Monthly Archives: September 2007

Dog Day Sunday

It’s Sunday and time for some more pics of my ID science examples.

Mendel and Aquinas in the woods

You can see the leaves are changing and already falling.  Sorry, I didn’t get a picture of the foliage, but I did get a picture of a new friend.

Our little friend in the woods, a common garter snake

This common garter snake was sunning itself on a rock when we found it.  It scampered off, but stayed close enough for me to grab a few pictures.


ID Science catching on in Ireland

Despite the efforts of the Council of Europe (see my post on them here) it seems ID is catching on in Ireland.  Although the article is rather biased, it seems that the city council of Lisburn has decided to endorse ID science.  Good for them.

What’s Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander

Apparently a couple months ago, the Council of Europe decided to blast intelligent design in favor of materialism (see the full report here).  Thank God this was tabled, as reported by the Discovery Institute in August (see here).

Yahoo news reports that the vote is back on, however.  The CoE even goes so far as to say that intelligent design is a “threat to human rights.”  There’s a good takedown of this here, but I do want to add my two cents.

Apart from the Machiavellian tactics of trying to outlaw dissenting views, we also see some horrendously fallacious thinking.  The truth or falsity of a claim does not rest on whether it is good or bad for society.  Materialists make this argument quite often – just bring up Hitler on an evolutionist site and you’ll see what I mean.  Yet, they try to employ that tactic against ID.  ID is wrong, you see, because it would be bad for society.  This is ridiculous, and not just because it is fallacious thinking.  The only thing that ID would be bad for would be their materialism.  We should be seeking the truth, not seeking to protect materialist philosophy.

Apologies to Commenters

My apologies to anyone who has commented in the recent past.  I’m not used to having comments since my blog is so new and I forgot to check the moderation filter.  I have since gone through and approved all the comments that were waiting.  Again, I apologize for my oversight.

Those Rotten IDists and Their Tricky Movies! (Part II)

I decided to break up this post into two parts because there was just too much to cover in one sitting.  So, here’s part II. (See part I here.)

To start off, I can’t tell if Dean is savoring the antics of the Darwinista on the movie website’s blog, or simply endorsing, but she unwittingly shows us the weakness of the materialists’ arguments.

On a blog on the “Expelled” Web site, one writer praised Mr. Stein as “a public-intellectual-freedom-fighter” who was taking on “a tough topic with a bit of humor.” Others rejected the film’s arguments as “stupid,” “fallacious” or “moronic,” or described intelligent design as the equivalent of suggesting that the markets moved “at the whim of a monetary fairy.”

It is often said that those who can’t win an argument resort to personal attacks.

Then, there’s PZ Myers.

Another scientist who was, P. Z. Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris, said the film’s producers had misrepresented its purpose, but said he would have agreed to an interview anyway. But, he said in a posting on The Panda’s Thumb Web site, he would have made a “more aggressive” attack on the claims of the movie.

How typical.  He doesn’t feel the need to attack the ideas of the movie until he finds out those ideas are supportive of ID.  So, those ideas that were unobjectionable to him suddenly become objectionable once they are identified with ID, and he seems to be proud of it.  This is, however, quite ludicrous.  It clearly shows that he isn’t rejecting ID from scientific reasons, but because of emotional reasons; probably because he’d have to give up his materialist worldview if he accepted the evidence for design and he has too much invested in his worldview to do that.

So, to sum up, the materialists don’t bother to ask what the movie is about and can not figure out that the movie will be supportive of ID until they are told.  Then, they come out of the woodwork to disparage the film even though they haven’t seen it and saw no reason for alarm during their interviews.  Do we need any more proof of the bankruptcy of the materialist position?

One final note: Mr. Ruloff a director says,

He [Ruloff] said he knew researchers, whom he would not name, who had studied cellular mechanisms and made findings “riddled with metaphysical implications” and suggestive of an intelligent designer. But they are afraid to report them, he said.

With the antics reported in the film and the antics of the materialists against the film, is it any surprise?  Add my name to Mr. Ruloff’s list.

Update: Apparently some materialists agree with me that Dawkins and Co. are being ridiculous.

Those Rotten IDists and Their Tricky Movies!

There’s an article in the NY Times today by Cornelia Dean that is rather interesting, apart from the boilerplate comments by the author that, “There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth,” which is demonstrably untrue.

Anyway, it seems that “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” the movie about the persecution of ID advocates in academia ia ruffling a few feathers.  It seems that Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, and PZ Myers are all interviewed in the film, and now they are crying foul.  Dawkins says he wouldn’t have appeared had he known what the film was about.  So, obviously these three were lied to about the premise behind the movie, right?  Right?  Oh wait, no, they simply didn’t even ask what it was about.

Mr. Stein, a freelance columnist who writes Everybody’s Business for The New York Times, conducts the film’s on-camera interviews. The interviews were lined up for him by others, and he denied misleading anyone. “I don’t remember a single person asking me what the movie was about,” he said in a telephone interview.

So, maybe they were misled by those tricky IDists and their changing film title, because no one does that, right?  Right?  Oh yeah, movies do this all the time.  Most films go through a name change.  Who can forget that cultural and box office juggernaut, “Snakes on a Plane?”  That title was never intended to be the actual title of the movie.  The only reason that title was retained was because of popular support for the title.  Lots of movies change titles, this is nothing new.

They even go so far as to complain about the tone of the website?  This is nothing more than advertizing.  I don’t know why they would be upset by that.  But the worst part is yet to come, and I’ll cover that in part II.

Common Design and DNA (Part III)

In a couple  previous posts (see here and here) I discussed DNA and common design.  I want to return to that topic now and go more into the code that is DNA.

When we talk about codes, we are talking about information.  Our DNA represents the information that makes up each and every one of us.  Dr. Dembski has already shown that this code is complex and specified information, so I won’t go into that here.  But, what I do want to touch on is that this code is much like a computer program.  The language of DNA – Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Guanine (G), and Cytosine (C) – can be thought of as the ones and zeros that make your computer run, just in base 4 instead of binary and using letters instead of numbers.  And, just like a computer, this language is used to create the many programs that we see all around us as living organisms.  It makes more sense to think that someone would (and did!) use this program to create life, simply changing the bits here and there to create different programs (organisms) just as one changes bits here and there to create different programs in any programming language.

Materialists, however, would have us believe that through trial and error that nature hit upon this program and was continually able to use it, all by chance.  This is highly unlikely and we know of no other code that happens in this manner.  All codes, all languages, and all programs are as the result of design.  Common design is the only hypothesis of the two that has been shown and is clearly the better in this case.