to pick it up. 

What amuses me is the amazement of Darwinists who can't wrap their minds around the fact that only 39% of Americans believe in evolution as an explanation of origins.  While they chock it up to religious American fervor and their superior intellect, they overlook the fact that there may be good reasons to BE skeptical of evolution - but they can not be truly skeptical because it is part of their metaphysical world view, which even they are too scared to seriously examine.  I mean, if evolution is NOT true, they are left with either God or some other undiscovered process.  We couldn't have that.

I think this movie looks interesting.  I would go see it.  Here are some downloadable clips from the movie.

Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design

In my two part Atheist philosopher supports Intelligent Design as scientific, I introduced people to Dr. Bradley Monton, a well spoken atheist who supports ID, not because he believes it, but because he thinks that it is a legitimate scientific approach to explaining complexity.  In those posts, you can listen to a really interesting interview with Monton, plus get info on 'The great debate' he was involved in. 

Monton has finally released his book Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design. 

Some related resources:

• Series of five interviews w/ Monton (ID the Future)
• ID's Unlikely Defender (Breakpoint)
• Atheist defends Intelligent Design (San Francisco Examiner)
• Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision (Monton's paper criticizing the Dover decision)

Mohler: 'Theistic evolutionists are essentially Theistic non-realists'

In the Book of Revelation, Jesus speaks to a church that is lukewarm in this manner:

Revelation 3:16
So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.

In my mind, those included in this bunch will be liberal theologians, who mistakenly suppose that somehow the Bible's historical narratives are not true, but merely metaphorical, and who believe that evolution is somehow compatible with Biblical Christianity (see related articles below).

On this second point, Richard Dawkins is on point - I am glad that he sees through the illogical position that you can somehow hold that both God is the creator and evolution is true. 

Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves

ID the Future has a nice two part interview with Dr. James Le Fanu, author of Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves. Le Fanu, a scientist and science writer, discusses the inability of evolution to even come close to explaining the complexity of humanity.  He doesn't reject evolution, he only explains that its explanatory power is vastly inferior to the problems presented.

This book appears as much science as philosophy of science, but another thoughtful book considering the limitations, perhaps even the fallibility of evolutionary origins. 

How molecular biology has 'annihilated the tree of life'

The Center for Science and Culture, the primary Intelligent Design think tank, has published a fantastic article cataloging the latest chaos of the phyolgenetic trees, the basic collapse of the tree of life as DNA data flows in.  Below are some excerpted quotes from An Analysis of the Expert Testimony of Prof. David Hillis before the Texas State Board of Education.

I've mentioned before that those who pin their hopes of biological origins on Darwinian gradualism or common descent are dreamers who pretend the data exists to verify their origins myth.  For them, it's 'as sure as gravity,' no matter what the evidence, or lack of, as we shall see.

When the frailty of their phylogenetic trees are displayed, they retort with 'that's how science works - we have a good model, and we are improving it.'  But as I asked in Evolutionary Trees - In Flux or Broken and Bogus?, when is a model so poor at accommodating existing data and predicting future results that we need to abandon it? 

Quote of the Day #022: Evolutionists like religious hypocrites

"Evolutionists have done to science what hypocrites have done to religion. They leap through the so-called paleontological record like a Disney cartoon kangaroo, making statements that have more to do with an overripe imagination rather than with true science. They are unregulated speculators with ridiculous theories that are leaving the minds of today’s youth bankrupt, and they need to be held to some sort of intellectual accountability. I’m just one incompetent idiot that’s trying to do that."

Ray Comfort, author of You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think, , responding to PZ Meyer's criticism of his questions about the absent mechanism for the evolution of male and female across the entire animal kingdom.

What the fossil record reveals about human origins

Thanks to Ray Comfort for another nice graphic...

Slaughter of the Dissidents further documents persecution of Darwin dissenters

American Vision has come out with a new 477 page book that they claim "picks up where the movie "Expelled" leaves off".  Slaughter of the Dissidents (nice title!) looks interesting, I'll put it on my list.  Here's an excerpt from their promo page:

You won't believe some of the reasons many educators have lost their jobs, or why some students failed to get an otherwise earned degree, and how they often get blackballed from academia. This pernicious form of discrimination is not only widespread in the U.S. but is also nauseating to most Americans. Slaughter of the Dissidents goes into great detail about how and why it occurs, and provides you with scores of actual case studies. As you read this book you'll discover that one of the most precious things we own is at risk, right here in America. What is that? In a word, FREEDOM.

