Oct 312005
 

Furthermore, David C. Stove, in his Darwinian Fairytales wrote about Design in Biology:

“We would all say, because we all know it to be true, that calculating-machines, automobiles, screwdrivers and the like, are just tools or devices which are designed, made, and manipulated by human beings for their own ends. Now, you cannot say this without implying that human beings are more intelligent and capable than calculators, automobiles, screwdrivers, etc.”

P. 171

“… the famous old ‘design argument’ for the existence of God …received its classic formulation in William Paley’s Natural Theology, (1802). But of course Paley did not invent the argument. For centuries before he wrote, it had been carrying conviction to almost every rational and educated mind.”

“It continued to do so for another 50 years after Paley wrote. This is a historical fact which deserves to be known and reflected upon, yet it has been almost completely forgotten. Far from having suffered a fatal blow at Hume’s hands in 1779, the design argument entered the period of its greatest flourishing only between 1800 and 1850. In 1829, for example, the Earl of Bridgewater provided a large sun in his will for a series of books to be written by the ablest authors, which would argue, not from revelation or from authority but rationally, for ‘the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God, as manifested in the Creation.’ [From a ‘Notice’ prefixed to Bell, Sir C. (1874), The Hand, (9th edition), George Bell and Son, London.]”

p. 181

“… someone who has tried in recent decades, as I have, to convince silly undergraduates of the merits of Paley’s classic book…”

“… in the last 30 years, Paley has had his revenge on Darwinism, for more than a century of undeserved contempt. The explanation of adaptation by reference to the purposes of intelligent and powerful agents has come back into its own. And its reinstatement has turned out to require only some comparatively minor changes to the theology involved.” Continue reading »

 Posted by at 1:19 pm
Oct 302005
 

In the book “Character Is Destiny“, Senator John McCain and Mark Salter, in their fourth book together, profile 36 biographies, including Nelson Mandela, Joan of Arc and Charles Darwin. After quoting Darwin in relation to the richness and diversity of life on Earth, these authors declared:

I don’t see why that magnificence excludes religious faith from its interpretation

In the same Chapter of their book, Senator John McCain and Mark Salter addressed evolutionists by telling them to allow other colleagues (both, researchers and teachers) their right for the

perception of divine purpose

Finally, talking about the same scientists and academics that believe in God, Sen. McCain and Salter told evolutionists to let

the faithful see the hand of God in nature

So, what is wrong with that?

From: Lyric Wallwork Winik, Intelligence Report, Parade, p. 15, Oct. 30, 2005.

Update:

Tucson Region. McCain sounds like presidential hopeful . By C.J. Karamargin
Arizona Daily Star. Tucson, Arizona | Published: 08.24.2005

On Tuesday, though, he [McCain] sided with the president on two issues that have made headlines recently: teaching intelligent design in schools and…

McCain told the Star that, like Bush, he believes “all points of view should be available to students studying the origins of mankind.

The theory of intelligent design says life is too complex to have developed through evolution, and that a higher power must have had a hand in guiding it.

Information found at:

Doubting Darwin. The Intelligent Design Website of Samuel S. Chen. Website focused on the philosophical, political, and educational implications of intelligent design and evolution.

 Posted by at 9:49 pm
Oct 292005
 

David C. Stove, in his Darwinian Fairytales wrote about Teleology in Biology:

“Talk about certain things being done ‘for the sake of’ something or other, is plainly just as teleological as talk about ends, goals, or purposes.”
p. 190

“Darwinians have always owed their readers a translation manual that would ‘cash’ the teleological language which Darwinians avail themselves of without restraint in explaining particular adaptations, into the non-teleological language which their own theory of adaptation requires. But they have never paid, or even tried to pay, this debt.”
p. 191

“Nor have [Darwin or] any Darwinians ever given, to this day, any such reconciliation of their theory with the teleological language which they employ as freely as though they were disciples, not of Darwin, but of Paley. Presumably the reason that they have not, is the same as the reason Darwin did not.” Continue reading »

 Posted by at 8:55 am
Oct 172005
 

Dembski at Uncommon Descent quotes Barbara Forrest from her article “The Possibility of Meaning in Human Evolution,” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 35.4 (Dec 2000), 861-889

However, religion cannot help us find meaning in any honest sense unless it can assimilate the truth about where human beings have come from, and the only real knowledge we have about where we came from we have acquired through science.

