William Dembski

A. N. Wilson, the epitomy of English snootiness, recently fell for an elaborate prank that he could have avoided if he had drawn a design inference. Note that “Eve de Harben” doesn’t exist either, and the letters in “her” name are an anagram for “Ever been had?”

Why am I being so hard on Wilson? Here’s what he wrote back in 1999 about the good people of Kansas: “Their simple, idiotic credulity as a populace would have been the envy of Lenin. That is the tragic paradox. The Land of the Free, telly and burgerfed, has become the Land of the Credulous Moron.” (go here and scroll down) What goes around comes around.

The Sunday Times August 27, 2006

Betjeman love letter is horrid hoax
Richard Brooks, Arts Editor

HIS one regret, Sir John Betjeman once said, was that he had not had enough sex. So the late poet laureate’s biographer could be forgiven the thrill of discovery he felt when someone sent him a passionate love letter supposedly written by Betjeman to a mistress.

Now, however, it turns out that the poet, born 100 years ago tomorrow, never wrote the letter. Instead, AN Wilson, the biographer, admitted this weekend he had fallen victim to an elaborate hoax.

The trick was so successful that the letter has been published in Wilson’s new book Betjeman as evidence of the poet’s previously unknown “fling”.

The giveaway — and a clue that a bitter rival of Wilson’s may be behind the trick — is that the capital letters at the beginning of the sentences in the letter spell out a vivid personal insult to the biographer. Read More ›

Pearl Jam – Do The Evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Sm3trB1fe4. Contrast this with the following music video. You think evolution might be less of a force in this singer’s life? Five For Fighting – The Riddle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE9KjXGVl3c.

[There’s] a new 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation that approaches the issue of teaching origin-of-life theories in public schools from a new angle . . . Few are aware that the courts have ruled atheism is a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment in 2005 and thought about its implications on the teaching of origin-of-life theories in public schools. In brief, evolution becomes both a religious and scientifc theory (using the court’s definition of scientific theory), and abiogenesis becomes purely a religious theory. That being the case, these atheist origin-of-life theories should be treated the same as any other origin-of-life theory. Anything less is unconstitutional. Visit the website at http://originoflifefairness.org for much more information and the links/facts to back it Read More ›

Pope may embrace intelligent design Pope Benedict XVI may reportedly embrace the theory of intelligent design, possibly heralding a fundamental shift in the Vatican’s view of evolution. Philosophers, scientists and other intellectuals are to meet with the pope this week at his summer palace near Rome to discuss the issue, The Guardian reported Monday. Advocates of the theory argue the universe and living things are so complex they must be a product of intelligent design rather than natural selection. Critics say the theory is a disguise for creationism. Vatican officials last week announced evolution and creation would be the topics for this year’s meeting of the pope’s Schulerkreis — a group consisting mainly of his former doctoral students that has Read More ›

Wired interview with Lee Smolin on his upcoming book: The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next From the interview: “Smolin says that string theory is unconvincing — maybe even nonscientific — and that physicists have embraced it at the expense of other promising research.” “… But string theorists say they could probably invent versions of the theory that work either way. We’d have to change our notion of what science is to accommodate this proposition. You just can’t do science on that basis.” “Science moves faster when there is plenty of debate and controversy.” “But the disagreement is not about whether string theory is worth pursuing. It’s about whether Read More ›

God and science: You just can’t please everyone
A Review of Francis Collins’s The Language of God

By Steve Fuller
From NewScientist 26 August 2006, p. 48.

Denying the real conflict between religion and science is a sure formula for confusion, finds STEVE FULLER.
————–

Let me start by declaring an interest: I am that Steve Fuller who gave evidence for the defence in the trial over whether intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution in school in Dover, Pennsylvania, last year. And books like this persuade me that I did the right thing.

*The Language of God* is by Francis S. Collins, director of the Human Genome Project for the U.S. National Institutes of Health. He became a born-again Christian after reading C. S. Lewis’s *Mere Christianity* as a biochemistry graduate student. Collins is now part of the American ScientificAffiliation, a group of 3000 Christians which aims to render science consistent with its beliefs.

Collins’s mission is to deny any real conflict between God and Darwin. He wants to square things for scientists who don’t want intelligent design on their doorstep but who also don’t want to examine their own beliefs too closely. Read More ›

Once the discussion of biological origins opens up in the way the good Cardinal proposes (see below), it’s over for standard evolutionary theory. To be sure, the distinction between “evolutionism” as philosophy and “evolution” as science is valid and at first blush may seem like a way to keep evolution safe. But this distinction is one that the figureheads of evolution, such as Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and Francisco Ayala, deliberately muddy to preserve evolution as materialism’s best safeguard.

As this discussion opens up, people are increasingly going to “get it,” and as they do they’ll realize that Darwin’s legacy is the biggest scam in the history of ideas. Right now what keeps the theory afloat is not overwhelming evidence (yes, there are “mountains and mountains of evidence” as Richard Dawkins puts it, but the quality of this evidence in establishing evolution’s grandiose claims is abysmal). Rather, what keeps the theory afloat is strict enforcement of ideological purity.

