scordova

Nick Matzke is the famous former employee of the National Center for Selling Evolution (NCSE). For many years, he has been on the frontlines on the war on ID. His finest hour was at the Dover Trial where he provided a lot of technical support to the ACLU lawyers. Matzke’s attacks on ID are fundamentally based on misrepresentation, strawman arguments, equivocation, distortions, etc. Well, it seems his way of doing business has finally caught up with him. There is poetic justice in his public humiliation at the hands of fellow Darwinists. 🙂 [Matzke is] a nasty piece of work … Matzke has apparently made stuff up Jerry Coyne Another Tom Johnson Coyne refers to the words of Matzke and friends Read More ›

“What is the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design” I asked Stephen Meyer in 2009. He answered that what distinguished Creationism from Intelligent Design is that Creationism outlined a chronology whereas ID did not.

I will add my own thoughts on the matter. What I say in this post is my answer to the same question I posed to Dr. Meyer.

As a scholarly discipline Intelligent Design is described elegantly by Bill Dembski:

Intelligent design is the science that studies signs of intelligence.

Bill Dembski
10 Questions

Frankly, I’ve been mortified that so much theological discussion is to conflated with this simple and elegant description of ID! I’m appalled to hear that some claim “the science that studies signs of intelligence” conflicts with theological ideas and is therefore a futile endeavor.

Theology may proceed from the idea that there is intelligent design in the universe, but at its root, Bill’s definition of ID isn’t inherently theological and would fit well with engineering and the forensic sciences. ID is not theological in itself, but it can serve as bridge a between science and theology.

Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology
Bill Dembski

Combining the above two ideas, I came up with:
Read More ›

A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time? This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one;

Charles Darwin

Consider that Darwin loved shooting birds. Shooting birds is an act that induces suffering for the bird and the bird’s family.

In the latter part of my school life I became passionately fond of shooting, and I do not believe that anyone could have shown more zeal for the most holy cause than I did for shooting birds. How well I remember killing my first snipe, and my excitement was so great that I had much difficulty in reloading my gun from the trembling of my hands.
…
“How I did enjoy shooting”
….
If there is bliss on earth, that is it”
….

So Darwin thinks that an intelligent being would not inflict suffering on other creatures, yet he himself inflicts suffering for his own blissful pleasure.

Darwin implicitly assumes he himself is an intelligent being since he presumes to know what God ought to do in managing the affairs of creatures on Earth. Yet Darwin argues intelligent beings won’t cause suffering, yet Darwin himself, an intelligent being, does the very thing he claims an intelligent being wouldn’t do. Would Darwin therefore argue Darwin doesn’t exist because Darwin causes suffering in the world? His line of reasoning is most ironic.
Read More ›

Nick Matzke unwittingly gives more evidence for the claims of ID proponent John Sanford. Sanford argues that species and genomes are slowly dying, and this cannot be arrested by natural selection, even in principle. Nick got his co-authored paper published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature. Here is Nick’s commentary at Pandas Thumb Depending on the scenario, we reach a 75% “mass extinction” (for certain well-studied groups) within a few hundred to a few thousand years, if, as people say, “current rates continue.” This is a geological eyeblink. But this implies our best field observations do not suggest natural selection is originating more species! In fact they are dying faster than they are being replaced. One might argue humans are Read More ›

Rabid ID-hater Larry Moran offers some insights that sound almost like the founding book of Intelligent Design: The Mystery of Life’s Origin. Sometimes the truth is so obvious even Larry Moran has to concede it. Moran writes in: More Prebiotic Soup Nonsense The problem is that most scientists are not thinking critically about the origin of life. There are several possibilities and none of them are particularly convincing. However, the Primordial Soup Hypothesis has a number of glaring weaknesses that need to be addressed honestly and it doesn’t do anyone any good if scientists sweep these weaknesses under the rug. HT: Mike Gene

Casey Luskin Reports: Peer-Reviewed Scientific Paper by Michael Behe Challenges “Gain of Function” Mutations in Molecular Evolution Behe argues that we do not generally observe the evolution of new adaptive FCTs (Functional Coded ElemenTs) in the laboratory. Rather, when we observe adaptive evolutionary changes in the laboratory, they typically involve loss of function or modification of FCTs. This leads to the question, How do new adaptive FCTs arise? In two subsequent posts, I will discuss Behe’s review of FCT evolution in bacteria and viruses, as well as the implications he draws from that data.

Casey Luskin reports the passing of our colleague and member of the National Academy of Sciences, Phil Skell. Philip S. Skell, sometimes called “the father of carbene chemistry,” is widely known for the “Skell Rule,” which was first applied to carbenes, the “fleeting species” of carbon. The rule, which predicts the most probable pathway through which certain chemical compounds will be formed, found use throughout the pharmaceutical and chemical industries. …. Later in his career, Phil became a skeptic of neo-Darwinian evolution. His main position was that Darwinism does not serve as the cornerstone of biological thought that many claim it does. Giving Thanks for Dr. Philip Skell

Richard Dawkins is known as the Prophet of Pointlessness because it was Dawkins who said: “[the universe] has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference.” Dawkins has something of a cult following and encourages his troops to wear a scarlet A on their chest. (the new scarlet A is for Atheist, whereas in Hawthorne’s book the scarlet A stood for Adulterer). This scarlet letter is often found on Gnu Atheist websites. The inventor of the new scarlet A, Josh Timonen, worked for Dawkins and is now being sued by Dawkins. See: Dawkins Claims Employee Rolled Him and Employee Complains GLENDALE, Calif. (CN) – Evolutionary Read More ›