Related Posts:

• Expelled - well done, thought provoking, too true for insecure evolutionists to see
• FreeGonazlez.com - Darwinian persecution in the University
• Top 10 Darwin and Design News Stories for 2008

Quote of the Day #018 - The unscientific nature of phylogenetic trees

I have long argued that modern phylogenetic trees are circular in their reasoning, and are based on evolutionary assumptions, rather than proving common descent.  They also have an arguably poor record for predictions, are so fluid in their structure as to be meaningless (they can accommodate ANY data, and can't be falsified by any), and are being regularly undermined by modern genetics.  A recent scientific paper echoes these thoughts:

"Seeking phylogenetic trees does not represent a scientific endeavor and cladograms represent not scientific but metaphysical hypotheses."

Lars Vogt in "The unfalsifiability of cladograms and its consequences", Cladistics, 24(1), February 2008, 62-73 | doi 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2007.00169.x

Related articles:

• Evolutionary Trees - In Flux or Broken and Bogus?
• More Genetic Evidence Against Evolution
• 13 Misconceptions About Evolution

Top 10 Darwin and Design News Stories for 2008

Access Research Network (ARN) has just released its annual “Top 10 Darwin and Design News Stories”  list for 2008.  You can also hear them discuss it on the IDtheFuture podcast.   I've reproduced (and enhanced) their press release below. 

--------------------------------

Colorado Springs, CO (Dec 22, 2008) – Following are the Top 10 Darwin and Design news stories for 2008 as selected by the staff at Access Research Network.

1. The Altenberg 16. 

Freelance reporter Suzan Mazur (Scoop, March 4) pulls back the veil on one of evolution's little known secrets—Darwinism is dead as a theory of evolution: “It's not Yasgur's Farm, but what happens at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria this July promises to be far more transforming for the world than Woodstock. What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature—let's call them ‘the Altenberg 16’—who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It's pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accommodate ‘other’ new phenomena.”

Mazur explores the views of the Altenberg 16 “self-organization proponents” and their attack on Darwinism as they desperately search for another materialistic explanation for life in a six-part eBook (An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry). The Altenberg Summit Proceedings are to be published by MIT Press in 2009.

Radiocarbon dating contradicts geological time scale, supports young earth

Answers Research Journal, a scholarly journal for YEC research, has published a really nice article entitled Radiocarbon Ages for Fossil Ammonites and Wood in Cretaceous Strata near Redding, California. In it, they radiodate a group of fossils from the Cretaceous period (supposedly 112–120 million years old  biostratigraphic index fossils), and, controlling for erroneous results, show that radiodating puts the ages at around 35,000 years.

They then discuss how, if some of the starting assumptions are altered, such as the assumed amount of radioactive carbon in the initial atmosphere, the results are easily within the time frame suggested by YEC theories, i.e. around 4300 years old.  Here's their discussion (technical) of why such assumptions may be correct:

Baumgardner (2005) has suggested, based on earlier studies (Brown 1979; Giem 2001; Morton 1984; Scharpenseel and Becker-Heidmann 1992), that the pre-Flood biosphere and atmosphere just prior to the Flood could have had, conservatively, 300–700 times the total carbon relative to our present world’s biosphere and atmosphere. Then if we assume the total number of ¹⁴C atoms was similar to what exists in today’s world, and these were uniformly distributed throughout the pre-Flood biosphere which had 500 times more total carbon than today’s biosphere, then the resulting ¹⁴C/C ratio would be 1/500 of today’s level, or about 0.2 pMC, which is equivalent to an apparent radiocarbon age of more than 50,000 years.

Atheist philosopher supports Intelligent Design as scientific - Part II

In Part I, we were introduced to Dr. Bradley Monton, an atheist philosopher who supports considering the arguments of Intelligent Design (ID).  Here's some more choice quotes from Part II of his interview from ID the Future.

