Aug 302005
 

Recently Dr. William Dembski wrote “Calling Dennett’s Bluff
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/282

Jonathan Witt wrote “Daniel Dennett’s Sham Science“, August 29, 2005
http://www.idthefuture.com/index.php?p=700

Others as well wrote related things, like:
http://telicthoughts.com/?p=243

But here, I want to call your attention to another very common bluff that we see at our posting boards, “the Darwin’s Bluff“.

Being at the root of it all Charles Darwin himself, who wrote:

“Finally then, the facts briefly given in this chapter do not seem to opposed to, but even rather to support the view, that there is no fundamental distinction between species and varieties” [Ch. 8, Darwin’s 1st ed. only of his book ‘Origin of Species‘]

Is that true?

Is true that “there is no fundamental distinction between species and varieties” as Darwin wrote?

Darwin also wrote:

“From these remarks it will be seen that I look at the term species, as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitraily, and for mere convenience sake.” [Ch. 2, all editions of his book ‘Origin of Species‘]

Is it true that the term “species… does not essentially differ from the term variety” as Darwin wrote?

A neo-Darwinian will tell: “Oh well, that was in the XIX Century, that was Darwin only, but now his theory has ‘evolved’ with full loads of new ‘evidence’…”

But I want to ask you, my dear reader: Is that really true? Continue reading »

 Posted by at 8:00 am
Aug 262005
 

Recent news on this case (Sept. 27, 2005): The Good Report of Guillermo Gonzalez, Author of The Privileged Planet

The initial Evil Avalos’ bashings against Gonzalez declared:

We certainly don’t want to give the impression to the public that intelligent design is what we do.

Next is the introduction of the enlightening book coauthored by Gonzalez and of whom Avalos is going against:

Introduction To The Privileged Planet. Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards. Regnery. June 15, 2005

Next is the complete video based on the enlightening book coauthored by Gonzalez and of whom Avalos is going against:

The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe (Real Player, 60 min.)

Now Avalos and the other 120 signers of the document will deny that they’re doing anything inappropriate, but let’s be serious. This is Scientific McCarthyism in a cheap tuxedo, Continue reading »

 Posted by at 3:34 pm
Aug 242005
 

CNN Larry King Live
Intelligent Design in American Classrooms?
Aired August 23, 2005 – 21:00 ET
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/23/lkl.01.html

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/262

Download and see the video of Larry King (CNN) with fellow Jay Richards. August 23, 2005 in
Windows Media (Big file: 52.3MB, optimized for broadband)

Jay Richards declared:

“…what the Senate did and Senator Brownback described is they encouraged what we call teach the controversy at Discovery Institute, and that just means teach the controversy over Darwin’s theory of evolution specifically, the evidence for and against it, but don’t require teaching intelligent design. We think that should be allowed, and we understand that’s what the president said. Yes, these topics ought to be allowed, but remember, the president also said it wasn’t the job of the federal government to dictate curricula to local school districts, and we agree with him on that as well… It’s a debate about the evidence of science and its proper interpretation and that’s a legitimately public debate… We do agree with both the president and the Senate and the Congress as a whole, that where controversial theories are taught like biological evolution, that is Darwin’s theory of evolution, that the full range of evidence ought to be discussed; the strongest evidence for it and against it… teachers should be free to talk about it. That is, free without being harassed by the ACLU, but it shouldn’t be required. It shouldn’t be imposed from the top down. I fully agree with the senator on that point… so far as I can tell, no one has explicitly disagreed with that uncontroversial point, that the strongest evidence for and against it ought to be taught in the public school science classroom.” Continue reading »

 Posted by at 8:09 pm
Aug 242005
 

The Good : Intelligent Design has finally made it into the pop culture’s talking points as it was demonstrated in tonight’s TV show “Boston Legal”.

The Bad : The writers of pop culture (not surprisingly) has taken the Darwinian propaganda line that ID = Creationism.