Consider the words of a staunch atheist like Jean-Paul Sartre. Jean-Paul Sartre was correct in stating that man required an infinite reference point in order for life to have any meaning. Since Sartre didn’t believe there was such a reference point, he stated, “Man is absurd, but he must grimly act as if he were not” and “Man is a useless passion.” Continue reading »

Oct 172005
 

One of the popular arguments that DesignDeniersâ„¢ like to trot out against Intelligent Design is, “ID is an argument from ignorance” . The DesignDeniersâ„¢ use this argument to criticize ID for not having enough imagination. In other words, just because Design theorists can’t conceive of how certain biological functions could have come about. It doesn’t mean that it can’t have happen through an unguided naturalistic means. DarwinDefendersâ„¢ claim that this current ignorance is nothing more than a gap in their knowledge. DarwinDefendersâ„¢ have faith that this ignorance will be filled with their increasing knowledge. The DarwinDefendersâ„¢ are proud to be ignorant. Their faith in materialistic naturalism is strong.

For the honest skeptic we recognize that science must work within the confines of empirical evidence, empirical evidence that is observable and available. We can’t base science on faith, fairytales and wishful imagination. From all available data that the scientific world has, Darwinian naturalism is incapable of producing novel organs let alone new distinct species. Continue reading »

Oct 142005
 

Back in April of this year I challenged Wesley Elsberry on the need to know the designer for ID. On his forum he writes

“Basically, I’m pointing out that the claimed analogy between known designers with whom we have experience and unknown designers operating in unknown ways is illegitimate.

I challenged him with the examples of Stonehenge and other artifacts. His only response was

responding to “challenges” such as given above falls cleanly into the category of “dogwash”.

and that I should read his essay on The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance by John S. Wilkins, Wesley R. Elsberry. Which of course I’ve already read before I formed my challenge to him. The advantages of theft over toil basically makes the same argument as his quote above. Continue reading »

Oct 132005
 

Uncommon Descent highlights a lawsuit by Attorney Larry Caldwell, President of Quality Science Education for All, officials of the National Science Foundation.

Lawsuit Alleges that Federally-Funded Evolution Website Violates Separation of Church and State by Using Religion to Promote Evolution

Kudos to Mr. Caldwell! This is just another demonstration of religious Darwinism. Darwinian critics of ID are not interested in the scientific case against Darwinian evolution. It is all about protecting their faith. Forrest and Gross was targeting the wrong people, they should have looked inside their own camp as I did here.

Oct 112005
 

The current historical developments can not be excluded from the full picture. The new generation of scientists (and their parents) needs to be aware of the novel and refreshing Critical Analysis of Evolution.

This a vital and current scientific history worthy to be clearly presented.

Even it has been presented in Nature’s front page!

From Nature’s Cover:

“This journal contains material on evolution. Evolution by natural selection is a theory, not a fact. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

Approved by the University Board of ______, 2006.

“Is Intelligent Design coming to your Campus?” Continue reading »

 Posted by at 9:01 am
Oct 082005
 

Telic Thoughts had a link to this article Drawing a Line in the Academic Sand. I like to comment on this quote from the President of University of Idaho.

“Because of the recent national media attention on the issue,” reads President Timothy P. White’s letter, “I write to articulate the University of Idaho’s position with respect to evolution: this is the only curriculum that is appropriate to be taught in our bio-physical sciences.” The short letter goes on to allow for the teaching of “views that differ from evolution” in other courses, like religion and philosophy, but not as a scientific principle, which is “testable and anchored in evidence.”

The president’s letter noted that this view is consistent with the views of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, and dozens of scientific societies.

This letter convinced me that Darwinists are smarter than Creationists. I mean imagine if back in 1925 instead of forbidding John Scopes from teaching evolution. The Creationists should have allowed Scopes to teach evolution in other courses, like mythology and philosophy, but not as a scientific principle. Design is the only appropriate bio-physical science, which is testable and anchored in evidence.

This view is consistent with the views of the majority of scientists, since the time of Aristotle, Kepler, Newton, Mendel and Agassiz.

The Darwinian mantra is that evolution is testable and anchored in evidence, which is preposterous. Part of the premise of ID is that Darwinism is not testable and is not supported by evidence. ID challenges the very interpretation by Darwinian mechanisms for the diversity of life. In other words, this tyrant President White would only allow the teaching of science that does not challenge his religious beliefs.

Oct 072005
 

Jonathan Wells has a post over at ID the Future commenting on Darwinists at Michigan State University’s Avida program.

Zimmer quotes several of the Michigan State researchers. One of them is philosophy professor Robert Pennock, who said: “More and more of the features that biologists have said were necessary for life we can check off… Avida is not a simulation of evolution; it is an instance of it.”

Another is microbiologist Richard Lenski, who has been trying for decades to produce new species of bacteria through intense selection. Having failed at that, Lenski is now tempted to close his laboratory and turn to Avida: “In an hour I can gather more information than we had been able to gather in years of working on bacteria.”

I would just like to rehash some of the old stuff that I’ve posted on ARN and post it here.

I have learned to be skeptical of many Darwinists claims but when I encounter statements like that of professor Pennock, I am struck by momentary speechlessness with incredulity. Does he really think that Avida is an instance of evolution? Based on what, certainly not reality? Continue reading »