I'm an atheist, but somewhat sympathetic to the ID arguments.  I think they do give some evidence for the existence of God, so they make me less sure of my atheism than if I had not heard the arguments....When I speak of ID arguments, I mean to include both biology and physics-based arguments...beyond the standard evolution-based arguments that ID proponents spend most of their time on.  I am more interested in non-evolution-based arguments for the existence of a designer.  I also think that it is legitimate to think of ID as science.

I think that these issues are all independent of what should be taught in school, but fortunately or unfortunately, the discussion of ID has been caught up in what should taught in school....I do have ideas about the pedagogical issues too, and I think that is would be legitimate to take up the ID topic in a science classroom in a non-proselytizing fashion.

Atheist philosopher supports Intelligent Design as scientific - Part I

Professor Bradley Monton is not your average atheist philosophy professor - he is one who supports Intelligent Design as a viable scientific endeavor.  He was recently involved in a debate sponsored by St. Andrew's Episcopal Church in Fort Worth, Texas., nicknamed 'The great debate' (unfortunately, the transcripts are not yet available), in which he argued FOR ID as science.

ID The Future did a nice 5 part interview with him which I found refreshing and interesting, so I'd like to comment a little on each part.  From Part I:

I actually find some of the Intelligent Design arguments...worth taking seriously within academia, and am unhappy with the unfair and false criticisms that a lot of my fellow philosophers and academics have given of ID.  I am also...unhappy with some of the ID arguments.  I think that even though some of them are wrong, they could actually be given better than current ID proponents are giving them.  I am trying to elevate the discussion on both sides.

Evolutionary scientists argue about making their doubts public

At news.genethink.com, I found an interesting article entitled Are you Suffering under the Creationist Terror Regime, in which the author blanches at requests from his fellow evolutionary scientists to not give the impression that there are competing evolutionary theories:

If there’s one thing we don’t want, it’s for people to get the idea that there’s a bunch of evolutionary theories out there, and that they’re all equal.

The impotence of Darwinism

Probe Ministries is focused on articulating and promoting a biblical world view, and they have a short daily radio show which you can download as a weekly podcast.  The first week of September had a decent podcast entitled The Impotence of Darwinism (download mp3)

• Limits to change due to physical and biological constraints - selection can not create something new, but instead we see regression back to a mean.
• The infamous peppered moth falsification - not only were the photos faked, but looking at the actual numbers do not really show that pollution made one or other species more prominent.  While selection may happen, there is no evolution happening here.
• Mutations to structural and developmental genes. Microbial resistance is a structural mutation, but when we look at the actual functional change that occurs here, they all involve modifications of existing proteins, not creation of new functionality.

It's pretty basic stuff, but interesting.

Church of England capitulates to science Darwin and revisionist historians

Now, most biblical Christians are not surprised when theologically liberal churches like the Church of England capitulate to worldly values and thinking, but the fact that the Church of England has determined to apologize to Darwin is a tragic comedy. 

"Charles Darwin, 200 years from your birth (in 1809), the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still," the article says, according to extracts printed by The Mail on Sunday newspaper.

"But the struggle for your reputation is not over yet, and the problem is not just your religious opponents but those who falsely claim you in support of their own interests."

Dooblet provides entertainment

There's an interesting 'search engine' named dooblet.com which is really more like a thesaurus, but not quite.  You search for something, and it tells you possible replacements.  For example, you search for Microsoft Office, you get answers like Microsoft Works, Star Office, Open Office.

What do you get when you search for alternatives to 'bible'?  No surprise!

Quote of the Day #010 - Darwin and Hitler

This is my own quote/statement, but I think it is succinct and should be said:

"Darwinists refuse to see the historical and logical connections between Darwinism and Nazi eugenics because they are not objective, but rather, are merely self-referential.  If they themselves, would not use Darwinism to justify eugenics, then obviously neither would anyone else who was following sound reason.  However, what they fail to admit is that they are held back from the eugenic conclusions of Darwinism by arguably Christian and humanist ethics rather than reason."   Daniel G.

How scientific materialism undermines science and reason

Intelligent Design The Future has a nice two part interview with Dr. Angus Menuge, former professor of computer programming, current professor of philosophy at Concordia University Wisconsin and author of Agents Under Fire, Materialism and the Rationality of Science (2004).

Design is more of a scientific research program [than a scientific theory], a very broad idea.  Within that, you can propose lots of different scientific theories by generating more specific, testable models.  Scientific materialism is not a scientific theory, but a research program [paradigm], and ID is a competing scientific program [paradigm]....

