Richard Dawkins, so he says, wants to improve the forums on his website by implementing some new changes. He wants to keep it “scientific” and “rational”. The forums had, apparently, become a safe haven for Darwinians and atheists to post whatever uninteresting and vile subject matter their atheistic and Darwinian philosophy saw fit. So Dawkins posted a letter announcing the changes to the forums:

Starting a new discussion will require approval, so we ask that you only submit new discussions that are truly relevant to reason and science. Subsequent responses on the thread will not need approval—however anything off topic or violating the new terms of service will be removed…We know some of you will be against this change. We ask that you respect our decision and help make this transition as smooth as possible.

The reaction he received from some of his own Darwinian and atheistic followers was heinous, so he responded:

Read More ›

Discovery Institute Announces the 2010 Summer Seminars on Intelligent Design Click here to listen. This episode of ID the Future features a special announcement from Discovery Institute announcing the 2010 Summer Seminars on Intelligent Design.  Discovery Institute has two intensive summer seminars on intelligent design, science, and culture from July 9-17, 2010 in Seattle. The first seminar is for students in the natural sciences and philosophy of science; the second seminar is for students in the social sciences and humanities (including politics, law, journalism, and theology). These seminars are designed for highly-motivated college students who seek a deeper understanding of science and its implications for society. The seminar focusing on ID in the natural sciences will explore the scientific issues in greater technical detail and Read More ›

Stanley Fish, that noted literary theorist and Post-Modern reader-response relativist, has posted a review of Steven Smith’s new book, The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse. I thought I was going to disagree with Fish, but I found myself in complete agreement (which might actually be Smith). Morality is “smuggled” into secular debate, into the “naked public square” through these presumably “religion-free” concepts like equality and fairness. The corollary with ID is astonishing. The political “separation of church and state” is nearly identical with the scientific “methodological naturalism” (MN) principle. Just as MN requires “smuggling” of information to function, so Smith is acknowledging, and Fish agreeing, that the political world is having the same “smuggling” of morals leading to the same kind Read More ›

A famous theism-vs.-atheism debate between William Lane Craig and Frank Zindler took place in 1993 at Willow Creek Church and was published as a video by Zondervan in 1996 (under the title Atheism vs. Christianity). The debate is available on YouTube here (in 15 parts). It is available in full here. In that debate, Zindler, taking the atheist side, made the following remark:

The most devastating thing, though, that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people, the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin, there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation, there is no need of a savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.

I’ve addressed Zindler’s objection to Original Sin and the Fall in my book The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World (check out the book as well as a $5,000 video contest promoting the book at www.godornot.com). What interests me here, though, is the logic that’s suppoed to take one from evolution to the death of Christianity — and presumably also to the death of any other brand of theism. Accordingly, evolution — a Darwinian, materialistic form of it — is supposed to imply no God and thus atheism. Simply put, (DARWINIAN) EVOLUTION implies ATHEISM. This implication seems widely touted by atheists. Will Provine, for instance, will call evolution an “engine for atheism,” suggesting that the path from evolution to atheism is inescapable.

Now this implication, though perhaps underscoring a sociological phenomenon (people exposed to Darwinism frequently become atheistic or agnostic), is logically unsound. Theistic evolutionists like Francis Collins, Denis Alexander, and Kenneth Miller provide a clear counterexample, Read More ›

The “Oasis for Clear-Thinking,” otherwise known as RichardDawkins.net, still exists but seems to have dried up. For details, read the following lament by Peter Harrison: Death of the Dawkins forum – The world’s busiest atheist forum closes February 23, 2010 in Atheism | Tags: andrew chalkley, forum, josh timonen, rdfrs, richard dawkins, wankery of the most fulminating order Yesterday, I was celebrating…. I was on a high all day…. But by the end of the day, I was brought back down to Earth as I discovered that the world’s busiest atheist forum was being closed down, and that the disgusting evening was to be filled with lies, censorship and cowardice…. MORE

