Creationism

In addition to accumulating 5.7 million dollars in science grants, he has published 186 scientific papers, 102 of which are in refereed journals, the others in conference proceedings. It might be instructive to compare Hartnett’s total number of publications with other scientists using a graph (created by Mike Gene) of the number of scientific papers published. The researcher who surpasses Hartnett is Francis Collins, who, in the eyes of some is a “creationist” because he believes there are some features in the universe (like human compassion) that are not the result of mindless forces. The vocal GNU atheists evolutionists, especially Sam Harris, ought to be a little embarrassed that a YEC surpassed them in scientific productivity. Hartnett surpasses the self-appointed Read More ›

Is the hypothesis of Young Earth Creation (YEC) relevant to ID? Most in the ID community will say, “NO”, but let me offer some reasons to think the answer could be, “YES”. The hypothesis of a young Earth or young universe comes from religious beliefs rooted in a chronology constructed by taking the genealogies in the Bible (like Luke Chapter 3, 1 Chronicles or the Table of Nations in Genesis 10). YEC is not strictly an Evangelical Christian hypothesis but is accepted by some Jewish traditions. For example, see this commentary on the Jewish calendar by physicist Gerald Schroeder: One of the most obvious perceived contradictions between Torah and science is the age of the universe. Is it billions of Read More ›

There is the common fallacy that ID was created to sneak creationism into public high schools. Actually, one could make the case that ID was created to sneak “creationism” into universities. 🙂 ID literature is more sophisticated than creation science literature, perhaps because it is (except for Of Pandas and People) usually directed more toward a university audience… Eugenie Scott Eugenie Scott defeats Ed Brayton and I feel that the essential argument has to be carried on at the higher level, at the university level, and it’s interesting you see that the people that come from the NCSE side are always trying to say this is just an issue in the high schools Phil Johnson The link below is a Read More ›

The late Carl Sagan is credited with popularizing the phrase “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. (hereinafter this will be referred to as the “EC-EE” claim) While the phrase has become the skeptic’s mantra, its original roots probably trace back to the French mathematician and astronomer Pierre –Simon LaPlace (1749-1827) who once wrote: “the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness”. Regardless of its origins, the sentiment expressed in the quote has, over the last few years, become one of the bedrock critiques against ID. The notion seems to be along the lines that ID’s core claim is that only an unembodied supernatural intelligence can account for the specified complexity exhibited in biological systems, and Read More ›

Yesterday, I ran across the video to be shown below and posted a comment that I think needs to be headlined and seriously pondered if we are concerned that the university functions in an objective, fair-minded, truth-seeking way: This study (HT: WK) as presented in a short lecture by Dr George Yancey — a sociologist — on bias against Christians in the academy, among progressives (especially cultural progressives) and even in IQ tests, should give food for thought as we reflect on the above. Video: [youtube E7jlKcGo_zc] Dr Yancey’s  IQ test questions (strictly: fallacy-detection questions, evidently used by some to claim that Christians are less intelligent than secularist progressives and fellow travellers) are especially revealing of how biases are embedded Read More ›

From ENV  — even as Dr Eugenie Scott of NCSE retires (having championed the ID is Creationism in a cheap tuxedo smear for years and years in the teeth of all correction . . . ) — we see a development, courtesy a whistle-blowing Law School student: The latest attempt to insert creationism into the classroom is what is known as the Theory of Intelligent Design. The theory is that all of the complex natural phenomena could not have happened randomly; there had to be a design and a designer. Since the concept of the designer does not require a biblical interpretation, its advocates believe that it could possibly pass constitutional muster. Some states have proposed that science standards be Read More ›

Duane Gish passed away a few weeks ago, and even though I’m late in reporting it, I felt it important to offer a small tribute to him since he fought Darwinism for much of his life. I didn’t always agree with him, but before the ID movement, he was one of the few sufficiently competent voices in the world that articulated the case for intelligent design (albeit in a creationist context). From the NCSE website: The young-earth creationist Duane T. Gish died on March 5, 2013, at the age of 92, according to Answers in Genesis’s obituary. Born on February 17, 1921, in White City, Kansas, he served in the U.S. Army from 1940 to 1946 in the Pacific Theater Read More ›

