Teleological Blog

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 »

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 »

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 »