Darwinism, naturalism, and determinism

Al Mohler has done a nice show, and written a nice article entitled So . . . Why Did I Write This? The Delusion of Determinism.   Mohler argues that naturalism, or materialism, reduces humans down to chemicals, and in denying the spiritual/moral component of humans, MUST conclude that all decisions basically boil down to chemical reactions.  Therefore, we can excuse any behavior, because we are merely responding to our chemicals - we are not free moral agents with responsibility for our actions.

Person George Moscone

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

Science's blind spot

IDtheFuture.com has a nice interview with Cornelius Hunter, author of Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism. 

One of the important distinctions between the experimental and historic sciences is...when you have a problem in historical sciences, you can draw upon one-time contingencies (like a comet or ice age)...with experimental science...scientists don't make up contingencies to explain results.

Evolution has been problematic since Darwin proposed the theory...things have not gotten better since then.  It is not the case that evolution does well in most areas, and there are a few problems around the edges - evolution has problems across the board (example follows).

The universal claim of evolution [being as sure as gravity]...should be a red flag that something [wrong] is going on here...but all of the reasons given in evolutionary literature are philosophical and metaphysical...as in Darwin's book...and evolutionists are quite honest with themselves on this.

Another interesting book to wait on my Amazon wishlist.  Sigh.

Is Intelligent Design creationism? Not

IDtheFuture.com has a nice podcast for those interested in Intelligent Design and objections to Darwinism.  A couple of recent ones were with William Dembski. 

In Is ID Creationism? William Dembski Answers Top Three Objections to ID, Dembski gives a nice example of how SETI works on the two principles behind ID - unlikely events combined with salient patterns are evidence of intelligence.  Like in the movie Contact, why did the scientists think that a series of prime numbers were not just radio noise, but evidence of intelligence?  Then, why do we think that the infinitely more complex messages of DNA are randomly generated?  Hmmm.

In William Dembski on the Origin of Life, Early Church Fathers, and Understanding ID, Dembski pimps his books, including his new book targeted at helping High School students understand ID (since most science teachers are boobs of evolution and don't really understand ID except as their liberal political masters tell them). 

The book, Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language, is written as an ID version of Johnson's Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, a primer for understanding and mobilizing to help truth, justice, and the American way.

Thomas Jefferson on Intelligent Design

We are all aware that Thomas Jefferson was one of the more skeptical founding fathers when it came to Christianity and religion.  However, many might find it surprising to see that Jefferson found it inconceivable to think that there is no design or designer in nature (of course, he was pre-Darwin ;):

I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition. (emphasis added)

The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organised as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms.

Explore Evolution: new textbook approaches the subject scientifically and maturely

British publisher Hillhouse has published a new textbook that should add real value to the scientific exploration of evolution and origins.  Rather than being dumbed down, Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism is full of information on evolution, and employs an 'inquiry based learning', promoting 'discovery, deliberation, and argument.'

You can read (or listen to) the CSC's take on the book, and visit the Explore Evolution site.  One endorser wrote:

I think Explore Evolution does a very good job in its stated purpose, namely, to provide a forensic presentation of the open questions surrounding the Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy in contemporary biology. The style of the textbook alone is a breath of fresh air from the sterile dogmatism that students normally encounter in the classroom.

Some Books on Science, Faith, and Darwinism

Here's a list of books I have either read, purchased, or added to my Amazon wishlist on science.  They are all highly rated, and interesting to me.  Enjoy.

Gravitas publishes 'framework-agnostic' science textbooks

Casey Luskin has a nice 13 minute interview with Rebecca W. Keller, founder of Gravitas Publications, which publish a series of science books for homeschoolers called Real Science 4 Kids.  By 'framework-agnostic', I mean that she presents science and scientific methods withOUT committing to any specific philosophy-of-science framework like evolution, creationism, or ID.  Or in her words:

I believe that the best science is rigorous and objective about the facts, but open and tolerant of what those facts may mean both to science and outside of science. In other words, we should be diligent to practice science rigorously and carefully utilizing the scientific method and critical thinking. But we should allow everyone to interpret those facts through their own lens.

Intelligent design is an interpretative framework for evaluating scientific data as are evolutionary theory and creationism. Each are different lenses used to understand and interpret scientific information.

