Intelligent Design and the Supernatural

 Intelligent Design  91 Responses »
Dec 302005
 

doctor(logic) asked this question at TT. How do you define “supernatural causation”? I would like to modify that question and I suspect is what doctor(logic) really wanted to ask anyway.

Can supernatural causation be a part of ID?

Let me try a little test. Feel free to fill in the blanks and do you think a research program can be built under these claims?

A ____________ theorist doesn’t ask whether ____________ exist; instead, two critical questions that a ____________ theorist asks are: where are they and why haven’t we seen them?

But perhaps the most convincing reason to believe in ____________ is that they permit new connections among properties of the observed universe and have a real possibility for explaining some of its more mysterious features. ____________ can have implications for the world we see and explain phenomena that seem incomprehensible when viewed from the perspective of a ____________ (or theorist).

Continue reading »

Why The Deception

 Darwinism  69 Responses »
Dec 282005
 

Why are so many Darwinians trying to convince Christians that evolution is compatible with Christianity? Yet at the same time they would be just as fervent in telling the Christians to keep their belief out of every aspect of the government. Take it out of the Pledge, our money, department stores, town squares, courthouses, schools, etc, etc…

What gives? Take a look at these quotes. Continue reading »

The Reason for The Season

 Uncategorized  No Responses »
Dec 242005
 
IT CAME UPON THE MIDNIGHT CLEAR
Edmund H. Sears, 1810-1876
Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom His favor rests.” (Luke 2:13)

The peace of Christmas, proclaimed by the heavenly chorus, is one of God’s greatest gifts to mankind. “God was reconciling the world unto Himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). This message of reconciliation involves us on three different levels: Peace with God, peace with our fellowmen, and peace within ourselves. It is this blessed concept that Edmund Sears wanted to emphasize in his unusual carol. Continue reading »

Intelligent Design on Fox News

 Darwinism, Intelligent Design  27 Responses »
Dec 222005
 

Hannity & Colmes will be doing a report on ID tonight at 9 p.m. ET.

——————————————————————–

Here is my review of the program. H&C had 3 guests, Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. Richard Land, and Dr. Lawrence Krauss.

It began with Behe giving a definition of ID. Behe used the usual examples of Mt. Rushmore, cell as a molecular machine and the flagellum.

Colmes asked Behe why so few scientists support ID? Behe said that opponents dislike the metaphysical implication of ID. Colmes immediately jumps on this point interrupting Behe with the question who is the designer? Behe admits that ID does have metaphysical implications but so does the Big Bang. And for him a good candidate for ID would be God but IC does not go that far. Colmes pushes Behe asking if it is not God then who else? Behe gives the usual response of space alien or time traveler basically any intelligent source.

Next H&C had Land and Krauss on. Both Land and Krauss began with comments on the Dover decision. Krauss then began is ferocious attack on Behe. I am convinced that Krauss is unable to represent ID accurately if his life depended on it. He boldly declares that nothing about what Behe said is science. This is so ridiculous. Is he so lame that he thinks people would forget something they just saw 5 minutes ago? Behe just finished describing the complexity of a cell with specialized functions and signposts directing operations. He described the different parts of the flagellum. What isn’t science about a cell and flagellum Dr. Krauss? Maybe this is the reason why Americans are behind many other countries in science because Krauss teaches cells and flagella are not a part of science. Krauss also trotted out the usual Darwinian equivocation that ID is an argument from ignorance. Behe already addressed this earlier with Colmes that Darwinian science just doesn’t work that way and no Darwinian research has been able to demonstrate how this would work. Continue reading »

Can We Live Without God?

 Theology  Comments Off on Can We Live Without God?
Dec 222005
 

Fox News interviewing Ravi Zacharias and Michael Shermer.

Sun., Dec. 25 at 9 p.m. ET
Repeats at midnight
by Lauren Green

A recent FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll finds that 92 percent of Americans believe in God, but nearly 70 percent think religion plays too small of a role in our lives. One reason may be because people just don’t talk about their faith very much — it’s kept private.

Join FOX News this weekend as we ask, “Can We Live Without God?”

