Jan 312006
 

President Bush

Energy

To keep our economy growing, we also need reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy. (Applause.) Nearly four years ago, I submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages conservation, alternative sources, a modernized electricity grid, and more production here at home — including safe, clean nuclear energy. (Applause.) My Clear Skies legislation will cut power plant pollution and improve the health of our citizens. (Applause.) And my budget provides strong funding for leading-edge technology — from hydrogen-fueled cars, to clean coal, to renewable sources such as ethanol. (Applause.) Four years of debate is enough: I urge Congress to pass legislation that makes America more secure and less dependent on foreign energy. (Applause.)

Education

To make our economy stronger and more dynamic, we must prepare a rising generation to fill the jobs of the 21st century. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, standards are higher, test scores are on the rise, and we’re closing the achievement gap for minority students. Now we must demand better results from our high schools, so every high school diploma is a ticket to success. We will help an additional 200,000 workers to get training for a better career, by reforming our job training system and strengthening America’s community colleges. And we’ll make it easier for Americans to afford a college education, by increasing the size of Pell Grants. (Applause.)

Continue reading »

 Posted by at 9:08 pm
Jan 262006
 

Interested in the penetration of Intelligent Design into pop culture, including its Hip-Hop music, we present today an excerpt that can be listened here (mp3), or the full song here:

Achilles
“… Wounds of Darwinian theory will never heal
Once the population finds Intelligent Design
Enzymes hold the signs of a divine Mind
Darwinian speculation is useless
To explain emergence
Of cellular machines below the surface
Seeing Specified Complexity points to a purpose
Of a system of intergrated parts
Excluding chance as part
Of how it could ever start…” – Atom.

atomAtom, composer of the track Achilles, found on his album The Day the World Changed, hard-hitting beats and rhyme, with an emphasis on lyricism and thought-provoking content… Hip-Hop with an intelligent edge.

Atom was his label’s winner of the Solo Artist of 2005.

A UK listener commented on this song:

Achilles – Mech Bladez Mix’..a real savage melody that can only be dreamt of..but Atom sorted it real well, it boasts probably the best chorus and an extremley intricate set of lyrics that would make most professional m.c’s give respect. [Acrosoma, the Middlemen, from the Midlands – UK]

A song where you can listen some excellent MCs singing acappella, the name of the group is “Redeemed Thought” (friends of Atom), and their song is entitled Love Is

 Posted by at 11:33 am
Jan 202006
 

Intelligent Design’s Prediction: Compatible Mates (cross male x female) Interbreed Producing Fertile Offspring

Antecedent:
It has been demonstrated that the next finches produce fertile offspring: Geospiza fortis (medium ground finch) hybridizes with G. scandens (cactus finch), and with G. fuliginosa (small ground finch).

Experimental Hypothesis:
Intelligent Design, through Mendelian Bioengineering predicts that the rest of Geospiza sp. finches will also be able to produce interfertile offspring.

Expansion:
After exhausting the previous experiments, the hypothesis can be expanded to include the misclassified different finches ‘genus‘ of Cactospiza sp., Platyspiza sp., Camarhynchus sp. and Certhidia sp. (see picture) finches Continue reading »

 Posted by at 9:38 am
Jan 202006
 

Laupala
The Laupala cricket of Hawaii, picture by Kerry Shaw.

As a species begins to split into two separate species, says Mendelson, “the songs appear to be the first characteristic that changes.”

Here, Mendelson is really talking about a variety splitting into two separate varieties able to interbreed! As she pursues:

“Members of closely related species possess no physiological differences that would prevent them from interbreeding.”

These are just varieties sold as different ‘species’!

The subtitle of that original paper, since the start clearly indicated the speculative nature of it:

Tamra C. Mendelson & Kerry L. Shaw. 2005. Sexual behaviour: Rapid speciation in an arthropod. The likely force behind an explosion of new Hawaiian cricket species is revealed. Nature 433, 375-6 (PDF), and Supplementary Info.

However, even with its speculative nature, Science presented this reference as one of the strong evidences for “evolution in action“. Overstatement corrected by Casey Luskin as Microevolution in Action

In the most recent paper by the same authors, we can read that the speculative likelihood or assumption presented as “factual evidence” by the two major scientific journals (Nature & Science) was completely WRONG:

Mendelson, T.C. and Shaw, K.L. 2006. Close-range acoustic signaling and mate choice in Hawaiian crickets. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology (PDF).