My Two Cents #122 - Atheism: Unpopular, FSM, Dawkins, Violence & Christianity

Here's some recent stuff:

• Why atheism is politically unpopular in the US (Economist) - "One problem is that they are hardly a cohesive group. Another issue is simply branding. “Atheist” has an ugly ring in American ears and it merely defines what people are not. “Godless” is worse, its derogatory attachment to “communist” may never be broken. “Humanist” sounds too hippyish. A few have taken to calling themselves “Brights” for no good reason and to widespread mirth. And “secular” isn’t quite the word either; one can be a Christian secularist. But another failing of the irreligious movement has been its tendency, frequently, to pick the wrong fights."

Expelled - well done, thought provoking, too true for insecure evolutionists to see

My wife and I saw Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed this evening, and I was pleasantly surprised.

I had low expectations due to the raving disgust of most reviewers, but having seen it, I can now see that their reviews lacked any objective evaluation of the film's artistry, style and content.  Since the film is well made, I suspect that the real problem is that the movie conflicts with many reviewers' world view, and they are offended and unable to properly evaluate or appreciate the movie for what it is - a fairly well made documentary of ideological hegemony and persecution in science and academia.

The movie spent most of it's time merely documenting the systematic bias and draconian measures used to censure those who question Darwinian orthodoxy, and it also introduces us to the logical consequences of Darwinism in history, linking it to eugenics and Nazism.  What it documents is both frightening and pathetic.

The scientific pretensions of atheism

David Berlinkski, interviewed in the Intelligent Design movie Expelled, wrote a book on atheism and science entitled The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. 

Interestingly, though he agrees with the premise of Expelled, he found it 'lacking meat.' 

He also advises young academics that, if they want tenure, keep their heads down on this issue until AFTER they gain tenure, because anyone who openly doubts evolution most certainly is black balled in academia, as alleged by Expelled. 

He also mentions that the link between Darwinism and Nazism is so clear, that to deny it is to be academically self-deluded. 

Intelligent Design group proves that 'God probably created HIV'

In a stunning press release, Intelligent Design group The Group for Order and Design In Science (GODIS) has proposed that the structure of the HIV virus could not have arisen by natural processes, and was therefore engineered.

"Our calculations are quite revealing," stated Rex Numero, chief statistician at GODIS.  "We were inspired by Reverend Jeremiah Wright's accusation that perhaps HIV was created by the US Government, and we immediately set about calculating the likelihood that HIV could have arisen from natural causes.  As it turns out, the HIV virus is irreducibly complex in many areas.  Therefore, it MUST have been engineered."

FreeGonazlez.com - Darwinian persecution in the University

From FreeGonazlez.com:

Now, as a world class scientist, Dr. Gonzalez is facing persecution from an unexpected source – his employer, Iowa State University. His academic track record exceeds the tenure requirements of his department, and he exceeds other tenured ISU astronomers in key measures of scientific research productivity. Yet professors in Gonzalez’s department voted to deny him tenure. Email files show that these professors rejected him because of his philosophical approach to science, not his academic qualifications.

Translation?  He supports the idea of Intelligent Design, and the administration which supposedly supports academic freedom doesn't seem to really believe in such.  Gonzalez is also featured in the just released Ben Stein documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

13 Misconceptions About Evolution

Over at one of my favorite sites, The List Universe, James Frater has posted a pro-evolution article, Top 15 Misconceptions about Evolution, which instigated me to make my own list of misconceptions from the other perspective.  I apologize in advance for the many links, and some statements that I have not backed up with references.  However, just take this as a primer, not the end-all.  Enjoy.

Six evidences for the Noahic flood

AIG has a nice, simple article entitled Geologic Evidences for the Genesis flood.  Here are the six, visit the link if you want to read more, and check out the entire table of contents from the latest edition of Answers Magazine - lots of cool YEC stuff:

1. Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents.
2. Rapid burial of plants and animals.
3. Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas.
4. Sediment transported long distances.
5. Rapid or no erosion between strata.
6. Many strata laid down in rapid succession.