The Ugly : At the end of the episode, the 2 lawyers who argued for ID to be taught in school laments that they fear one-day evolution will be banned from schools. Darwinian propaganda has finally found a foothold not in the arena of intellectual debate but in the arena of Hollywood. How fitting. The truth to the matter is that ID demands that evolution must be taught in school. The entire picture of evolution not just the distilled fantasy version perpetrated by Atheistic Darwinists.

Aug 172005
 

What is Darwinian of the gaps? Darwinists have declared Darwinian evolution as a well-tested theory. Indeed it has been so well tested that it should be considered as fact and not just a theory. Recently even Peter Ward the coauthor of Rare Earth has come out and reinforces this idea that evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. (more on this at a later posting) The general public and the majority of scientists believes this is the case, so it must be true, right?

For those who have followed my blog and my cyber-postings would know what I mean by Darwinian evolution. 1. Darwinian evolution is Atheistic. I base this on the definition by Ken Miller “The existence of a supreme being simply is not a scientific question. A supreme being stands outside of nature. Science is a naturalistic process and can only answer questions about what is inside nature. Beyond that it’s a matter of personal belief.”‚ I haven’t found any Darwinists that would disagree with this definition yet. 2. Darwinian evolution is a random and unguided process capable of abiogenesis and all the diversity of life through descent with modification from LUCA (last universal common ancestor)

The purpose of this post is to focus on the second part of Darwinian evolution. Continue reading »

Aug 162005
 

Yes, we read that Coddington (aka JAC) lied; yes, we read that Coddington’s evolutionist friends at Panda’sThumb and at NCSE lied as well (see that info in links below). The Smithsonian Institution indeed discriminated against Richard von Sternberg, as the inflammatory e-mails of high authorities of that institution demonstrate (see below). However, OSC is closing the case because its laws have recently changed and it doesn’t cover the working position held by Sternberg… and also because the Smithsonian refuses to further collaborate with the investigation

In the first link below we read that:

A lengthy and detailed letter from OSC attorney James McVay, dated August 5, 2005, and addressed to Sternberg, summarizes the government’s findings, based largely on e-mail traffic among top Smithsonian scientists.

Then we read there: Continue reading »

 Posted by at 2:00 pm
Aug 152005
 

Dear Reader,

Do you think that people is not going to find out sooner or later the truth that lies behind the lies sold as a macroevolutionary ‘speciation‘?

Will evolutionism try to strip out the logic inferences and rights of “Intelligent Design” to do so also on this issue of variation as Harvard now attempts to do it with our claims of ‘Complexity‘?

“What do you think are the main weaknesses of evolution theories?”

And in:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/239

I posted:

We start with a mutual acknowledgment of the profound complexity of living systems,” said David R. Liu.

Continue reading »

 Posted by at 8:36 am
Aug 142005
 

Darwinism has grown and blossomed into a cultish religion. Anyone challenging Darwinian evolution will be demonized and punished. The bombastic Darwinian rhetoric says that Darwinians are not against questions of their theory. Darwinians will cite examples of certain questions of the evolutionary mechanism. This is misleading because Darwinians have not proposed anything that challenges the foundational basis of Darwinism, which is random mutation and non-teleological naturalism. The only theory that challenges the foundation of Darwinism is ID. This is the reason Darwinism is so opposed to ID. Darwinians are not threatened by variations to their religious doctrines but when you challenge the basic tenets of their belief that’s where they draw the line.

The question people need to ask is why is it wrong to question Darwinism? Continue reading »

Aug 102005
 

Brilliant response Bill! BRAVO Specifically, Darwinists are poor scientists who have a habit of jumping to conclusions. Darwinians declared that 95% of our DNA are junk when they actually lack the understanding of how it works. Darwinians complains that certain biological systems cannot be designed, because they are less than optimal. When in fact it is the Darwinian preconceived understanding that is less than optimal as in the case of the inverted retina.

Secondly, Darwinians are so bothered by the gaps of knowledge in ID they don’t see the plank in their own eyes. “Given that his theory of evolution could equally explain both possibilities, goose bumps provide no evidence for evolution one way or the other.” Continue reading »