Slate.com is all upset that repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008 was was rejected yet again in a 3-2 vote in the State Senate. 19 year old Rice University Student Zack Kopplin has been leading the charge to get this “outrage” done away with once and for all, with help from the usual suspects. What’s interesting to note is the reason that one Senator, Elbert Guillory, D-Obelousas, who essentially cast the deciding vote, gave for his vote against repeal. Sen. Elbert Guillory, D-Opelousas, said he had reservations with repealing the act after a spiritual healer correctly diagnosed a specific medical ailment he had. He said he thought repealing the act could “lock the door on being able Read More ›

There was an interesting poll of biology teachers in Pennsylvania that were given the freedom to respond to more than one choice when given the opportunity to express belief in evolution, creation or ID. If evolution is defined as “change over time”, then even creationists and ID proponents could be said to believe in evolution. That seems to be suggested by the latest poll: Is evolution missing link in some Pennsylvania high schools? Some 20 percent of science teachers in survey say they believe in creationism April 28, 2013 12:25 am …. Ninety percent chose evolution; 19 percent said they believe in creationism, not defined in the questionnaire; 13 percent said they believe in intelligent design; and another 5 percent Read More ›

Arsonists reportedly destroyed a well known Science Center in Naples Italy that promotes Evolutionism. From the pages of the Journal Nature: http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/496169c On the night of 4 March, unknown arsonists destroyed the famous City of Science centre in Naples. This shocking event has been publicly welcomed by some hard-line creationists in Italy, who disapprove of the teaching of evolution at the centre. ….. The conservative commentators who instead seemed to rejoice at the centre’s destruction include the national news paper Il Foglio, which applauded the flames as purification against the sourge of evolutionism — “a nineteenth-century superstition” destined to bring young people to “despair and simian behaviors”. This inflammatory anti-Darwinism has been rapidly amplified on the Internet. …. Italy’s current Read More ›

Sometimes, it is necessary to speak for record on rather unpleasant matters. This is one of them, in response to longtime objector AF’s willfully continued misrepresentations and false accusations. Accordingly, I clip 479 in the Oldies thread, with reference to my corrective at 459 and AF’s retort at 465 that compounds the misrepresentations and false accusations AF has made: ________________ >>Over the past few days, AF has unfortunately shown just why after eight years he has made no progress in understanding or soundly interacting with design theory or thinkers. This has come to a head in his remark at 454 above, where he stated: CSI is a bogus concept so it would not figure in anyone’s calculations. That is a Read More ›

A thing that evolutionists wrongly consider a serious problem for the creation/ID worldview is the “multiple acts of creation” or – in ID terms – “multiple insertions of information” in time. Here I will argue to show that this is a false problem, or – better said – is a problem that in no way can undermine the creation/ID explanation. This issue is also related to the question when in the cosmos the information is injected by its Designer: is it fully frontloaded from the beginning or is fractionated in time? My assumption is however that we take for granted that the Designer of the universe is God. I dealt with this issue here. Moreover I consider sound the so-called Read More ›

This morning, in the Gonzalez video post comment exchange, I saw where Mung raised a question about how Young Earth Creationists address the Old Cosmos, Old Earth implications of the view raised. I thought it useful to respond briefly, but then the wider connexions surfaced. I would like to stir the pot a bit [–> pl. note the new category], by headlining some sketched out thoughts for consideration, on the mathematical ordering of reality, and related worldviews level philosophical and even theological issues. Indeed, somewhere along the line, the whole project of the validity of a natural theology (and Biblical references to same) crops up as connected to the concerns. Kindly, consider the below scoop-out from my response to Mung Read More ›

( To comment, kindly go here) Last time, we showed how Wikipedia’s article on Intelligent Design flagrantly distorts the history of the origins of ID as a modern movement. Today, our focus is on a subtler distortion: From the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by the Discovery Institute, which, together with its Center for Science and Culture, planned and funded the “intelligent design movement”.[16][n 1] They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it “cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents”, and that the school district’s Read More ›

(To comment cf. here) Just now, I see where an objector to ID was saying that I a am tilting at windmills to take time to take apart the introduction to Wikipedia’s anti-ID hit piece presented as a NPOV review of ID from significant and credible sources. It bears remembering, then, that by Wiki’s admission in a promotional and fund raising appeal, they are the number 5 most popular site in the world. Other evaluations vary, but it is quite plain that Wiki is arguably the most commonly resorted to popular reference and education site in the world. That is a lot of reach and influence, so they have an even more intense duty of care to truth, accuracy, credibility Read More ›