“…the hypothesis that the premating barrier between L. paranigra and L. kohalensis is maintained by the female’s preference for a conspecific male’s song at close range was not supported by the present study.”

Other critical excerpts can be found at:

The Laupala Cricket Variation

So, once more, the fraud of evolution is overselling variation within compatible organisms at the price of a mythical ‘speciation

Yesterday, Myrmecos, an Insect Systematist responded at ARN in his original posting with the next words:

The term “fraud” would indicate a conscious attempt to deceive. The fact that the authors openly publish their data that cast some doubt on previous speculations suggests the opposite of fraud.

What, then, is the basis for your accusation?

So, Myrmecos is diverting the attention from the biological aspect that he originally and wrongfully entitled (remember, Nature‘s paper was a speculation) as “Rapid speciation: observations match Darwinian theory

Here is my expanded response.

At ARN I wrote today:

Bottom line is: How long evolution is going to deliberately and “conveniently” allow for the careless confusion of the fact of variation within compatible organisms with the speculative concept of ‘speciation’?

Can you define your best version of the word ‘speciation‘ and why the evolutionary concept of ‘speciation‘ is not corrected to mean variation within compatible organisms?

Here, I will expand my response to Myrmecos: Continue reading »

 Posted by at 8:20 am
Jan 162006
 

Carelessly, Douglas Altshuler declared:

Doug Alt

“Proponents of intelligent design … have long criticized science for not being able to explain … how bees fly

Now Stephen E. Jones has taken a stand for ID to make Altshuler to document his claim or to retract himself.

Krauze and Patrick are following the developments of this story, so do we.

What about mass journals distorting the facts?

What about the unfounded statement of Dr. Francis S. Collins, quoted by Newsweek (previous link) when he carelessly declared:

“[ID] says, if there’s some part of science that you can’t understand, that must be where God is.”

Or what about the careless statement of Dr. Dennis Alexander when he wrote:

“ID proponents commonly use ‘naturalistic’ as a synonym for ‘scientific’ ”

Here, Altshuler, Collins and Alexander are siding with the ID-opposition by putting words never said by real “proponents of ID.”

None of these Doctors can document their careless words against an ID-guided research program!

So, is Altshuler single-handedly “poisoning the well” or not?

(Last quoted words written by Mats in Dr. Dembski’s Blog.)

 Posted by at 8:32 am
Jan 132006
 

When a scientific paradigm is in a state of crisis its proponents resort to increasingly desperate measures to salvage it. These desperate measures are indicative of the fact that the paradigm is indeed in crisis.

I thought it might be interesting to start cataloging examples of these desperate measures when it comes to Darwinian evolution.

1) Those who propose that the paradigm is in trouble are vilified (this occurs especially in academia where one’s career and livelihood are at stake).

2) Consensus is called upon as evidence that the problems have been solved and that no further consideration is warranted. Consensus is never called upon to defend scientific paradigms that are not in crisis.

3) The Cambrian explosion and the fossil record, which, to an objective observer, transparently present severe difficulties for the thesis of gradualism, are dismissed or explained away with stories that have no grounding in evidence. This is an example of, “The theory is sound but the evidence is in error.” This is a recurring theme when a scientific paradigm is in crisis.

4) The revelation that life is foundationally predicated upon complex information is dismissed with appeals to random mutations, despite the fact that all we know about complex systems resembling living systems indicates that this information cannot be the product of stochastic processes, no matter how much time is allowed. This requires blind faith in vanishingly-small probabilities. Once again it is proposed that the theory is sound but that basic logic and the evidence are in error.

The central theme in the case of a scientific paradigm in crisis is a mounting pile of excuses designed to explain away anomalies. When this happens (as in the case of the phlogiston theory of combustion, earth-centered cosmology, and a universe with no beginning) one can reliably detect a paradigm in crisis.

I will expand upon this list in the future.

 Posted by at 10:10 pm
Jan 112006
 

Today, more than an hour ago, I enjoyed Bruce Feiler‘s episode two of the program “Walking the Bible” (aired by PBS) and entitled “The Israelites in Egypt

I got to see the actual ruins of the storage cities for Pharaoh described in Exodus 1:11: Pithom and Raamses:

“They [the Israelites] built storage cities for Pharaoh: Pithom and Raamses.”