With Catholic leaders like Cardinal Schönborn taking the lead in opening up the discussion, this scam will become increasingly difficult to perpetuate. Any bets when the Darwinian house of cards will come crashing down? I’m not talking about nobody believing it anymore. Rather, I’m talking about people not having any longer to show undue deference to it — a new age when they can ridicule it openly, and its defenders must actually defend the theory rather than merely sneer at those who disbelieve it.

Cardinal Schönborn Proposes Evolution Debate
Calls for More Science, Less Ideology
Date: 2006-08-25, Code: ZE06082508
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=93781

RIMINI, Italy, AUG. 25, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Christoph Schönborn is
proposing an ideology-free debate on the theory of evolution, and wants to
clarify the Church’s position on the topic. Read More ›

[From a colleague who sometimes posts here in the comments:] Like fresh meat tossed into a pit of jackels, Jonathan Wells’ newest book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design has sent the Panda’s Thumb crowd into a feeding frenzy. Right now there are at least 4 opening posts devoted to taking the book, apparently, chapter by chapter, and “demolishing” (or is it “destroying” or perhaps “eviscerating”) nearly every sentence Jonathan wrote (or so it seems). I find it very telling that they attribute so much power and influence to Jonathan that nearly every sentence in his book simply must be shown to be wrong. To join the fun, go here: http://www.pandasthumb.org and see for yourself. Simply amazing.

I can’t begin to describe the amount of mileage I’ve gotten out of Mt. Rushmore for the cause of Intelligent Design. It appears that this well is about to run dry (taken from thebrites.org):

Right now this is how Darwinists are selling their product:

Watch this video:
http://www.accolo.com/Accolo-Rethink-Recruiting.wmv

This is how they need to sell their product:

Go here: http://www.spicyparis.com/index.html.

Here’s what recruiting the right people means to an ad campaign (which is what Darwinism has become): Read More ›

================ Excerpt from Current biology Volume 16, Issue 16, 22 August 2006, Pages R619-R620 doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.041 Copyright © 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Q & A: Roger Hendrix Pittsburgh Bacteriophage Institute and Department of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA Available online 21 August 2006. ================= …. Q: Given the prominence of the evolutionary perspective in your work, can you comment on the current efforts to present ‘Intelligent Design’ as an alternative to biological evolution in public schools in America? A: It is a sorry commentary on the state of public understanding of science that a large fraction of the US population is willing to accept that Intelligent Design (ID), essentially a tarted-up version of creationism, and evolution Read More ›

America and the Barbary Pirates:
An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe
by Gerard W. Gawalt

Gerard W. Gawalt is the manuscript specialist for early American history in the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.

Ruthless, unconventional foes are not new to the United States of America. More than two hundred years ago the newly established United States made its first attempt to fight an overseas battle to protect its private citizens by building an international coalition against an unconventional enemy. Then the enemies were pirates and piracy. The focus of the United States and a proposed international coalition was the Barbary Pirates of North Africa.

Pirate ships and crews from the North African states of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers (the Barbary Coast) were the scourge of the Mediterranean. Capturing merchant ships and holding their crews for ransom provided the rulers of these nations with wealth and naval power. In fact, the Roman Catholic Religious Order of Mathurins had operated from France for centuries with the special mission of collecting and disbursing funds for the relief and ransom of prisoners of Mediterranean pirates. Read More ›

Emile Zuckerkandl, an erstwhile co-author with Linus Pauling, just got accepted a very long piece attacking ID in GENE (go here): Gene Article in Press, Accepted Manuscript doi:10.1016/j.gene.2006.03.025 Copyright  © 2006 Published by Elsevier B.V. Intelligent design and biological complexity Emile Zuckerkandl Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University and Institute of Molecular Medical Sciences, P.O.Box 20452, Stanford, California 94309 Received 16 October 2005; accepted 15 March 2006. Available online 5 August 2006. ABSTRACT. Before any intelligence can appear, a world endowed with the potential for being experienced as a body of phenomena has to be existent. Indeed, if there is to be an intelligence, there first has to be something intelligible. Hence, when an intelligence is present, “creation” must already Read More ›

Scientist: Dolphins are stupid
Thursday 17 August 2006 12:29 PM GMT

Dolphins are not as clever as previously thought. Dolphins may have big brains, but a South African-based scientist says laboratory rats and even goldfish can outwit them.

Paul Manger of Johannesburg’s University of the Witwatersrand says the super-sized brains of dolphins are a function of being warm-blooded in a cold water environment and not a sign of intelligence.

“We equate our big brain with intelligence. Over the years we have looked at these kinds of things and said the dolphins must be intelligent,” he said.

“The real flaw in this logic is that it suggests all brains are built the same… When you look at the structure of the dolphin brain, you see it is not built for complex information processing,” he said. Read More ›

I take a very low view of “climates of opinion.” In his own subject every man knows that all discoveries are made and all errors corrected by those who ignore the “clmate of opinion.” –C. S. Lewis, THE PROBLEM OF PAIN