Although I’m rather liberal, this article caught my eye. Casey Luskin has been taking it to Paul Gross lately (as I talked about here and here), and now he’s taking on two of the most prominent conservative writers. It’s a good read.
Monthly Archives: November 2007
As I wrote about before, Casey Luskin has been taking it to Paul Gross. In the latest installment Luskin touches on the fine-tuning that is so suggestive of design, even die-hard materialists like Leonard Susskind acknowledge it:
Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics.
Although, Susskind goes on to say that he believes ID is faith-based, he also calls the idea of finding a unique mathematical solution faith-based as well. But, this quote points out that fine-tuning is well accepted by those in the field and definitely a problem for them, one that is suggestive of design.
There’s a new paper out that finds that evolution is not random. They looked at the vulvas of roundworms from nearly 50 different species and found that evolution is not random, but deterministic.
For example, they concluded that the number of cell divisions needed in vulva development declined over time — instead of randomly increasing and decreasing. In addition, the team noted that the number of rings used to form the vulva consistently declined during the evolutionary process. These results demonstrate that, even where we might expect evolution to be random, it is not.
So, strip away the randomness of evolution and you are left with a directed function. A directed function is indicative of a designer. This is clearly work that lends support to ID science and flies in the face of evolution. Of course, the Darwinista will spin it a different way, but I don’t think many will be fooled by their propaganda and dishonest rhetoric.
Thanksgiving is over and it’s time to buckle down for the final push to the end of the semester and the holiday break. Of course, this means lots of work and deadlines (finals, grades, etc), hence the impact. That’s not what this post is about, however.
In a previous post I talked about Florida adding evolution to their science standards. Since then, a couple school districts (at least) have also played with the notion of intelligent design. In Orlando, parents have decided to push for ID science to be taught. The article alleges that this has happened in other places around Florida as well.
In Polk County, some of the school board members are toying with the notion of ID science as well. This could be the start of the next Dover trial, stay tuned.
Well, the students are all gone and tomorrow is the day when we stuff ourselves full of turkey and visit family and friends. I intend to do just that too. So, I will be taking a break from blogging until next week on Monday when I expect to resume blogging. Everyone have a great Thanksgiving and take time to remember to be thankful for the things you have because there are always others out there that are not as fortunate as you.
Well, the Council of Europe made some stupid remarks, and now they are being called out on it. This is an excellent take-down of their ridiculous position that creationism (and ID which they conflate with creationism) is a danger to human rights. It’s simply ludicrous to claim that a scientific theory about life’s origins is a danger to human rights. I’ll also add that even though I’m not a creationist, I think it is equally ludicrous to claim that creationism is a threat to human rights. To make matters worse they make the claim that evolution is essential for medicine as well (which I debunked here). These CoE guys are simply delusional.
Although I’m sure my Darwinist commenters will likely jump up and down in a huff for linking to this, I’m going to do it anyway. Here’s an opinion piece by Michael Craven where he skewers some Darwinists that have written in to him. I agree with a lot of what he says, although I do hold that science in non-moral. Still, I think he hits the nail on the head when he points out that Darwinists tend to “vehement defense and aggressive reaction to any challenge.”
I love the righteous indignation. Not only is this position logically inconsistent but it is often the only defense offered by evolutionists; simply label the alternative as being unintelligent. This is certainly the premise of those who attack any discussion of Intelligent Design.
Make no mistake, Darwinism is not science, it is philosophy. It is dogma! This, I think, accounts for both its proponents’ vehement defense and aggressive reaction to any challenge.
I’ve faced this quite often myself, and I think the line of argumentation is lame. But, I think the arguments used by the Darwinists suggest that something else is at stake for them. I can’t imagine them becoming so emotionally attached to a scientific argument that they weren’t personally invested in. No, this level of discourse comes from a threatened worldview. They defend their dogma by any means necessary because to do otherwise would force them to reconsider the very principles that they base their faith upon.