Nov 072005

Let me try to further pontificate on Collins’ appeal to Christians for acceptance of evolution, in hope of making my criticism more clear. The harmony of faith and science that Collins is suggesting would effectively make the Bible subservient to secular science. What Collins wants Christians to do is if there are any conflicts of understanding of the natural world we should submit to secular science without dissent. The Bible must be wrong, because it is just mythology or textual redaction. Collins sees no conflict with faith and science because he has made faith subservient to science.

Ultimately all truth is God’s truth. If the earth is round then it is round for Christians and non-Christians. If Darwinian evolution is truth then it is true for Christians and non-Christians. However, what Collins wants is for Christians not to critically investigate science and blindly accept Darwinian propaganda. Regardless of one’s personal belief, there is plenty of room for skepticism of Darwinian evolution. What Collins is doing makes him look more like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I think Collins should make a 180 degrees turnaround and fight for ID to have a place at the scientific table. Faith and science does not have to be at odds with each other. For most Christians and this one in particular scientific investigation is a noble endeavor that leads to a greater understanding of the majesty of the Creator. Christians do not fear science because we believe that ultimately true science is congruent with Christian faith. What Dr. Collins should not do is tell fellow Christians to accept junk controversial science that is used to attack the very faith that he professes.

Nov 072005

I have the utmost respect for Mike Gene at Telic Thoughts but I am compelled to offer my disagreement with his recent 2 postings on his characterization of Christians and ID, here and here. Although this blog is not as popular or prominent as Telic Thoughts who by Mike Gene’s own acknowledgement is mostly ID evolutionists. This blog is mainly ID Creationists. So this posting will be my response to Mike and Collins’ comments.

Yet Collins can speak to dozens, even hundreds, of churches and I’m afraid the payoff will remain quite meager. The reason is simple; the notion that science and faith conflict is not housed solely within the Church. On the contrary, this is the war cry of those who seek to advance an agenda of secularism.

I agree Collins’ message will not be popular to Christians but not for the reason that Mike thinks. I will explain in a minute. There is a culture war between people of faith and the secularists. However, this is not the reason why Christians reject Darwinism. It is not even because of the jaundice views of Dawkins lending support to Darwinism.
Continue reading »

Nov 042005

Mike Gene at Telic Thoughts comments on the update in Dr. Richard Sternberg’s case against the Smithsonian Institute.

During our initial investigations, OSC has been able to find support for many of your allegations. However, the SI is now refusing to cooperate with our investigation. OSC is not able to take statements and receive further paper discovery that would allow for final conclusions. (to see the complete letter go here)

Continue reading »

Nov 042005

Among the scientific myths exploded by Tom Bethell:

1. Why, quite independently of Intelligent Design, fewer informed
people than ever believe in evolution now
2. Evolution from the primordial soup: not a scientific truth but a
highly questionable philosophical worldview, whose real premises have been
carefully concealed
3. How boosters of the evolutionary theory systematically stifle debate
on the premises of Intelligent Design, and shamelessly silence challenges to
4. How evolutionists twist any outcome in nature as a “confirmation” of
Darwin’s theory
5. The famous (and non-believing) philosopher who admitted that “It’s
easier to believe in God” than in evolution Continue reading »

Nov 032005

According to Darwinian evolution, which is a unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. Evolution should not repeat itself, in other words you can’t replay the tape of life. Yet the observable evidence from nature contradicts this Darwinian thesis. Similar and unrelated forms are replete in nature. Is an “unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection” a better explanation for this observation or is this the product of reuse by intelligent design?

Some Darwinians have tried to explain this common design as analogous forms in morphology; there are no real common design at the molecular level. In this essay are examples of molecular common design. For this post I would like to expound on one of the examples in the essay, “Convergent evolution in primates and an insectivore”. Before I begin let me include a couple of more related articles here and here.

The essay quotes from a study that shows the independent evolution (convergence) of the protein apolipoprotein(a). Apo(a) and apoB-100 are disulfide-linked forming the main constituents of lipoprotein(a) (lp(a)). This protein is only found in limited species of mammals, the primates and insectivore. [old world monkey (like the baboon), apes, humans and hedgehogs] Interestingly the hedgehog is considered to be our most distant mammalian relative. Our alleged ancestors have diverged about 90 mya.
Continue reading »

Nov 012005

Darwinists just can’t seem to get their propaganda straight. Evolution is blind and unguided for ID but for Darwinists they can be designed.

Human evolution at the crossroads
Genetics, cybernetics complicate forecast for species
By Alan Boyle
Science editor
Updated: 6:00 p.m. ET May 2, 2005

Scientists are fond of running the evolutionary clock backward, using DNA analysis and the fossil record to figure out when our ancestors stood erect and split off from the rest of the primate evolutionary tree.
But the clock is running forward as well. So where are humans headed?
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins says it’s the question he’s most often asked, and “a question that any prudent evolutionist will evade.” But the question is being raised even more frequently as researchers study our past and contemplate our future.

Can you imagine Einstein or a quantum gravity theorist giving the same answer that Dawkins did? I thought evolution is a fact as gravity is a fact? I thought evolution was as respectable a science as physics? Evolution is the only scientific theory that is prudent to evade scientific predictions. Thanks for the clarification.

Some think the rapid rise of genetic modification could be just such a circumstance. Others believe we could blend ourselves with machines in unprecedented ways — turning natural-born humans into an endangered species.
Present-day fact, not science fiction
Such ideas may sound like little more than science-fiction plot lines. But trend-watchers point out that we’re already wrestling with real-world aspects of future human development, ranging from stem-cell research to the implantation of biocompatible computer chips.

Sure I can see how this is a blind and unguided process. Continue reading »