My Two Cents #114 - Creationism

• Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days? - AIG argues from scripture that Jesus understood the Genesis story as literal, and in a young-earth sense. "'But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.' From this passage, we see that Jesus clearly taught that the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning,” not billions of years after the universe and earth came into existence."
• Abolition of Man? How Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science - very good Heritage Foundation lecture on science and human value.
• Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old? - AIG argues "no."  "When big bang supporters use distant starlight to argue against biblical [YE] creation, they are using a self-refuting argument since the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own."
• OEC v. YEC - An OEC takes on the YEC stances.  Very complete - but probably wrong ;)

My Two Cents #111 - Creationism

Some great stuff from AIG:

• Ken Miller and 48 to 46 chromosome fusion - AIG attempts to rebut Ken Miller's interesting, challenging, obnoxious and superficial claim that the chimp chromosomes obviously fused to create to create the 46 chromosomes we see in man.  Peppered with weak appeals to biblical authority and Miller's "blindness," the article nevertheless does a decent job of pointing out the superficiality of Miller's claims, and the difficulties with his assumption when looking at the gene level.
• Neanderthals and Language - more evidence that neanderthals were merely human, as creationists have long claimed (read "a testable creationist claim supported by science").  Interesting that papers in Nature and Science disagree, but because the Nature data disagrees with evolutionary assumptions, scientists are claiming that the DNA was contaminated in that study, but not the other.
• Science confused about ice ages - this article is a nice overview of the current disagreements and confusion over the ice ages, and how the YEC view makes for a much cleaner and sensical explanation - Occam's razor applies, and the YEC biblical view of a single, short (<1000 year)  post-flood ice age, comes out as simplest.  I read this and was very convinced by the YEC explanation.

Dilbert and Dogbert argue evolution

C14 in diamonds strongly supports young earth

The RATE project from ICR has been examining the limits and data around C14 radioisotope dating methods, and one of the their last experiments seems to strongly, if not unequivocally, support a young earth perspective.  Simply put, since C14 has a very short half life, in many presumably old carbon and diamond samples, there should be NO C14 left at all - it should have all decayed.  However, even secular scientists admit that there are much higher than background levels in such samples.  Why? 

IntelligentDesign.org launches to counter misinformation

The Discovery Institute, whose stated mission is to "discover and promote ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty" has created a new site dedicated solely to providing accurate information on ID from the organizations that promote it.  Here's their intro blurb for intelligentdesign.org:

Intelligentdesign.org is not a Discovery Institute focused website, but rather a site that highlights the websites owned and operated by a number of pro-ID organizations, scientists and scholars, such as the Intelligent Design Network, Access Research Network, and Uncommondescent.com.

One of the main resources at intelligentdesign.org is a list of ID FAQs maintained by different ID organizations. Defining what intelligent design theory is all about is an important function of the site, which Crowther [director of communications for the Center for Science & Culture at Discovery Institute] hopes will help to counter the many misrepresentations of the theory that can be found online.

 

“Unfortunately, people who search for information about intelligent design on the internet are often finding only websites that attack the theory and give out false definitions and explanations of what it is,” said Crowther. “We wanted to provide a site that would lead people to accurate information about what the theory of intelligent design is, and what sorts of scientific and scholarly research is being done by design proponents.”

My Two Cents #110 - Darwinism

• Nazi/Christian claims shame atheists - Discovery blog argues that we should encourage the debate with atheists like Christopher Hitchens who like to claim that Christianity was behind the Nazi ideology, because even a superficial look at history shows clearly Hitler's anti-Christian sentiments, and the link between Nazi eugenics and Darwinism's "scientific" support for such practices.
• What's so great about Christianity?  Dinesh D'Souza has written a nice book in response to the frontal assault of atheist loudmouths like Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris, who make such vapid and ignorant historical assertions as Nazism's Christian foundations.  Al Mohler says that D'Souza's best argument against atheism is this:

"D'Souza's strongest analysis comes when he considers the true character of the new atheism. It is, he suggests, a 'pelvic revolt against God.' In other words, it is a revolt against Christian morality--especially sexual morality."

• Darwinism and Imperialism - Ben Stein has a nice post on the cultural times in which Darwin formed his theory, and how it fit perfectly with the white euro-imperialism of the time, helping them to justify their takeover of "less developed" races and cultures.

