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?”

Then, see “Intelligent design: Who has designs on your students’ minds?”

And my comments over that Editorial.

And Nature’s related info.:
On George Mason University discriminating Intelligent Design advocate Caroline Crocker:
Box 1. Cast out from class.
Box 2. Natural Divisions.

Just one example for all readers to see,

You can find how media reporters today are completely unable to differentiate between the design and the designer (i.e., The Abrams Report.

See the Abrams_Report_Transcript-September_29_2005.pdf).

That deliberate blindness’ disease can be developed by blindly relying in the NCSE and its “missionary” Eugenie C. Scott et al). The facts: Eugenie C. Scott et al declared

“Steve, your article doesn’t mention intelligent design.”

To Eugenie C. Scott et al, Stephen C. Meyer answered,

“of course it does” she can’t tell me what was in my own article”

Abrams was stubbornly asking,

“Who is the intelligent designer? Who is the intelligent designer?”

While all that Intelligent Design does is to detect the signature of intelligence in nature!

Stephen C. Meyer declared:

“I personally do think that God created the world. But the reason that as a design theorist, we are careful not to say more than we can detect intelligence is not because we are trying to pull a sham or the wool over anyone’s eyes, we’re trying to be careful about what the evidence can establish and what it can’t. The argument for design is based on evidence and the evidence established an intelligent cause, but it can’t establish the identity of the intelligence.”

Abrams ended up this segment by declaring,

“by the way. Stephen Meyer, you’re a good sport”

So, I want to ask you, with the same insistence that we saw in the Abrams’ show,

“do you personally think that God created the world, as I do?”

If the answer is yes, do you agree with Stephen C. Meyer or with NCSE‘s Eugenie C. Scott, the “missionary” of “evolution”?

Being a good sport” means acting in a way that meets certain high ethical standards. So,

“Scott, you are a bad sport”

Are evolutionists going to continue attempting to deny our people to know the full story?

Read by yourself the PDF full version of Meyer’s article , entitled:

Intelligent Design: The Origin Of Biological Information And The Higher Taxonomic Categories. By: Stephen C. Meyer. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. August 4th, 2004.

This article includes the text directly discussing and trying to support design theory highlighted in red. This is primarily at the end of the article where Meyer lays out the case for intelligent design as a better explanation than Darwinian evolution.

Here is something else about Eugenie C. Scott, from Telic Thoughts.

Dear reader, support Intelligent Design in Dover, PA. We are for the freedom and progress in Science!

 Posted by at 9:01 am
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
16 years ago

Any commentary which, first, approves of Roger DeHart’s gross insubordination in the classroom and the old canard that transitional fossils are somehow “rare” enough not to be the solid evidence they are, should raise red flags on the moral radar of everybody.

What other odd experiments does this guy suggest we try on our kids in the classroom? What standards does he have with regard to taking care of children, if not the basics that we should not mislead them?

What other solid evidence does this fellow deny? What sort of “separate reality” does he really favor, and does he urge children to use what substances to get there?

Since when does “freedom and progress” in science come from abandoning standards of academic achievement and knowledge, and urging, post-modernist style, that we disbelieve the facts?

16 years ago

Dear Reader,

Taken from the Discovery Institute:

Articles Advocating Teaching the Controversy

The Abrams Report (MSNBC)
Fellow: Stephen Meyer
September 29, 2005
Windows Media (53.8MB)
Transcript (PDF) (34K)

And as originally appears in the DI Webpage:

Editor’s Note: This segment features a lively, and good natured, exchange between Dr. Meyer and Dan Abrams. The clip is a prime example of the bias held by many in the media against intelligent design, and even against questioning Darwinism. For more information on Eugenie Scott’s false claim about Dr. Meyer’s journal article click here.

Have a good day!


[…] ’s Eugenie C. Scott, which in her ‘debates’ she is always repeating that there is no controversy at all. So, who or why is she debating at all ? Was she the main and deceitful &#82 […]