Jun 272005
 

See also:
Darwinian Fizzbin
Darwinian Fizzbin (The Third Revolution)

The second revolution gave rise to the modern synthesis.

Molecular biology explained how the basis of heredity in all species is encoded in molecules of DNA made of just four basic constituents.*

In the first revolution, Darwin tells us that the origin of species, the diversity of all life on earth came from some warm little pond. This was possible because of natural selection. It was quickly discovered that natural selection (the fittest survive) could not have created all the new forms of life. At best it only acted on existing forms of life. No one knew what natural selection was acting on.

Is this a problem for natural selection? No, not in Darwinian Fizzbin. Darwinists are committed to this game and the rules can be change and distorted in every which way to make Darwinism win. The Darwinists’ response would be “This is how science work. Knowledge is built incrementally and as science advances the gaps in our knowledge are filled.” The problem with that argument is that it is a Fizzbin misdirection. Continue reading »

Jun 262005
 

Bluffing, confusion, obfuscation and equivocation applies both to Fizzbin the card game in Star Trek and to Darwinism. In the original Star Trek series episode “A Piece of the Action”, Kirk asked the thugs of an alien planet organized as different groups of mobs if they are smart enough to learn a new card game called Fizzbin. The rules of the game are extremely confusing because Kirk was making up the rules as he goes along. Darwinism operates in like manner. Darwinists would like you to think that unless you have a PhD in biology (in reality it doesn’t matter even if you have a PhD) your criticisms are invalid. As David Berlinski metaphorically describes Darwinism is “Like Hell itself, Darwin’s theory of evolution is often said to be protected by walls that are at least seven miles thick, in that it is not only true, but unassailable.”

I pointed out in “Nietzsche’s Madman : Finding Darwin’s God” the inside baseball of Darwinism. Within Darwinism and away from the general public, Darwinists would readily acknowledge the problems with Darwinian evolution. However, in public the official line is that evolution is a fact like gravity is a fact. In this post I would like to look more carefully at Sean Carroll’s three evolutionary revolutions. What are its subtle implications? Continue reading »

Jun 092005
 

Even if we had a satisfactory fundamental physics ‘theory of everything’, this situation would remain unchanged: physics would still fail to explain the outcomes of human purpose, and so would provide an incomplete description of the real world around us.

Occasionally you read something that is so refreshing that it makes you suddenly realize the stale air that you’ve been breathing. This quote from an essay by the cosmologist George Ellis as posted by Paul Nelson from ID the Future is such a breath of fresh air. Ellis’s comment unpretentiously and poignantly zones in on the limitation and fallibility of a purely materialistic science and philosophy.

Jun 092005
 

Denyse O’Leary in “By Design or By Chance?” p. 75

Overall Mainstream Christian Views of Evolution In the 19th Century
Most scientists in the United States in the late 19th century were, themselves. Believing Christians, and the ones who accepted evolution, and that would be the majority, simply took it as God’s method of creation. So, although they may have wrestled with issues such as the mechanism of evolution, most of them didn’t think it was necessary to reject evolution in order to salvage their Christian beliefs. –Å“ Ronald Numbers, American historian

Why did the Christians at that time so easily accept Darwin’s idea of evolution? Cornelius Hunter in “Darwin’s God” p. 116

These sort of idea can be found in a variety of movements in the centuries leading up to Darwin’s time. Rationalism, the Enlightenment, deism, the nonconformists, and Unitarianism were all different movements contributing to this trend. For some thinkers, doctrines such as the fall and the Trinity were mysterious and unnecessary. More important for our story, the idea that God would use direct intervention or miracles was increasingly questioned in favor of the idea that God acts exclusively via natural laws. After all, modern science had found that the motions of everything from planets to apples are governed by the same simple laws. Perhaps all phenomena — even such things as the flood and God’s moral laws — could be explained by natural laws.

Continue reading »

Jun 082005
 

The combination in time and space of all these thoughtful conceptions exhibits not only thought, it shows also premeditation, power, wisdom, greatness, prescience, omniscience, providence. In one word, all these facts in their natural connection proclaim aloud the One God, whom man may know, adore, and love; and Natural History must in good time become the analysis of the thoughts of the Creator of the Universe. . .

So who said this? Louis Agassiz. The renown scientist in geology and paleontology and a contemporary of Charles Darwin wrote this in his Essay on Classification. If Charles Darwin was a Christian and his idea was not hostile to Christianity, this is the kind of statements that I would expect to hear from him. Instead what do we get from Darwin? Continue reading »

Jun 072005
 

In my essay “Atheism’s Trojan Horse vs. Creationism’s Trojan Horse” , I’ve applied to Darwinism the criteria Darwinists used to characterize ID as in the book Creationism’s Trojan Horse by Forrest and Gross. It shows that Darwinism is very much driven by an atheistic religious furor rather than an open-minded evaluation of science. In the essay I expose the atheistic metaphysical belief of Darwinism and Darwinists like Dawkins, Forrest, Provine, Pigliucci and Scott. I give them credit for unabashedly equating Darwinism with Atheism.

Recently, however as in “Creationism’s Trojan Horse from Darwinists” and in these debates here and here. Some Darwinists are making a concerted effort to portray Darwinism and religion is not mutually exclusive. This is obviously ridiculous as demonstrated by my 2 previous postings in “Creationism’s Trojan Horse from Darwinists?”. The point that I want to touch on in this posting is the claim by Darwinists that Charles Darwin was a Christian and theists. Continue reading »

Jun 062005
 

After the total failure of that agnostic and speculative macroevolution to produce anything useful in real life, I have decided to pursue a project based on Intelligent Design to the benefit of our endangered ecosystems.

I have posted some preliminary points at the end of the next PCID:

http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2004/3/1/pcid_contents_2004_3_1.php

As well as an update, inspired by the insightful postings of ISCID‘s member number 145:

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000553.html

There, we can also read the gifted comments of two ISCID members, plus the comment of one entomologist, taken from ARN and directed to me. Continue reading »

 Posted by at 10:27 am
Jun 062005
 

“Thanksgiving Day” was a day designated to give thanks to God for blessing His land and people. It is unfortunate that groups are threatening our public right to give thanks to Our Almighty God. Today I will give thanks to God for His Word, and His Creation, and for all His Miracles and Wonders regardless of those groups.

I have applied the concept of “Biological Software” to the “programming of life” located in the nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), and “Biological Hardware” to describe organelles, cells, tissues and organisms, all of them made by proteins, which are the building blocks. The regulatory proteins resemble human “fingers” , initially discovered by Dr. Jonathan Miller (the “Zinc Fingers”). Those proteins are the points of contact between that “Biological Software” and the “Biological Hardware”. The amazing thing about the “Biological Software” is that it produces all the “Biological Hardware” needed for life. Continue reading »

 Posted by at 9:52 am
Jun 062005
 

We live in a Nation that believes in God.

Authorities of the establishment of science are still holding on to an atheistic and agnostic speculation of macroevolution, which is not friendly with serious Christianity.

The current stand of the leaders of science does not reflect the feelings of most of the researchers and teachers. I know of so many that like me, are able to distinguish and to understand the clear difference between a practical, real and testable genetic biochange (microevolution) versus the unpractical, speculative, and non-testable tales of darwinism (macroevolutionism).

The aforementioned fact says a lot about the higher executives within the scientific establishment as opposed to the productive working force of science. Continue reading »

 Posted by at 9:24 am