It is obvious to me that the Darwinists are obfuscating and equivocating on atheistic Darwinism and personal beliefs. I will offer the following observation in conclusion.
Archive forMay, 2005
Creationism’s Trojan Horse from Darwinists? I am seeing a new strategy emerging from the atheistic Darwinists. Maybe you can call it the new guard against the old guards. In Atheism’s Trojan Horse, Darwinists like Dawkins, Provine, Forrest, and Kurtz are unabashedly atheistic. Their mission is to attack and ridicule religion for atheism. Now, a new [...]
Yup, the jackals are already out. I’ve predicted as much. Here are the first jackals that I’ve seen emerging in the comments on the Post-Darwinist Blog Since there is no scientific alternative to evolutionary theory, this is like saying that Einstein has a monopoly on the school system. Geez Denyse… Think… Geez wedgie haven’t you [...]
An NAS Scientist Speaks out and urges Kansas to Teach the Controversy over Neo-Darwinism. This guy’s got guts. Thank you, thank you, thank you Dr. Philip S. Skell. Thank you for saying what a lot of us have been thinking and saying for many years. Neo-Darwinism has not contributed anything of significance to the human [...]
Who is the Designer? Part 2: Finding Darwin’s God Continuing on this theme of who is the designer, I’ve shown why knowing the designer is not a requirement for the ID theoretical. This is not the case for Darwinism as I posted before. For Darwinism which relies on the materialistic naturalism for the origin of [...]
I like to summarize the points that I’ve made in a debate over at telicthoughts. ID theory is certainly different than Darwinism. Darwinism claims that it has a successful explanatory process for biodiversity. It does not. No matter how many times Darwinists repeat the mantra that small changes will accumulate to major biodiversity. It doesn’t [...]
To the committed Darwinists, this might seem to be a show stopper for identifying the designer. First, this is Darwinian Cliche #2. Second, other IDists have addressed this quite adequately, here, here, here, and here. To Darwinians like Wesley Elsberry and Richard Dawkins, their objective is not about ID as a science. Their objective is [...]
Rob’s reporting of day two of the hearings before the Kansas Science Committee. Naturally Irigonegaray’s questions are about anything but the science he testified about, such as the age of the earth which Pelzer said was probably 4.569 billion years. Pedro is beginning to look like a joke.