This just in from the Templeton Foundation. They’re convinced that all informed scientific criticism of evolutionary theory died long ago. Check out especially the following link: www.templeton.org/evolution. Does evolution explain human nature? Three distinguished scholars explored this Big Question during a recent discussion sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation, Yale University, and Discover magazine. The panel featured Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown University; Laurie Santos, a Yale psychologist and primate specialist; and David Sloan Wilson, an evolutionary theorist at Binghamton University. The discussion was moderated by Corey Powell, editor and chief of Discover, and was based on a recent JTF Big Questions essay series, which can be found online at www.templeton.org/evolution. Video clips from the discussion are now Read More ›

(Note: These are the key books, not science or media news. The Top Ten Darwin and Design Science News Stories for 2009 are here, the Top Ten Darwin and Design Media News Stories for 2009 are here, and my comments on the latter are here. Also, to get the links, you must go here.) My comments follow. 8. The Deniable Darwin & Other Essays by David Berlinski. It only takes one dose of Berlinski to get hooked. His wit, his way with words, his sharp mind, and the ease at which he is able to poke holes in the Darwinian worldview catch you off guard. Those who watched Expelled were treated to a taste of Berlinski as Ben Stein interviewed Read More ›

As you read these words a frenzy of activity is taking place as the light entering your eye triggers a dizzying sequence of actions, ultimately causing a signal to be sent to your brain. In fact, even a mere single photon can be detected in your vision system. It all starts with a photon interacting with a light-sensitive chromophore molecule. The interaction causes the chromophore to change configuration and this, in turn, influences the large, trans-membrane rhodopsin protein to which the chromophore is attached. This is just the beginning of the cellular signal transduction cascade.  Read more

Evolution has to be true, and yet it is not well supported scientifically. If you ask how evolution occurred, you will be told there are various theories grappling with the problem. But if you ask if evolution occurred, you will be told that, without a doubt, it is an unequivocal fact. Evolutionists have metaphysical certainty about the truth of evolution, in spite of the empirical evidence. This is a consistent theme in the evolution genre. Here, for example, is the opening paragraph in a journal paper from last year on the evolution of vision:  Read more

(Note: These are the key books, not science or media news. The Top Ten Darwin and Design Science News Stories for 2009 are here,  the Top Ten Darwin and Design Media News Stories for 2009 are here, and my comments on the latter are here. Also, to get the links, you must go here.) My comments follow. 9. Exhaustive Survey of Evolution Case Law by Casey Luskin. The legal journal Hamline University Law Review, Vol. 32(1):1-64 (Winter, 2009), published a comprehensive collation and summary of the relevant law cases regarding the teaching of biological origins. The teaching of biological origins in public schools remains a contentious scientific, cultural, and legal debate. With the increase of public interest in this topic, Read More ›

In a comment to a prior post Tom quotes a Darwinist article regarding the source of information at the origin of life: “The idea is to give them enough information wherewithal [genetic building blocks] so they can start inventing their own solutions rather than just optimizing existing solutions,” To which Tom responds: The key word here is information. The key issue is how does a philosophy (naturalism) explain the existence of information within the confines of its explanatory resources? Since the very definition of naturalism includes the idea that the universe is causally closed (that is all causes ultimately resolve in physical laws – NOT mind) and therefore that the laws of physics ONLY have explanatory power, how then do Read More ›

Textbook evolutionary theory holds that evolutionary change occurs gradually. It may speed up or slow down but change, when it occurs, takes small steps. But from the fossil record to observed adaptations in the field, biological data do not always cooperate with theory. In fact, populations do respond dramatically to environmental challenges in a time window measured in years—not millions of years—and single mutations or the management of existing genes effect such responses. A review from last week, entitled Revenge of the hopeful monster, summarized the situation as follows:  Read more

Here’s the reason I asked why human evolution should be taught in school:

I just came across this fact: Human evolution: Little is known other than basic outline

Contrary to widely heard huffing, there are huge gaps in our understanding of early humans. In Nature’s 2020 Visions (7 January 2010) Scroll down to Leslie C. Aiello, and we learn

Most of the recent effort in hominin palaeontology has been focused on Africa and Europe. But the announcement in 2004 of the small hominin Homo floresiensis in Indonesia was a warning that we are naive to assume we know more than the basic outline of human evolutionary history. … Go here for more.