Natural Selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good. C.DARWIN sixth edition Origin of Species — Ch#4 Natural Selection NOT! Newly appearing good traits in a single individual will rarely get infused (or “fixed” ) into a population. To understand theoretically why this is false, visit: Gambler’s Ruin is Darwin’s Ruin. And now we have some poignant experimental confirmation of my theoretical prediction! In a paper published by the prestigious scientific journal Nature September 30,2010 we read: Our work provides a new perspective on the genetic basis of adaptation. Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did Read More ›

Cornell Geneticist John Sanford argued that Darwinism is wrong because the rate of genetic deterioration is so high that natural selection could not arrest it. If natural selection cannot arrest genetic deterioration, how then could it be the mechanism for evolutionary improvement? Sanford predicted through his research that human genome is deteriorating. This was a daring scientific prediction, and now Michael Lynch of the elite National Academy published on the topic for his inaugural paper. The NAS has now made the paper available to the public free of charge. Read it, and weep, literally: Rate, Molecular Spectrum, and Consequences of Human Mutation Unfortunately, it has become increasingly clear that most of the mutation load is associated with mutations with very Read More ›

John West of the Discovery Institute Reports: But when a gunman inspired by Darwinism takes hostages at the offices of the Discovery Channel, reporters seem curiously uninterested in fully disclosing the criminal’s own self-described motivations. Most of yesterday’s media reports about hostage-taker James Lee dutifully reported Lee’s eco-extremism and his pathological hatred for humanity. But they also suppressed any mention of Lee’s explicit appeals to Darwin and Malthus as the intellectual foundations for his views. At least, I could find no references to Lee’s Darwinian motivations in the accounts I read by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC. Major Media Spike Discovery

Jerry Coyne is exasperated with the findings of a scholarly publication that surveyed the beliefs of biology teachers. Coyne interprets the results of this survey as follows:

47% believe in Intelligent Design
28% in [godless] evolution
16% in creationism
9% no opinion

(See: We Suck and Selective Creationists)

He labels the 47% who believe in Intelligent Design (which is he equates with Theistic Evolution) as “Selective Creationists”. So combined with the 16% of traditional creationists, that’s 63% of the biology teachers who are in his view “creationists”.

But what would happen if the 47% of Theistic Evolutionist/Intelligent Design biology teachers realized that Darwin is being refuted by secular scientific literature with every passing day? Will they, as Coyne fears, join ranks with ID proponents? Coyne observes:
Read More ›

Greetings this Friday the 13! It is an unlucky day for Darwinism when Dawkins and Darwinism are criticized by the most elite members of the scientific community.

The most elite scientists in the United States are recognized by their membership in the National Academy of Sciences. To date, I’m now aware of 3 members who have expressed some form of serious criticism of Darwinism. The first brave NAS member was Phil Skell (see: Phil Skell Writing for Forbes ). Another NAS member critical of Darwinism is Masotoshi Nei (see: Peer-Reviewed Article Critical of Darwinism by NAS Member, Evolution by Absence of Selection.).

And now with his recent induction into the National Academy, Michael Lynch is the third member I’m aware of to be openly critical of Darwinism. This time Lynch uses the Proceeding of National Academy to lambast the behavior of Darwinists. He delivers the ultimate insult of his colleagues, he likens them to creationists!

His lambasting can be found here in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

The article was a gold mine of quotable morsels:

the myth that all of evolution can be explained by adaptation continues to be perpetuated by our continued homage to Darwin’s treatise (6)
Read More ›

The stench of non-science coming out of ScienceBlogs.com has gotten so bad that it has drawn the attention of the New York Times! See: Unnatural Science. It would appear that the opponents of ID must resort to means other than science to challenge the hypothesis of Intelligent Design. Rather than appeals to evidence, the foes of ID resort, in the words of NY Times, to “class warfare”.

Over at Pharyngula — which often ranks in the Top 100 blogs on the Internet— PZ Myers revels in sub-“South Park” blasphemy, presenting (in one recent stunt) his sketch of the Prophet Muhammad as a cow-pig hybrid excited about “raping a 9-year-old girl.”
…
Though Myers and other science bloggers boast that they can be jerky in the service of anti-charlatanism, that’s not what’s bothersome about them. What’s bothersome is that the site is misleading. It’s not science by scientists, not even remotely; it’s science blogging by science bloggers. And science blogging, apparently, is a form of redundant and effortfully incendiary rhetoric that draws bad-faith moral authority from the word “science” and from occasional invocations of “peer-reviewed” thises and thats.
Read More ›

Casey Luskin reports : Nature Immunology Editorial Botches American Law and Science Education

May, 2010 editorial in Nature Immunology makes it clear that they don’t trust religious persons–even those who are neo-Darwinian evolutionists like Francis Collins–in positions of scientific authority. The editorial (written by the journal’s editors) states:

The openly religious stance of the NIH director [Francis Collins] could have undesirable effects on science education in the United States. … In the introduction and in interviews surrounding [Collins’] book release, he describes his belief in a non-natural, non-measurable, improvable deity that created the universe and its laws with humans as the ultimate aim of its creation. Some might worry that describing scientists as workers toiling to understand the laws and intricacies of this divine creation will create opportunities for creationism adepts.
….
Strikingly, despite being a world leader in science, the United States still struggles when it comes to scientific education. Creationism is creeping back into the science curricula of public schools. And although intelligent design, the latest form of creationism, suffered a major defeat in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial (Nat. Immunol. 7, 433–435, 2006), when the US Supreme Court ruled that including it in science curricula is unconstitutional, creationists are making a comeback.

(“Of faith and reason,” Nature Immunology, Vol. 11(5):357 (May 2010).)

Read More ›