Says Emeritus Professor Gray:

Imagine that. One of the world’s foremost atmospheric scientists saying that scientists are afraid to say what they believe because of the personal financial consequences of going against the popular, fashionable, politically correct “scientific consensus”. Sound familiar? Atmospheric scientists are the newest victims, joining scientists who openly question evolutionary dogma, in the war against open scientific inquiry. I fear science may be a long time recovering from these shameful political agenda driven displays. It’s a good thing engineers don’t try to base technological innovation on hare-brained just-so stories like these that escape from academia to the main stream media.

William M. “Bill” Gray

(b. 1931), Ph.D., is a pioneer in the science of forecasting hurricanes. In 1952 he got a BS degree in Geography from George Washington University, in 1959 he got a MS in Meteorology from the University of Chicago, where he went on to get a PhD in Geophysical Sciences in 1964.

Gray pioneered the concept of “seasonal” hurricane forecasting — predicting months in advance the severity of the coming hurricane season. Gray’s prognostications, issued since 1983, are used by insurance companies to calculate premiums. [1]

Gray is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences. Gray is noted for his forecasts of Atlantic hurricane season activity.

Professor Gray served as a weather forecaster for the United States Air Force, and as a research assistant in the University of Chicago Department of Meteorology. He joined Colorado State University in 1961. He has been advisor of over 70 Ph. D. and M. Sc. students. His team has been issuing seasonal hurricane forecasts since 1984.

Read More ›

In a provocative article in the latest London Review of Books (18 October 2007), philosopher of science and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University argues that “the classical Darwinist account of evolution as primarily driven by natural selection is in trouble on both conceptual and empirical grounds.” As he elaborates, The high tide of adaptationism floated a motley navy, but it may now be on the ebb. If it does turn out that natural selection isn’t what drives evolution, a lot of loose speculations will be stranded high, dry and looking a little foolish. Induction over the history of science suggests that the best theories we have today will prove more or less untrue at the latest by tomorrow Read More ›

My tongue-in-cheek response to Denyse’s last post got me to thinking seriously about a practical way to demonstrate the lunacy of materialists’ invoking the “multiverse” to get around the statistical impossibility of life arising though blind unguided natural forces through pure random chance . See here for an example of this hand waving in action. I came up with a thought experiment. See below for more. Read More ›

In fact, a whole bunch of convenience stores can get too lucky. Carl Hallet, 49, won $100,000 in Atlantic TAG on Oct. 3. In 2005 he won $50,000 and in 2006 he won $5,000. “I’ve always said if you buy the right ticket at the right time, you’ll win, and I put my faith in God,” Hallet told CBC News. But new security rules introduced in Atlantic Canada mean his win must be investigated for at least 30 days, and so far Hallet has not received his prize. The rules were adopted in March after studies showed retailers in Atlantic Canada were winning 10 times more often than statistically probable over the last six years. Blame it on climate change. Also, Read More ›

This is the wisdom promulgated by the “new atheists” at a recent conference.

From the cnsnews.com article: “Science must ultimately destroy organized religion, according to some of the leading atheist writers and intellectuals who spoke at a recent atheist conference in Northern Virginia.”

They might as well dream of destroying humankind’s urge to eat.

Read More ›

Al Gore won the Nobel Prize today for his work in global warming.  I understand that each Nobel winner gets a cash award of about $1,500,000.  This will come in handy for Gore, so he can pay all those utility bills for his home, which consumes more than 10 times the energy of the average American home.

Judgment Day, a Nova documentary on the Dover case, will be aired next month. In a report about this documentary, one reads the following: “Judgment Day captures on film a landmark court case with a powerful scientific message at its core,” said Paula S. Apsell, NOVA Senior Executive Producer. “Evolution is one of the most essential and least understood of all scientific theories, the foundation of biological science. We felt it was important for NOVA to do this program to heighten the public understanding of what constitutes science and what does not, and therefore, what is acceptable for inclusion in the science curriculum in our public schools.” The phrase that jumps out here is “least understood of all scientific theories.” Read More ›

 See the whole interview in the Guardian here: In an interview with the Guardian, he said: “When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told – religious Jews anyway – than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.”

On Sunday, Bob Marks’s lawyer John Hugh Gilmore wrote an op-ed in the Waco Tribune expressing astonishment at the sheer, manifest vulgarity of the attempt to suppress the Evolutionary Informatics Lab:

As counsel for Baylor Distinguished Professor Robert J. Marks II, I was amazed and discouraged by the controversy surrounding his rather routine yet scientifically exacting Web site that was shut down by the dean of his Engineering Department. This action came after anonymous complaints, but without an opportunity for him to respond beforehand.

The crime? His research might implicate intelligent design.

This is how a serious university should behave?

John, you and I both know what is going on: Baylor does not want a Baylor prof who is not a proponent of Darwin’s theory of evolution to be in a position to provide evidence against it. They fear he has such evidence. Who knows? He might …

In short, they do not want the books balanced.

I have myself called Darwinism the Enron of Biology – for a reason. I’m told that Enron accounted for its operating expenses as capital assets. In the same way, whenever Darwinists encounter a check to their theory, they declare how great a theory Darwinism must be, to overcome so much contrary evidence ….

John asks, naturally, is this how a serious university should behave?

Well, let’s refine the question: By whom does Baylor want to be considered a serious university? Read More ›

Discovery Institute has just launched the website for the new book by John G. West, “Darwin Day in America” (ISI Books): www.darwindayinamerica.com. The book will be officially released and available in stores everywhere November 6th. What are reviewers saying already? *Provocative and important reading* — Chuck Colson, Founder, Prison Fellowship *Deep and comprehensive* — Larry Arnhart, Professor of Political Science at Northern Illinois University *Essential reading for all Americans* — Robert C. Koons, Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin *Superb overview of what happens once we start seeing man as an overachieving worm* — Marvin Olasky, Editor in chief, World Be sure to visit the new website today, where you can: –Watch the promotional trailer –Listen as the Read More ›

Posted without comment. Too busy today: the paper and reviewers’ reports are open access, so check it out. I’ll have more to say tomorrow. Well, one quick comment. Could Mike Behe or Scott Minnich (to name a couple of my ID friends) have published this paper? — not in the sense of having written and submitted the text, however. Rather, could they have made it through refereeing?

Details at The BRITES.

“Yeah, so what. So I spend a lot of time at this one Starbucks, sure, when other organ systems are busy working. Venti dark roast, room for cream.” “Doesn’t mean I don’t put in my time on the job.” “Do you really think natural selection would have kept me on the payroll this long if I wasn’t doing something?”

Several European friends have asked me what I think about the Council of Europe’s resolution against teaching ID and/or creationism. Alas, I won’t be able to blog on this in any detail for a couple of days, but here are a couple of thoughts: Read More ›

This debate is really worth a listen. Lennox speaks very well. What follows are some classic Richard Dawkins statements. What do you think? (A, B C refer to the sound files 1 2 and 3 form the download, and the number to the time into the sound file.) A14 I lost my faith because Darwin left me with no good reason to believe. B2 Life is explained by Darwin. Cosmology is waiting for its Darwin. B6 I invoke the Anthropic principle … and the multiverse. B18 I would not for a moment say that all religion is bad or all religion is dangerous or Christianity is dangerous. Only a minority of religious people are bad or do bad things. B20 The one belief I would give Read More ›