Sorry to be so long judging this one, but there were 143 posts and I had several local issues to deal with at the same time. Now, to business: The winner is Collin at 8. His succinct entry appears below. I would also have awarded a prize to EvilSnack at 48, for this entry, but I only received one copy of David Berlinski’s The Deniable Darwin. I will see if I can procure another copy, but if not EvilSnack may contact me anyway. I have other prizes on my shelf.

Winners need to be in touch with me at oleary@sympatico.ca, with a valid postal address. Their names will not be added to a mailing list. There is no mailing list.

Here’s Collin:

Human evolution ought to be taught in schools because it is one of the best cases for common descent. This is probably a result of the extra interest among scientists concerning human evolution.

Even creationists and students sympathetic to ID ought to be taught the best argument for Darwinism so that if they want to argue against it they do so against the best scenario the opposition has to offer. Otherwise, those supportive of traditional Darwinism will sense a straw man argument and end up being inoculated against further, more refined and honest arguments.

Some careless creationists in the ’80s made this mistake causing further, more compelling arguments to be dismissed before being further evaluated.

Human evolution, being taught, does inform students of a lot of ideas that are not necessarily against ID or even creationism. Presumably even creationists (most of them) will concede that homo erectus did exist as some kind of now-extinct species. Students can be presented with the fact of the bones (or lack thereof) and they can make their own conclusions. My hope is that teachers will present evolution’s best arguments but not endeavor to indoctrinate students. Maybe that is a fine line, but it can be done, and is the honest way to go about it.

What swayed me was Collin’s emphasis on hearing both sides honestly represented by their own advocates. If schools do not teach students to evaluate on that basis, they are not worth the money we spend on them.

Consider a simple example: Most days, I ride the Toronto Transit System, which features a vast array of busboard ads and subway posters advocating every cell phone offer imaginable. You can be sure that the sales person will not emphasize strongly to the customer, “Our offer is the cheapest – but, of course, we do sign you up for three years, and it costs you $300 to cancel.”

The salesperson’s competitor does that. The competitor shouts from busboards, subway posters, and billboards, “No contract, no cancellation fee!” That sets the customer thinking about what to ask next time, doesn’t it?

Cell phones are a minor matter, of course. But later in life, the student will deal with job offers, marriage proposals, mortgage offers, investment advice, medical plans …. The advocate’s offer can only be evaluated by hearing alternatives, clearly spelled out.

One of my major objections to “Darwinism-only” biology education is that – apart from the fact that I don’t think it is true – it is not a good way to teach.

Other comments follow: Read More ›

Here, Access Research Network has published the Top Ten Darwin and Design Resources for 2009. Most interesting. As executive director Dennis Wagner comments, “I would never have predicted that an atheist would name a book about intelligent design as one of the top books of 2009, while another atheist would write a book defending intelligent design? This is a sign that open minds in the academic and scientific communities are beginning to take the evidence for intelligent design seriously,” (Note: The Top Ten Darwin and Design Science News Stories for 2009 are here, and the Top Ten Darwin and Design Media News Stories for 2009 are here, and my comments on the latter are here. Also, to get the links, Read More ›

“SAN DIEGO: Can life arise from nothing but a chaotic assortment of basic molecules? The answer is a lot closer following a series of ingenious experiments that have shown evolution at work in non-living molecules. For the first time, scientists have synthesized RNA enzymes – ribonucleic acid enzymes also known as ribozymes – that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components. What’s more, these simple nucleic acids can act as catalysts and continue the process indefinitely. “There’s nothing in biology in this system: no proteins, no cells, no biological matter. We just provide them with the building blocks,” said molecular biologist Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego.

The researchers began with ribozymes known to occur naturally, and put these in a growth medium, heated them and allowed the ribozymes to replicate.”

Read More ›