May 142005
 

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 branch is emerging. People like Michael Ruse who criticizes Dawkins for his over the top attack on religion as evil, has a different tactic. He wants to suggest that Darwinism is compatible with religious beliefs. In the past Darwinism is used to support secular humanism, now it is suppose to be compatible with religious beliefs? Make no mistake this is still Atheism’s Trojan Horse.

Ruse knows that the majority of Americans is skeptical of Darwinism, and hold to some sort of religious beliefs. His tactic is to avoid the frontal assault, which he believes gave rise to Intelligent Design. He wants to convince the American public that Continue reading »

May 132005
 

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 ever heard of competing theories to Einstein’s relativity? Continue reading »

May 122005
 

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 condition. Evolution as change with respect to time in the microevolutionary sense indeed has contributed to science but not macroevolutionary neo-Darwinism. Dr. Philip S. Skell made so many good points here is an excerpt. Continue reading »

May 102005
 

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 all artifacts identifying the designer is crucial. For the materialist, this designer is an unguided, random, purposeless variation and natural selection for all the biodiversity of life on earth. Finding Darwin’s god is to find the naturalistic mechanism by which any biological artifact has come to being. For example, in the construction of the bacteria flagellum with over 40 different intricate and well suited proteins must be explained by this process absent of ID. For the Darwinists, through the power of random mutation and natural selection what seems like the impossible becomes possible. The question then becomes how powerful is Darwin’s god? Several recent finding has put Darwin’s god in jeopardy. It may be premature to invoke Nietzsche’s requiem “God is dead” to Darwinism, Continue reading »

May 092005
 

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 make it real. There are no observable macroevolutionary changes through natural processes. Why is it unreasonable to demand a “videotape” of the historical macroevolution, when Darwinists can demand ID to produce a designer? Besides Darwinism not only fails at producing such a “videotape” of the creation event, it can’t even reproduce any of the macroevolutionary changes in the lab. Show us Darwin’s God.

The very nature of the ID theoretical does not require it to identify the process of how an artifact was design. Continue reading »

May 082005
 

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 to focus their attack and equate ID with nothing more than a religious belief. This is the reason they are focusing on the importance of demanding to identify the designer behind the design. This is obviously a specious argument at best, Continue reading »

May 082005
 

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. Continue reading »