Intelligent Design

Go here and you’ll be able to download a “Comparison Document” that shows how the new Kansas Science Standards deviate from the old. The change that particularly struck me was the following: Old characterization of science: “scientific knowledge describes and explains the natural world.” New characterization of science: “scientific knowledge describes and explains the physical world in terms of matter, energy, and forces.” Besides defining intelligent design out of existence, this new definition defines what have traditionally been regarded as distinctly human traits, such as free will and consciousness, which science studies, also out of existence. It’s all to the good that the scientific materialists have introduced this ideologically charged definition of science, perhaps not for the Kansas students who Read More ›

Here is a quote mine for the day which I found in an article Bill referenced earlier (see: Start the revolution without ID). The quote is by one of the world’s leading scientists, Carl Woese:

we regard as rather regrettable the conventional concatenation of Darwin’s name with evolution

I agree. Let me suggest that if the conventional concatenation is “Darwinian evolution” a better concatenation would be “designed evolution” or even (hehe) “created evolution”.
Read More ›

In Flock of Dodos, or Pack of Lies?, Jonathan Wells describes how Darwinist Randy Olson filmed a scene to argue the point that Haeckel’s embryos are not in recent biology text books.

Olson concedes that the drawings are fraudulent, but he states on camera that “you don’t find them” in recent textbooks. In one scene, Olson hands Kansas attorney (and Darwin critic) John Calvert a recent biology textbook and challenges him to find Haeckel’s drawings in it. Taken by surprise, Calvert can’t do it. Afterwards, Olson displays a 1914 textbook containing the drawings but claims they haven’t been used since then. The film then compares Icons of Evolution to a supermarket tabloid.

Calvert later faxed Olson pages from a recent textbook containing Haeckel’s drawings, but Olson gives no hint of that in his film. Read More ›

A recent essay in PLoS biology bemoans that researchers are not using the term “evolution” nearly often enough in research papers. The essay lays out the horrendous possibilities that this could mean: A critical question is whether avoidance of the word “evolution” has had an impact on the public perception of science. To investigate this, we examined whether the use of the term “evolution” in the scientific literature affects the use of this word in the popular press, i.e., whether there is evidence for “cultural inheritance” of word use. We searched articles on antimicrobial resistance in national media outlets, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Fox News, and the BBC (Text S1). Our results showed that the Read More ›

Here the latest from Carl Woese. The abstract is short but telling: Biology’s Next Revolution Nigel Goldenfeld and Carl Woese [posted February 8, 2007] ABSTRACT: The interpretation of recent environmental genomics data exposes the far-reaching influence of horizontal gene transfer, and is changing our basic concepts of organism, species and evolution itself. SOURCE: arxiv.org/PS_cache/q-bio/pdf/0702/0702015.pdf. So here’s the deal: When trying to derail ID in the court of public opinion, say that there is NO controversy over evolution. Say that scientists have achieved a consensus and that evolution is as well established as the earth going around the sun. But when out of the public eye, feel free to publish on how the entire field of evolutionary biology is in disarray Read More ›

It appears scientists are now able to attach genes in particular spots on genechips using a new “daisy” molecule. This allows them to place genes onto the chip in a sequential–that is, ordered–fashion. The first purpose of this breakthrough is to produce certain proteins in an extra-cellular manner. But, as the quote below shows, they also have plans to put together a logical chain of these chips for “information processing”. Is that right? Do cells carry on “information processing”, just like this computer I’m working at? So, using an analogy to Sir Fred Hoyle’s quip about evolution, I suppose if a tornado passed through the components section of a Fry’s Electronics store, out would pop a computer. You have to Read More ›

“Evolution und Schöpfung” (go here) is the first German blog focused on origins-questions with multiple authors. It criticizes materialistic evolution and is sympathetic to ID. The blog was started by Cristoph Heilig. With the exception of Klaus Lange (who is in his 30s and motivated), the contributors are young (some in their teens) and motivated. [[Okay, I’ve edited the last sentence so that no one feels slighted about age or motivation!]]

From the American Scientist’s bookshelf: What more do you need to know about what Darwinism really means to its supporters?

A friend directs me to the American Scientist mag’s bookshelf, which features a number of recent books addressing the intelligent design controversy from a materialist perspective – the reviews are an education in themselves: Read More ›

Checkout the links to the vidcast of Darwin Day and the Deification of Charles Darwin Darwin Day is upon us at long last. Now for a full week humanists the world over will celebrate the birth of their saint, Charles Darwin. Celebrations come complete with Darwin carols celebrating atheism and sung to Christmas carol tunes; edible trees of life; Darwin look-a-like contests; and lots more revelry. Discovery Institute is honoring Darwin with a short vidcast of their popular ID The Future podcast titled “Darwin Day and the Deification of Charles Darwin.” It features CSC senior fellows Dr. John West and Dr. Jonathan Wells discussing the historical importance of Darwinism and its impact on modern science and society. Click here to Read More ›

Until today, I’ve been keeping quiet about this developing story about Marcus Ross, a creationist PhD graduate from Rhode Island University. I wanted to protect him from media scrutiny until the news story finally broke.

Now that the NY Times has reported it, I may as well publicly extend my congratulations to Marcus Ross. He serves as a role model for how ID proponents and even young earth creationists can matriculate through Darwinist controlled institutions.
Read More ›

My inbox is full of stuff about Darwin Day, apparently tomorrow. Looking at the photos fronting the Darwin Day site, I get the feeling that the old boy contracted a spiritual disease of some kind early in life that ate at his vitals. But hey, don’t believe me. Look carefully at the portraits/photos and judge the matter for yourself. Read More ›

The concept of self-organization in biology has long been applied in behavioural studies of animals such as fish, ants and fireflies. Now, cell and developmental biologists are using similar concepts to explore how patterns are generated in cells and tissues. It is always tempting to seek common mechanistic foundations for different biological phenomena. This approach should be used carefully because biological mechanisms are remarkably diverse, but increasing evidence suggests that the principle of self-organization is broadly applicable. Unlike human-made machines, biological machines must be sufficiently dynamic and flexible to respond to their external and internal environments, and they must rely on themselves to generate order. The challenge for researchers is to look beyond our usual engineering principles and to appreciate Read More ›

Scientists Discover Parallel Codes In Genes

“These parallel codes were probably exploited during evolution to allow genes to support a wide range of signals to regulate and modify biological processes in cells.” says Shalev Itzkovitz at The Weizmann Institute of Science.

Read More ›

Rogue weeds defy rules of genetics

Other biologists are astonished by the findings. “It’s amazing,” says David Baulcombe, an expert on plant RNA at the John Innes Centre in Norwich, UK. “The notion that RNA carries the information almost seems like the only way it could happen.”

Read More ›

In the latest issue of Nature, a team of researchers report that using RNA interference techniques to re-activate a tumor suppressor, p53, they were able to induce a “cellular senescence program that was associated with differentiation and the upregulation of inflammatory cytokines.”

The use of the word “program” highlights that proponents of NDE have an even sterner task at hand: explaining how the logical loop of a “program” can be built up using NDE mechanisms. There is a ring of “irreducibility” to the idea of a “program”, since each part of a “program” is indispensable and likewise an integral part of the program’s intended output. Genetics is looking everyday to be more and more like an exercise in computer programming–just as IDists have predicted. Behe and Snoke’s paper shows the huge improbability of placing two amino acids side-by-side via gene duplication and random mutation. Now NDE must do much more than that. When can we expect them to give up?

Here’s the link:

Read More ›