Darwinism Impeding Science III - Junk DNA defies evolution's predictions

AIG has a nice two part series on Junk DNA (Part II), and one thing caught my eye - the fact that evolutionists not only errantly identified junk DNA as "noncoding" and therefore leftovers from evolution's randomness, but would have predicted that much of the DNA was not conserved across species because it was not necessary.

On the last point, they were half right, and in being half right, were entirely wrong.  As it turns out, much of the junk DNA is critical for gene regulation, but it is NOT conserved.  What does that mean?  That is was not inherited from ancestors, as evolution would predict if it is essential to life.  Evolution fails again. 

Reconciling Faith and Science

Boing Boing has an interesting, if short book review of God's Mechanics: How Scientists and Engineers Make Sense of Religion, a new book from Vatican Astronomer Guy Consolmagno.  The atheist reviewer liked the book, particularly because it's not just the author's opinion, but the results of interviews he did with engineers and scientists in Silicon Valley.

There's clearly some serious value that smart, ethical people derive from participation in spiritualism and even organized religion. Brother Guy's exegesis on faith as a systematic way of organizing and exploring the human experience of the numinous was fascinating to me. It is is a thoroughgoing, charming, quick-paced trip through a wide variety of personal experiences of spirituality and religion.

Darwinism Impeding Science

This series contains the following posts:

• Darwinism Impeding Science I - Spontaneous Generation or Creation
• Darwinism Impeding Science II - the appendix
• Darwinism Impeding Science III - Junk DNA defies evolution's predictions

My Two Cents #109 - Creationism

• Noah and the Ark - AIG has a nice, definitive discussion of the feasibility of Noah's Ark, and why belief in such a historical event is not impossible, and may even be probable.  Answers many objections, though probably won't satisfy hardcore skeptics.
• YEC Radio Dating - Here's a nice complete Young Earth Creationist overview of why C14 and other radio dating methods do not necessarily indicate that the world is old - it all depends on your assumptions.  Many scientists neglect the real big counter-indications with radio dating, including the problems of conflicting results between methods, and the dating of known modern items that dating says are ancient.  Evidence for a young universe does exist and is thought provoking.
• Creationism and Human Rights - It seems that the Council of Europe, Europe's central human rights body, has declared creationism to be a threat to human rights.  Al Mohler covers this absurdity nicely.

Darwinism Impeding Science II - the appendix

 A recent article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology may have discovered the biological purpose for the appendix.  Of course, those dumbed down by evolutionary theory have largely ignored the appendix, thinking it some vestigial organ.  But even more interesting than the proposed primary function of the appendix ("It produces and protects good germs for your gut") is the quote from one scientist - and get this, it is incredible:

The idea “seems by far the most likely” explanation for the function of the appendix, said Brandeis University biochemistry professor Douglas Theobald. “It makes evolutionary sense.”

BUAHAHAHAHA!

Free speech? Not for you because you're wrong.

Imagine your a college professor with a website where you post information about your research. Should your website and information be protected only if the college agrees with it? Should controversial research be banned from the professor's webpage? If you're Robert Marks and you are working for Baylor and in the intelligent design related field of evolutionary informatics.

Diamonds as old as the earth - or older?

Scientists have unearthed diamonds in Australia that they believe to be 4B years old.  The study, which will be published in the Aug. 23 issue of the journal Nature, should bring some interesting comments from creationists.  In fact, AIG has already commented:

Old-earth, diamond-dating techniques are not known for accuracy, however; for a prime example, see Flaws in dating the earth as ancient, which reports on shoddy 1980s dating of diamonds from—where else?—the Jack Hills region [the same region in Australia where the new old diamonds were discovered]. The article also reports on the dating of diamonds in Zaire to six billion years old, a date thrown out as invalid merely because it was too large for the widely accepted age of the earth.

[NOTE:  Here's a YEC prediction for you doubters:]

Also interesting would be if these recent diamonds had been subjected to Carbon-14 dating. As part of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) project, geophysicist Dr. John Baumgardner detected ¹⁴C in diamonds—yet ¹⁴C is far too “short-lived” to have survived for the eons diamonds are supposed to have experienced.

That last bit just means this - if there is any significant amount of C14 in those diamonds, the 4B year date would contradict the known half life of C14 - i.e. their dating methods are flawed - of course, they even admit it when a date like the previous 6B estimate doesn't match their model.  Sigh.  So blind.