Monthly Archives: December 2007
It’s the holiday season and that means wintery weather. The dogs don’t seem to mind too much (not until the next day, at least when they get really sore and don’t want to move) and the scenery looks so nice with the veneer of snow on it. Our latest adventure took us to a pond that had a little dock. The pond was almost completely frozen over and the dogs ventured out on the dock to investigate.
This time, I’m happy to point out that others are specifically pointing out the logical flaws of the Darwinists.
The primary reason opponents say that ID is not science is because it doesn’t make falsifiable claims. But if it doesn’t make falsifiable claims, then it can’t be said to have made claims that have been found false. Yet this is exactly what they charge.
Indeed. IC is falsifiable and the Darwinists obviously agree, since they claim that they’ve falsified it. Yet, ID science is not science because it’s not falsifiable? Welcome to 1984. Orwell would be proud of the doublethink exhibited here.
(Note: That last statement was for rhetorical flourish only. Lest my Darwinist detractors try to glom onto some irrelevant point to try and discredit me, I’m fully aware that Orwell’s novel was decrying this type of behavior, and he would not actually be proud.)
In Florida, the debate is going to rage on it seems, and those dirty, lying creationists and IDers are trying to destroy education. Right? Right?
State Sen. Mike Fair, a Republican, successfully lobbied for revisions to include the term “critically analyze” as a link to a movement to elevate instruction about creationism and intelligent design to the status of evolution.
Oh how heinous. How terribly wrong. How could anyone want to critically analyze a supposedly scientific theory? The article author’s bias aside, why would anyone not want to have something critically analyzed?
That modification of the state’s widely acclaimed biology standards prompted criticism from national experts.
Well, the Darwinists obviously don’t want their theory to be scrutinized, so one must wonder why. If their theory is really as robust as advertized, then it should be able to stand up to some scrutiny. The problem, for them, is that it is not as robust as they would like for you to think. Another problem is that it is built upon a materialistic worldview – which is coming apart at the seems against real science – and not empirical fact. That’s what causes these irrational outbursts against any and all scrutiny.
In Florida, the talk about ID science might be over for a while in the Polk school district, reports the Tampa Bay Online website.
I’ve already stated my view on this, that evolution should be taught (fully taught, meaning the strengths and weaknesses) and that it might not be a good time to introduce ID science to public schools. That said, the reason that the Polk district is backing off is not due to anything more than being bullied by the Darwinists.
What happened? You can start with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster…They deluged Polk school board members with e-mail demanding equal time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism’s version of intelligent design.
Yes, the Darwinista decided that the best tactic would be to hound the school board members into submission with a deluge of emails. This is quite possibly harassment, but what else would one expect from the Darwinists and their bankrupt idea? Their only recourse is to use intimidation tactics to prop up their failed theory.
At least the board members seem to be taking the high road amidst all this.
Lofton, a former geometry teacher with a master’s degree in mathematics and one of the pro-intelligent design board members, said she has no interest in engaging with the Pastafarians or anyone else seeking to discredit intelligent design.
She describes herself as secure in her beliefs. “I’m a Christian. I personally believe that the Bible is inerrant truth and the word of God.”
With that in mind, is it worth quitting over the forced teaching of Darwinian evolution as the only scientifically accepted explanation of the development of life?
Lofton says no. There’s been no talk by any other board member of taking such a stand. In fact, there seems to be great eagerness simply to return to the day-to-day work of running a school district with 90,000 students.
“My job is about a whole lot more than a handful of standards in science,” Lofton said. “We face issues that make that issue pale in comparison.”
Good for Lofton and the other board members. If only the Darwinists could behave with as much civility.
As an update to the Gonzalez affair, I’d like to call your attention to the following article that details what Luskin refers to as “flip-flops” in the positions of ISU faculty and Wired magazine. I’m not sure if that’s a strong enough word, however. When it was used against John Kerry in the 2004 election, it was indicative of the shifting views that Kerry held, not because he was making things up out of whole cloth. Let’s go to the tape to see what’s going on here.
John Hauptman, ISU Physicist:
Now: The ISU Daily reports, “Hauptman said his tenure decision was ‘absolutely not’ based on Gonzalez’s research into intelligent design.”
Then: Last June, Hauptman explicitly admitted that he voted against Gonzalez’s tenure because of intelligent design (ID): “I participated in the initial vote and voted no, based on this fundamental question: What is science? … It is purely a question of what is science and what is not, and a physics department is not obligated to support notions that do not even begin to meet scientific standards.”
So, he admitted in June that he voted against Gonzalez because he believes that ID is not science, yet now he is saying that his vote was in no way based on his beliefs about ID. Sorry, Casey, but I have to disagree with you that this constitutes a flip-flop. No, I think it’s more accurately called a lie. Hauptman is outright lying, and the proof is in the tasting of the pudding. You’d think he’d be smart enough to know that the records of what he said are out there. Maybe he doesn’t know that, or maybe he doesn’t care. Maybe he thinks that the Darwinista will strong arm their way through this by silencing their critics as they usually do since they can’t back up their fanciful “science”. Unfortunately for them, it doesn’t appear that it will happen in this case. I hope this case opens the way for more defeats for Darwinists and their slimy tactics, and that real science and real scientists take back the reins of academia from the dogmatic defenders of Darwin.
Now, apparently whales didn’t evolve from hippo-like creatures, but from deer-like creatures? So, which is it. And, I simply love this part:
Other experts, however, caution that although the scenario is possible, the ancestry analysis is based on incomplete data. Researchers “really thought the book was closed on this,” says Annalisa Berta, an evolutionary biologist at San Diego State University.
The book was closed based on incomplete data? Well, that can only be evolution they are talking about, well known for jumping to conclusions without having all the data.
Blogging Break – I’m going to go on blogging break until after Christmas. Everyone have a Merry Christmas (for my non Christian readers – if I have any – Happy Holidays) and I will be back shortly thereafter to continue exposing the Darwinist lies.