Casey Luskin tries to explain why science texts should be about science, not about confirming secularists’ deepest beliefs, Darwinian magic, etc.
Here.
Rube shouts in: Read More ›
Darwinism
Let us now turn back to the Beard, and perhaps he will forgive us our persistent unbelief
Photographer-philosopher Laszlo Bencze offers us this prayer, for spiritual Darwinists, Christian or otherwise, reflecting on one of their recent conferences:
We believe in Darwin, the father all-sovereign, explainer of all things visible and invisible, and in one Thomas Henry Huxley, the bull dog of Darwin, begotten from the substance of Darwin.
We believe in his son, Julian Huxley, of one substance with his Father. Read More ›
Superstition today greater than in Middle Ages?
The Ottawa Citizen’s David Warren thinks so: Re “Most superstitions go back to the Middle Ages,” he writes,
… Not true. Most go back either to the beginning of time, or to the beginning of modernity. The Middle Ages were, to those with a mild acquaintance with them, centuries remarkably free of “common superstitions.” Unless, of course, you count faith in God as a superstition. But even if so, Read More ›
If cancers can be a newly evolved species, something is wrong with the concept of “newly evolved.”
David Tyler on rewriting the textbooks on Archaeopteryx – that dinobird, no longer First Bird, downgraded to dinosaur
The selfish gene: Darwinism is so self-referential now that it sheds light only on itself.
Dinobird flap: Why do they care so much how creationists take it?
Remember the Icon of the First Bird, Archaeopteryx? Word is, it’s not a bird
.jpg)
After analysing the traits present in Xiaotingia and its relations, Xu and his colleagues are suggesting that the creatures bear more resemblance to the dinosaurs Velociraptor and Microraptor than to early birds, and so belong in the dinosaur group Deinonychosauria rather than in the bird group, Avialae. Many features led the team to this decision, but the most immediately noticeable are that Xiaotingia, Archaeopteryx and Anchiornis have shallow snouts and expanded regions behind their eye sockets. Microraptor has similar traits, but the early birds in Avialae have very different skulls.
But what if they find a fossil that looks like those ones, but has a bird-like skull? Can they say why they are sure they won’t? Is that a prediction? Read More ›
Norwegian mass murderer Breivik and the Princeton “evolution” man Lee Silver : Details
Here:
In his 1518-page “European Declaration of Independence,” Breivik reveals himself as an unapologetic champion of modern biology and the scientific worldview. Indeed, despite his right-wing views in some areas, he does not believe that the progress of science can be left to private enterprise. Instead, it requires lavish and permanent support by the state. He argues that 20% of government spending must be devoted to scientific research (pp. 1188, 1386), and he insists that funding science is more important than government help for the poor. “Welfare expenditure should not take precedent over the 20% fixed sum dedicated to science/technology, research and development.” (p. 1195)
– John G. West, The Professor and the Madman (Evolution News & Views, July 27, 2011)
Sounds just like yer everyday “science blogger.” He probably supported compulsory, tax-funded education in Darwinism. Read More ›
Breivik: Advances in biology will makes possible a vigorous new form of Social Darwinism that will save the Nordic race
In “Fundamentalist Christian or Deranged Social Darwinist?” (Evolution News & Views, July 27, 2011), political scientist John G. West tells us that the guy didn’t want Christians (for example) involved in public policy:
Breivik harbors a special concern that Christians not be able to influence issues related to science and public policy “in any way.”
Why? Read More ›
Judge on Darwin’s Origin of Species, “No book dealing with a scientific subject had ever, I suppose, been so largely read by people who were not scientific.”
Breivik: “According to strict, atheist Darwinism, the purpose of life is to reproduce.”
In “Norway Killer Cultural Christian, Practical Darwinian” (July 24, 2011), we learn from Creation-Evolution Headlines a bit of the background to World News Daily’s bringing the Darwinian leanings of the Norway killer to light: WND first started challenging the depictions of Breivik as a Christian on the 23rd. Then on the 24th, WND posted the entire Breivik manifesto and described him as a Darwinian, not a ‘Christian’ in the usual sense of someone who believes in Jesus Christ the Son of God and submits to Him as Lord and Savior. For example, Support for Darwinian ideas can be seen in several places in his manifesto: While arguing against the feminist destruction of marriage, he said, approvingly, “Marriage is not a Read More ›
Was Norway shooter a Social Darwinian terrorist?
To dream the impossible dream: the quest for the 50-bit life form
Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor facilitates multi-cell complexity?
Over at Design Matrix, in “First questions about LECA” (July 22, 2011), Mike Gene offers,
We have seen that science has discovered the last eukaryotic common ancestor was essentially as complex as a modern day eukaryotic cell (see here and here and here).
Okay, so in that respect, evolution did not happen. Can we get past that fact, or are we still stuck with funding propaganda from the Darwin lobby?
Furthermore, I have argued that this complex cell plan that has defined eukarya since the time of LECA has worked to facilitate the eventual emergence of metaozoan-type complexity. Read More ›