Sep 032006

Prof. Allen MacNeill has been arguing on his blog, that Intelligent Design Theorists (IDT) have fallen into the fallacy of inferring design to objects that in actuality, have no teleology at all. He hypothesizes the vertebrate mind is composed of modules. One of these modules is a highly effective intentionality detector.

In support of this argument, he uses an example from his student’s paper in the Cornell ID class. Allen writes,

As Broaddus points out, one of the side-effects of such an “agency detector” would be the detection of intentionality in entities that clearly had no such intentions. If, for example, one of the most important functions of such a detector in humans is to quickly “read” and assess the intentions betrayed in human facial expressions, then it would almost certainly detect human facial expressions in objects in the environment that clearly do not have such expressions, such as rocks, foliage, water stains, etc

Allen continues his argument with this example. Continue reading »

Jun 242006

Mike Gene makes a good argument against Keith Miller’s article Evolutionary Theory And Continuous Creation. However, I think the argument against Miller’s thesis is much simpler than that. But before I get into my rebuttal, am I the only one who is noticing the TE are on the rise to bash ID? You have people like Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, SC Morris, and now Keith Miller, all advocates God uses Darwinian evolution as a method of creation.

Let’s take a look at Keith Miller’s theological reasoning.

I accept the Bible as authoritative and true in what God intends it to communicate. … The question for the Christian is then – What is the best interpretive framework for any given passage of scripture? I am convinced that the best interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis is a literary one in which neither time nor chronology are part of the intended message.

On what textual basis does he make that determination. Certainly, Genesis contains many literary techniques, including symbolism, metaphors and documentary devices. Although it does not contain specify dates and length of time it does specify the order of creation. There is no indication the creation account is metaphorical. Just as there is no indication to think this paragraph of mine is anything but a straight forward account of my critique of Miller’s quote. The question is why he chose that framework for interpretation. Is it based on his vast knowledge of ancient manuscripts and literary styles and techniques of documents in that period? Or is it base on his commitment to Darwinian evolution and in fear for a crisis in his faith? Continue reading »

May 312006

What I love about Darwinists is that every once in awhile you get something delicious like the ones that I’ve blogged about here, here and here. This latest morsel comes from Jeffrey Schwartz, a noted anthropologist at the University of Pittsburgh (credit to Dembski @ UD for the find). According to this article, Schwartz thinks that “Darwin was wrong, and his modern-day adherents perpetuate his mistakes”.

Before I continue further please let me make my disclaimer. Continue reading »

Apr 132006

Casey makes this excellent observation at EN&V.

I love it when new “missing links” are discovered, because it’s then–and only then–that Darwinists admit how precious little evidence had previously existed for the evolutionary transition in question.

Authority Jennifer Clack even admits that before finding Tiktaalik, the large morphological gap between fish and true tetrapods was “frustratingly wide”:

    “It has long been clear that limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) evolved from osteolepiform lobefinned fishes3, but until recently the morphological gap between the two groups remained frustratingly wide. The gap was bounded at the top by primitive Devonian tetrapods such as Ichthyostega and Acanthostega from Greenland, and at the bottom by Panderichthys, a tetrapod-like predatory fish from the latest Middle Devonian of Latvia (Fig. 1).”
    (Jennifer A. Clack & Per Erik Ahlberg, “A firm step from water to land,” Nature 440:747-749 (April 6, 2006); emphasis added)

For the religious Darwinists it doesn’t matter what the evidence is, Darwinian evolution happened so all evidence must be distorted to support that fact. Continue reading »

Mar 072006

It is obvious that Dr. Ely has no formal education in evolutionary biology because of his poor understanding of evolutionary biology. We know Dr. Ely has a poor understanding because he criticizes evolutionary biology. And anyone educated in evolutionary biology will receive a credential in biology if they agree with evolutionary biology. The fact that Dr. Ely criticizes evolutionary biology means that he was not educated in evolutionary biology or he was not able to understand it. Oh, how beautiful is the Darwinian circular reasoning.


Dr. Ely has no formal training in evolutionary biology outside what he may have received in an introductory biology course.

Dr. Ely is a physiologist, receiving his formal training in a medical school environment. From Dr. Ely’s own statements as well as our various interactions with him, it is abundantly clear that Dr. Ely has a poor understanding of evolutionary biology.

Indeed, if undergraduate majors in our biology department revealed such profound misconceptions about basic evolutionary biology we would have serious misgivings about conferring their degrees in biology.

Mar 012006

You know that apothegm about small dogs bark louder and more to compensate for their size? I don’t know if that is true but it certainly is true for Darwinism as demonstrated by Kenneth Miller. Brown University Professor, Author Ken Miller Lectures on Evolution, Intelligent Design

Dr. Miller then discussed some ways to respond to anti-evolution arguments. One argument anti-evolutionists often make is that fossil records do not support evolution because intermediate forms are missing. “If you show this to a paleontologist, their jaw drops,” said Miller.

Eh? Dr. Miller did you mean a paleontologist like Henry Gee, Senior Editor for the Journal Nature, in his book “In Search of Deep Time” .

New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries “missing links”, as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps”

From our vantage point in the present, we arrange fossils in an order that reflects gradual acquisition of what we see in ourselves. We do not seek the truth, we create it after the fact, to suit our own prejudices” To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story – amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.

Continue reading »

Feb 212006

A few other ID blogs have posted on Eric Davidson’s article in Science. I will not repeat what they have already so insightfully pointed out. (I will save the whole topic of evodevo for the future) Instead I would like to focus on the DaveScot’s title for his post at Uncommon Descent, “PZ Myers Has An Epiphany”.

The truth is Myers is not alone in his epiphany, I would say any Darwinists who truly understands neo-Darwinian evolution already has this epiphany. The Darwinian priesthood (Darwinian scientists) is desperately trying to hide this revelation from the rubes. If the Darwinian rubes ever find out the truth their whole religion would fall apart.

How does the priesthood hide the truth from their rubes? Hide it in plain sight. Let me explain. The Darwinian priesthood has known for sometime now, the neo-Darwinian fairy tale just don’t measure up to scientific scrutiny. Continue reading »

Feb 162006

If first you don’t succeed try, try, again.

Salvador over at Uncommon Descent posted this 40% of freshman in UCSD’s sixth college reject Darwinism.

Why is it that all of the sudden Darwinism is a requirement for biology majors at UCSD to graduate? Does it have anything to do with their science education? If Darwinism was so fundamental to biology, why wasn’t it a requirement for the last several decades in the first place?

I think Salvador must have meant it as a rhetorical question. We all know that biology has absolutely nothing to do with neo-Darwinism. It is just one great farce. The Darwinian priesthood is befuddled and hysterical over the persistent increase of Darwinian skeptics. In typical Darwinian fashion, they come to the only conclusion possible, Darwinian critics are either ignorant or mentally ill Creationists. Anything else is just not scientific in the Darwinian universe.

Being elite humanitarians, Darwinists out of their compassion, set out to save these ignoramuses and mentally ill Creationists from their misguided delusion. The Darwinian Priesthood will spare no expense or any underhanded method to indoctrinate reeducate these outcasts. I say reeducate because indoctrination K-12 has failed these outcasts. We keep telling them evolution is a fact and there are overwhelming evidence to support evolution, but it did work. Darwinians are great secular humanists that will not give up on the least of our society. Even at the universities the great Priesthood will never give up their duty to convert everyone to Darwinism. Although 40% of unbelievers is a lot but this time Darwinists will succeed in converting them because they will be dazzled by the authority of the “Professors” .