Monthly Archives: July 2007

Fallout from Dover

OK, so you might be wondering why I would start a blog on ID science after the Judge Jones fiasco in Dover, PA.  Well, it’s because I happen to know that ID is indeed science and that Darwinism is headed for its downfall, that ruling or not.

OK, so the head of the school board was caught lying, and he explicitly linked ID science to his particular brand of religion, but what does that prove?  It only proves that he is unscrupulous and also ignorant of what ID science is and is not.  So, he thinks this particular science supports his worldview, well, so what?  PZ Myers certainly thinks Darwinism supports his worldview, as does Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, etc.  Doesn’t this mean that Darwinism should also be ruled as religious – not science?

Add to this the fact that on Darwin Day, groups like NCSE actively try to have religious leaders push Darwinism on their clergies from the pulpit no less.  Can anyone else smell the double standard here?

Unwittingly Aiding the Enemy?

Unwittingly aiding the enemy?

When I was deciding whether or not to take on this blog, I happened to read an article by scordova found here:
The design revolution continues

This post continued an important couple of posts by scordova pointing out how the scientific literature really does support ID. But, there’s an important element to this story that shouldn’t be overlooked. Scordova calls the participants “unwitting” as in their “unwittingly” supporting ID. I’m not so sure that we should jump to the conclusion that they aren’t covertly supporting ID. Knowing that there are subversives in the academic community like myself, it’s not much of a stretch to think that others have seen through the facade of Darwinism but are also held under the thumb of academia, afraid to post their objections for fear of the backlash that would ensue. There’s probably a good chance that some of these “unwitting” arguments for ID are not so unwitting after all. That should give the Darwinists nightmares and should provide hope for all ID theorists that someday ID will prevail.

Eternal Importance

One of my all-time favorite quotes is by Henry Kissinger: “”University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.” You don’t have to spend much time in a department like mine before you see how true this is!  But it doesn’t fit the case of Guillermo Gonzalez, the brilliant astronomer who was denied tenure for his pro-ID views.  The more I learn about the case (a great collection of information is at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2939), the more I’m convinced that his tenure denial was so vicious because the stakes are so big.  Whereas a lot of academic politics is petty, the politics of ID-hatred is larger than us all.  The stakes are, in fact, eternal.  I hope Gonzalez can drop some comfort from this thought.  I know I do. 

Saturday Aphid Blogging

One of my grad students took this.link

Favorite ID books?

what are your favorite ID books, and why?

Blurring the Line Between Science and Atheism

Over on the blog Pharyngula, which seems to be a meeting ground for
materialists to spew their propaganda and anti-scientific nonsense
about ID, Myers seems unable to resist talking about his atheism.  The
latest sample of many can be found here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/defending_the_rotting_equine_c.php.

Why do Darwinists always feel compelled to talk about atheism.  My
guess is that it is because Darwinism isn’t scientific, but more of a
religion to them.  Since their materialistic worldview rests on
Darwin’s unproven (and/or mostly disproved) theory, they dogmatically
cling to it.  But their true colors come out in the numerous posts on
atheism, where it’s evident that Darwinism is just a front.

Mechanism is nice, but not essential

This interesting post at Telic Thoughts makes an underappreciated point: ID science does not always have to provide a mechanism for everything. Science can be descriptive to some level without knowing the underlying level. When Newton described the relationship F=g*(m1)*(m2)/(r^2), only a fool would have refused to use the equation because Newton didn’t know the underlying mechanism of gravitons. Newton’s description of the force was perfectly valid science, and incredibly useful, even though his explanation was without mechanism. Ditto for ID.