Mar 122006

Christmas, 1991 the Soviet Union was officially disbanded as well as the infamous secret police known as the KGB. Darwinism was forced on the people through state totalitarianism and the KGB.

After the KGB departed, the Darwinists in Russia turned to none other than Barbara Forrest (abbr BarFo) to combat the creationists in Russia. Here is the 1999 account from the NCSE:

Help Counter Creationism in Russia

NCSE member Barbara Forrest, who recently attended a conference in St. Petersburg, reports that Russian scientists desperately need resources to stem the rising tide of creationism in their country.

Indeed, as reported at Uncommon Descent after only a mere 15 years from the fall of the iron curtain:

26 percent of those surveyed supported the theory of evolution, while 49 percent of respondents said they believed man was created by God

Unfortunately for we who are part of the Wedge underground of covert subversives, BarFo has ratted us out. Her announcemnt to the world about our mischief was reported at Telic Thoughts.

I’m alerting all agents of the Wedge who read this weblog that the public is now aware of our secret operation because of BarFo’s relentless spying. Take the appropriate course of action given your cover is now gone.

Wedge Agent 86

Agent 86, over and out.

Mar 112006

DI’s position on Ohio’s “Critical Analysis of Evolution” model lesson plan was created to implement a benchmark in the Ohio state science standards which requires students to be able to “describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” The standards also clearly state that they do not endorse teaching intelligent design.

At a time when critical thought and dissent are under attack and a chilling atmosphere looms over academia. Should we not continue encouraging students to think critically? The nature of DI’s statement is to put out controversial ideas and let the students respond, to teach them to think critically.

So what is wrong with that? Well, it is hypocritical. Yes! It is absolutely and completely hypocritical by Darwinian promoters to attack DI’s stance. You see, the first paragraph was a quote from the DI website, but he second paragraph are statements lifted from left wing liberal media outlets, Jay Bennish and an ACLU lawyer. They made these statements in defense of Jay Bennish’s tirade on President Bush and the U.S. government. His unbalanced diatribe and deviation from the subject of geography was defended by these likely Darwin defenders as justify, because it teach students to think critically. It claims that ” critical thought and dissent” are under attack. Why didn’t these people come to the defense of ID when all we want to do is to teach the students to think critically of evolution? Why are the Darwinian blogs so silent on chastising Jay Bennish for proselytizing his political and philosophical ideology instead of educating geography? I though Darwinians are desperately concerned about the quality of education in our country. I guess education is not as important as promoting a liberal agenda. Darwinians would prefer a dumb populous that adhere to a Darwinian myth than an intellectually sophisticated public that is capable of critically analyzing Darwinian evolution.

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 062006

I liked that “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” was picked for best makeup.

I liked that Reese Witherspoon won as the best female actress as country singer June Carter:

Oh, my goodness I never thought I’d be here in my whole life growing up in Tennessee,” said Witherspoon, who like co-star Joaquin Phoenix as Carter’s soul mate, country legend Johnny Cash, handled her own singing in “Walk the Line.”


People used to ask June how she was doing, and she would say I’m just trying to matter. I know what she means,” said Witherspoon, who told the audience the Oscar made her feel she was doing work that matters.

However, I did not like that George Clooney won supporting-performer for his anti-American role in “Syriana” (that anti-American award was the “opening act” for the night, after showing Clooney lying in bed with Stewart), where the “hero” is a self-exploding terrorist bomber, while the enemy is the U.S. government. As Krauthammer wisely declared yesterday (see his full text below):

Tonight, as the Oscars are honoring Syriana, American soldiers will be fighting, some perhaps dying, in defense of precisely the kind of tolerant, modernizing Muslim leader that Syriana shows America slaughtering.

I did not like that filmmaker Ang Lee, who won the best-director prize for the fiction tale of two old cowboys who carry on an homosexual love affair they conceal from their families for years (well, at least he did not win for best movie of the year, yeah!) Lee, whose martial-arts epic “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” won the foreign-language Oscar five years ago, became the first Asian filmmaker to win Hollywood’s main filmmaking honor. “I’m so proud of the movie,” Lee said backstage, where he was asked if he was disappointed that his film about gay cowboys lost best picture and what might have kept it from winning. “Why they didn’t go for it, I don’t know. You’re asking a question that I don’t know the answer…” (My comment: Lee, you are totally wrong on portraying the Chinese as masculine tigers while portraying the American male Cowboys as feminine and coward homosexuals. Please, oh dear movie-goer, dont buy that lie!)

My question is: Is this Chinese director trying to “feminize” the American culture to weaken it more and more, to the point to make it unable to defend against terrorists, against a Chinese Communist Imperialism and against anti-Americans like that Clooney (read it as ‘Clowney‘)? Continue reading »

 Posted by at 9:26 am
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 »