From religion and politics to evolution and creation, pastors, scholars and individuals explain what gives meaning to their lives.

We’ll find out how their faith influences their lives and helps them make the moral and ethical choices we all face.

You’ll meet:

“¢ An evangelical pastor whose guide for dating, sex and marriage comes from directly the Bible

“¢ A Skeptic who turned to science for answers

“¢ A man who took his faith in God out of this world

Judge Suffers From Delusions of Adequacy

 Intelligent Design  25 Responses »
Dec 202005
 

In the Dover, PA case judge Jones has ruled that only the officially sanctioned State religion of Darwinism may be taught in the public schools. Furthermore, neither Darwinism nor its premises, arguments, or evidence may be questioned.

A press release from the Discovery Institute comments, “This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur.”

This is being much too generous. Poor judge Jones is suffering from delusions of adequacy.

 Posted by at 2:14 pm

Adaptive evolution of non-coding DNA in Drosophila

 Darwinism, Intelligent Design  No Responses »
Dec 152005
 

This is very apropos considering my previous post.

From RTB:

    “Junk” DNA: A Functionally Critical Component of the Genome

  • “Junk” DNA studies continue to provide evidence for design. This type of noncoding DNA has been championed as an icon of evolution. Evolutionary biologists maintain that because junk DNA is an imperfection, it provides incontrovertible evidence for evolution because a Creator would not make mistakes. In this research 40-70% of the noncoding DNA sequences in Drosophila display a mutational pattern similar to that observed for functional DNA sequences. This implies that noncoding, so-called junk DNA plays a role in the genome. As scientists uncover more and more functional importance of junk DNA, their work points to the activity of an intelligent Designer in the shaping of organisms’ genomes.
  • Related Resource

Adaptive Evolution of Non-Coding DNA in Drosophila
On the basis of these observations, I suggest that a large fraction of the non-translated genome is functionally important and subject to both purifying selection and adaptive evolution. These results imply that, although positive selection is clearly an important facet of protein evolution, adaptive changes to non-coding DNA might have been considerably more common in the evolution of D. melanogaster.

Research on Intelligent Design by Darwinians

 Intelligent Design  5 Responses »
Dec 152005
 

Is there research on Intelligent Design? The reality is that many of the scientific research conducted by Darwinists are supportive of ID, even though their published papers are laced with the usual obeisance to Darwinism. One promising area of research that could be a boon for ID is the creation of life from scratch. Consider the following article and news stories.

From Research on ID The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories

“…neo-Darwinism affirms that new functional sections of the genome arise by trial and error process of mutation and subsequent selection. For this reason, historically many neo-Darwinists expected or predicted that the large non-coding regions of the genome–so-called “junk DNA” –would lack function altogether (Orgel, L. E., & F. H. Crick. 1980. Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite. Nature 284:604-607.).

Alive! The race to create life from scratch
the Bug will be built up from first principles, using chemicals largely foreign to existing creatures. “You somehow have to forget everything you know about life,” says Rasmussen. “What we have is the simplest we could dream up.”

To achieve this radical simplicity, Rasmussen and his colleagues had to begin with the most basic of questions: what is the least something must do to qualify as being alive? Biologists and philosophers struggled to answer that question for decades (New Scientist, 13 June 1998, p 38).

However, most now agree that one key difference – perhaps the only one – between life and non-life is Darwinian evolution. For something to be alive, it has to be capable of leaving behind offspring whose characteristics can be refined by natural selection.

Single-cell research could open door to new life forms

Researchers discovered that out of 500 genes, about 350 were absolutely essential for life.(Updated hat tip scordova (3-31-06): Minimal genome should be twice the size. It means minimal complexity might be much larger than 350 genes)

The surprise came when they discovered that 103 genes have a function that is a complete mystery.

“We’re missing at least a third of the picture,” said Craig Venter of the Institute for Genetic Research. “But that’s extremely disturbing … these 103 genes, if you knock out one of them, the cell dies,” he said.

If scientists discover the purpose of the mystery genes, experts think they will have a blueprint for the essence of life on a molecular level.

What can we glean from these quotes? How is this relevant to ID research? Continue reading »

 Older Entries