Sal’s recent OP about setting up a YC discussion blog got me thinking about the influence and role that philosophical presuppositions play in how one views science and scientific findings, or even in how one defines what science is. As I follow discussion after discussion on various blogsites regarding YEC v OEC v Naturalism, it becomes more and more clear that ones philosophical, theological or metaphysical presuppositions about the world play a very large and defining role is how one arrives at any conclusions about these matters, or even how one views evidence for or against these views. Unfortunately, it also seems to be the case that few will admit to these presuppositions, and try to make the case that they derive their position “purely” from the science itself. However, it doesn’t seem to me that a good case can be made for that position.
Because I sense interest in the topic, I’m thinking of forming a YEC/ID weblog. Although I’ll continue to post at UD, my threads are being bumped off the forefront as time passes, unlike ARN and ISCID where a topic can be visited and discussed for months!!!!
Furthermore, we’ll organize the information and discussion hierarchically and try to get some better critics. It will also be a gateway to a Virginia Creationist society.
Is anyone interested? OECs and non-creationists are welcome to participate and help with the material and web programming?
The producer of “24” the hugely popular and undisputed best show on TV, has a new show on . It will air on 2/18 at 10PM EST after Hannity’s America.
In a howling funny ironic letter to the editor of the London Times our favorite foil Richard Dawkins tries to commit humility while accusing theologian Alistari McGrath of hubris and dogamtism. After picking myself up off the floor where I was rolling in laughter, I thought I’d share this little tid-bit with you all here at TB. I don’t know whether to file this under “humor” or “sarcasm”. Either will do. Here’s a little tid-bit from RD’s (humble) letter:
This has been a Darwinian red herring for a long time. As with any fairy tales, a cult following has been formed around some mythical characters — in this case, it is the Nested Hierarchy (NH). The Darwinian evolutionists claim that by arranging all the extant and extinct species with their fossils or partial fossils into some organizational system, this is suppose to be evidence that support the common ancestry for the diversity of life.
There is just a couple of problems with this Darwinian contrived myth. The classification methods the Darwinians use is circular i.e., they assume ancestral relationships for comparison and differentiation of similar and unique traits to build a tree. The Darwinists then go back and use the tree as evidence for common ancestry. That is not to say that this mythical system is without flaws, but why debate a system that has no basis on reality.
This thread has changed from the original title and the OP deleted due to the nature of the comments.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
The twin-engine plane was diving toward the ground Friday morning at a speed of well over 400 miles per hour. Its pilot and co-pilot were unconscious from oxygen deprivation.
The plane’s nose was tilted down and in about 15 seconds would collide with the earth northwest of Cape Girardeau.
Death seemed certain.
But pilot Sheldon Stone and co-pilot Adam Moore are alive today.
“We must have had angels on our shoulders, that’s all I can say,” said Stone, who flies the plane for the owner of Summit Bank of Arkansas and has about 4,200 hours of flying experience.
Our friends at The Panda’s Thumb are planning a re-enactment podcast of the
Dover trial and are looking for voice talent. Imagine my surprise when I
received this e-mail today from someone named Lee Bowman:
Are you a voice talent? Andrew Arensburger is looking for volunteers!
Casting director is PZ Myers (self appointed).
PZ is the “self-appointed” director. You gotta give PZ points for Chuzpah!!
Observing last night’s Super Bowl XLI, it seems to me that one could argue that Peyton Manning posesses all the qualities one might expect from an intelligently designed quarterback. Indeed, his level of play has all the hallmarks of specified complexity we routinely associate with design.
Rex Grossman, on the other hand, seems to be the end result of the blind, purposeless process of evolution. I suspect he will be “selected out” in this years draft.
As if we needed any more evidence of just how disingenuous Richard Dawkins is, check out this little tidbit I got from a friend of mine.
Richard Dawkins: 4 December 2006
Question: Why have you not engaged in public debate with Alister McGrath, Mary Midgley, Michael Ruse, Keith Ward, or indeed anyone else who would present you with a serious challenge? JAMES RADFORD, By e-mail
RD: The producers of my Channel 4 documentary [Root of All Evil?] invited the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and the Chief Rabbi to be interviewed by me. All declined, doubtless for good reasons. I don’t enjoy the debate format, but I once had a public debate with the then Archbishop of York, and The Observer quoted the verdict of one disconsolate clergyman as he left the hall: “That was easy to sum up – Lions 10, Christians nil.”