Robert Crowther has noticed an interesting trend, and that is the main stream media’s insistence on writing about Intelligent Design even when it is not an issue. I’ve noticed this myself. Many articles tend to have an obligatory anti-ID reference whenever the topic of evolution in school comes up. This is obviously done to bias the reader against ID without actually discussing the merits of ID. In short, it’s nothing more than Darwinist PR. Of course, the Darwinists accuse ID proponents of being interested in nothing but PR. It’s simply another case of projection though.
Monthly Archives: January 2008
In South Carolina, textbooks are up for review and there’s been some trouble with approving Ken Miller’s book. Miller himself came down to stump for his own book (and the royalties he stands to gain from the state adopting his textbook). OK, so it looks a little weird, since the school board was set to approve other text books that deal with evolution, and no text out there deals with evolution fairly and presents the strengths and weaknesses. So, it looks like Miller’s book was singled out for some odd reason. Still, the idea of the author going down there to stump for it, which has obvious monetary ramifications for him, is also rather unsightly. Miller should have stayed out of it and let the chips fall where they may.
Communities across the northern part of Florida are standing up and saying, “No” to the new proposed standards in Florida, according to this article. It seems that seven counties in the northern part of the state have passed resolutions. Additionally, Polk County may join their ranks as well as Highlands County.
I think they are all making a mistake. We should be teaching evolution. We should teach more of it than the Darwinists want. Is there evidence for mutation and selection? Yes, and we should teach that. Is there evidence that challenges evolution? Yes, and we should teach that also. The real problem here is that Darwinists are pushing evolution as fact, which is causing people to push back. And, instead of pushing for a balanced treatment of evolution, they simply reject it, which fuels the fires of the fear-mongering Darwinists.
Pikas are cute critters, and a specific subset love cold weather. I mean really cold.
Pikas are small non-hibernating lagomorphs living only in cold regions at either high altitudes or high latitudes and have a maximum distribution of species diversification confined to the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (average altitude >3000 m), which is called the “roof of the world” and “third polar of the world”.
The above quotation is taken from an article that reports on a new study about the functional evolution of pika leptin. The authors make some rather grandiose claims near the end:
“But the study of adaptively functional evolution of pika leptin from a typical cold-adaptive species may enlighten us to understand and to identify it as one of potential new candidate of therapeutic strategies for human’s diseases associated with metabolic disorders, such as obesity, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc”.
Even if one came to the realization that these Pika evolved and how it happened, it would not be understanding the evolution of the pika that would bring us “therapeutic strategies for human’s [sic] diseases associated with metabolic disorders, such as obesity, diabetes, osteroporosis, etc.” Understanding their cold adaption would not get us there. That’s absurd. Understanding how the genes work (via reverse engineering?) would, however, help shed some light on how our genes work simply because the code that was used is common throughout all life (DNA). This isn’t an exercise in (self-important) evolution so much as an exercise in understanding how the code works. This should be seen as more of an ID type of experiment than evolution.
It’s another Sunday and another day for doggies. On a recent trip, we met up with a couple cute Welsh Corgis and Mendel was king (queen) of the mountain!
Another step has been taken in the study of the design of life and it’s a step that is ID by definition. Dr. Venter and his team have created synthetic life via a process of intelligent design.
What we are doing with the synthetic chromosome is going to be the design process of the future
OK, so all they really did was combine strands of DNA, they did not actually synthesize it, but nowhere did they use evolutionary methods in order to obtain this result. They did not put DNA in a dish and allow it to evolve into this new life. No, they physically put it together by conscious design. It boggles the mind why there is such resistance to the idea of ID when we are demonstrating it ourselves.
Sometimes I read articles from conservative publications simply because they tend to be more amenable to ID science than liberal publications (I’m not sure why that is necessarily). Today, I found an article that reads like a laundry list of complaints against evolution. Some are good complaints, some are not so good. For an example of the latter, the author doesn’t make a distinction between abiogenesis and evolution, and although evolutionists would gladly jump on any evidence for abiogenesis as supporting evolution, the case could be made the evolution can stand on its own, i.e. however life got here, evolution could be used to attempt to explain how it diversified into what we see today.
That’s not the point though. There is some good information in there, and I’ve pulled out a quote that I especially like.
Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed so that they can make other robots just like themselves from raw materials.
Now, imagine an alien visitor coming to the planet and, after many years of studying these robots, coming to the conclusion that since science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce there’s no reason to believe that there was an ultimate intelligent designer behind them.
The reason that I like this is because of the Darwinist propensity to argue that if we can scientifically explain how something happens, then ID is somehow disproven. I’ve had this argument on this very blog before. This wholly ignores what ID science is about as well as ignoring what Darwinists would like you to think evolution is about.
Explaining the physical mechanism behind some occurrence in terms of the base physical laws doesn’t prove evolution, nor does it defeat ID. In fact, we make inferences to ID because we do understand the processes involved in generating cells or performing cell processes. The interplay of the proteins along with the digital code inherent in DNA that plays out like a computer program are highly suggestive of something that is designed, not something that came about through blind chance and purposelessness. Darwinists would do well to remember this.