Then, Feiler visited the ‘Sea of Reeds‘, that was opened for the Israelites to pass like over dry land, while closing down when the Egyptian chariots attempted to pass through. Here, Feiler was talking about how the King James Translation of ‘the Red Sea‘, could better be translated from the Hebrew as ‘the Sea of Reeds‘.

Before, I got to see how Bruce and his guide, and of course, the cameraman ascended the irregular stairs to reach the top of one of the three classic Pyramids of Egypt… the next one, with a blunt cut:
Bruce Ascended to the top of the Pyramid at the right side
… and from the top of it they filmed the amazing landscape.

I am looking forward to see the next week Episode Three of “Walking the Bible“: Toward The Promised Land: Forty Years in the Desert

For me, the Bible is so beautiful, so marvelous. The Bible is the best book that has ever existed. The Bible is the most certain truth and the highest treasure to live and to die for”

From this Teleological forum I openly send my deepest congratulations to PBS and to Bruce Feiler for their lively journey through the Bible Lands, opening them for us to learn and to see!

 Posted by at 8:52 pm
Jan 092006
 

The variability within compatible organisms has been misused with the purpose to try to support the ideas of Darwin and of the current and flawed ideas of evolutionism.

Darwinism invented a term called “speciation” to pursue the “origin of species” envisioned by Darwin; however, every example of “speciation” to be published can be easily reduced to the simple variation within genetically compatible organisms, which reduces such concept to the category of “sub-speciation” or variation (new lines, races, breeds or lineage making).

Next, we provide the current definitions of “speciation” , and even if those definitions are rich in careless semantics and tricky terminologies, they clearly indicate that current biologists influenced by a Darwinian evolution, think that new biological species, completely independent and genetically incompatible with their ancestors can be originated.

However, that concept of “speciation” has been defeated time after time by the facts of fertile interbreeding, producing fertile offspring, of the supposedly independent species, and on some cases, even by the supposedly (and erroneously) ‘isolated’ Genus (see shorebirds, dolphins, elephants, etc.)

Speciation, according to the Stedman’s Medical Dictionary (2004) is:

The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones. [The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, 2nd Edition Copyright © 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company.]

Continue reading »

 Posted by at 10:23 am
Jan 062006
 

The subject of origins inevitably brings up questions about where we came from, why we are here, and what the purpose of life is (if such a thing exists). When it comes down to it, these are the only questions that are ultimately worth asking or seeking answers for.

When people ask why the unsolved mysteries of chemistry and physics are not the subject of debate when it comes to public education, I ask myself, What planet are these guys living on? These questions have no bearing on anything of ultimate significance.

If the atheistic/materialistic worldview is correct, there is no reason why one should not commit suicide when things get tough. Once you are dead and the biochemical processes in your brain shut down, there are no consequences, there is no accountability, there is no memory.

One day our sun will become a red giant and its outer atmosphere will expand beyond the orbit of the earth. When that happens, the earth’s atmosphere will be stripped away, the oceans will boil away, the sands will fuse into glass, and our planet will be sterilized of all life for all eternity. There will be no record of anything that anyone has ever done.

If the atheistic/materialistic worldview is correct, life is ultimately absurd. And the worst part is, this tragic, nihilistic, dark, cold, depressing philosophy doesn’t even make sense, and requires an unreasonable amount of blind faith. My favorite definition of reasonable faith is, “putting your trust in that which you have reason to believe is true.”

I have come to the conclusion that atheism/materialism requires blind faith, and that theism only requires reasonable faith. In order to be an atheist one must believe that nothing produced everything for no reason, that inert matter spontaneously generated life, that the personal came from the impersonal, that consciousness came from unconsciousness, that the equivalent of typographical errors turned rocks, atmospheric gasses and unspecified liquid concoctions into Chopin in 1017 seconds (and this list could be expanded). It seems to me that this is “unscientific,” magical thinking if ever such a thing existed.

I don’t have enough blind faith to be an atheist.

I do not propose that atheism makes people bad, but that it is destructive because it logically destroys any ultimate sense of purpose in life. Without a sense of self-sacrificial purpose, life loses meaning, and at that point untold miseries are destined to abound.

 Posted by at 10:54 pm