Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Wealthy Scandinavian benefactor gives US$1.6 million (eqv.) to promote ID

Karsten Pultz

Karsten Pultz sends us this report: A Norwegian shipping chief has recently donated 15 million Nkr (1.6 million US $) to support the promotion of intelligent design. The money has gone into a foundation, BioCosmos, where individuals and organisations (primarily in Norway) can apply for support to projects like developing teaching material, publishing books, holding conferences, and anything else related to promoting the ID-hypothesis, especially among young people.

The generous Norwegian behind the foundation, engineer Einar Johan Rasmussen, is quite sure that the theory of evolution does not hold all answers to life’s origin, and having read about ID he feels that life is not a product of blind chance. He hopes that the foundation will make it possible for more people to be able to question what they have been taught so far.

Order Exit Evolution online. 198 kr.

Head of the foundation is Tromsø university professor Steinar Thorvaldsen who in 2013 together with Danish professor Peter Øhrstrøm authored the peer-reviewed paper, Darwin’s Perplexing Paradox: Intelligent Design in Nature. Thorvaldsen is also head of the Norwegian branch of Origo, an evolution-critical magazine and publishing company, a collaboration between Danish and Norwegian evolution sceptics and ID proponents.

Origo has previously published translations of Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells and Undeniable by Douglas Axe. Currently, it has one translator working on Lee Spetner’s The Evolution Revolution and two others working on Michael Behe’s Darwin Devolves. The latter will be available in both Norwegian and Danish.

With this new foundation ID will get a significant boost. In the Scandinavian countries we are used to the fact that everything to do with education is tax-funded and state-run. This makes it difficult to convince people that there are important areas of research and education that need support from private sources.

As we all know tax money are only going to support mainstream science, so ID is depending 100 % on private funding, BioCosmos will be the first group to really make a difference in that regard. This wonderful news come on the heels of the just as wonderful news about the opening of the ID centre in Austria, Zentrum für Biokomplexität und NaturTeleologie. Although the Austrian centre focuses on the German-speaking areas, it is also meant to function as a common European ID institute. I’m happy to say that a promising collaboration between the Nordic countries and Zentrum für BioKomplexität has already been established.

It seems there are good reasons to be optimistic about the future for ID. Although we are under attack from theistic evolutionists, atheists and even young earth creationists, ID is slowly but surely getting traction in the Old World.

Pultz is the author of Exit Evolution.

More from Karsten Pultz and Denmark:

Karsten Pultz: The Perils Of Talking About ID He Wonders, Should He Give Up? (Um, not just now, Karsten – the Uncommon Descent Virtual Coffee Room)

Educating Oneself Away From Science Denial: Two True Stories

Denmark: Slowly developing a conversation about design in nature

Something Is Rotten In The State Of Denmark

Denmark: Perhaps Not So Rotten After All


Swedish Mathematician Explains Why He Sees Design In Nature (And Became A Christian)

Bob O'H states that he is embarrassed that one of his alumni could dare to support ID education. That is an odd thing for Bob to be embarrassed about given that he himself believes in Darwinian evolution. If Bob's 'embarrassment meter' were working properly he should rightly be embarrassed to say that he believes in Darwinian evolution. But alas, Bob's 'embarrassment meter' is severely compromised much like the Emperor in "The Emperor's New Clothes" 'embarrassment meter' was severely compromised.
"The Emperor's New Clothes" (Danish: Kejserens nye klæder) is a short tale written by Danish author Hans Christian Andersen, about two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent – while in reality, they make no clothes at all, making everyone believe the clothes are invisible to them. When the emperor parades before his subjects in his new "clothes", no one dares to say that they do not see any suit of clothes on him for fear that they will be seen as stupid. Finally a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes
And much like the naked Emperor, Bob, and everyone else who promotes Darwinian atheism, are, as far as science itself is concerned, walking around completely naked with not a stitch of scientific clothing on to cover their nakedness. Simply put, Darwinian evolution, since it lacks any rigid falsification criteria, does not even qualify as a science in the first place. As Denis Noble, President of International Union of Physiological Sciences, stated, "it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.”
Central tenets of neo-Darwinism broken. Response to ‘Neo-Darwinism is just fine’ - 2015 Excerpt: “If, as the commentator seems to imply, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.” - Denis Noble https://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/16/2659
Moreover, it is not as if the central tenets of Darwinian evolution have not been falsified over and over again, it is that Darwinists, for whatever severely misguided reason, simply refuse to accept any empirical falsifications of their theory. i.e. Like the emperor, they refuse to accept the fact that they are naked for fear of being seen as stupid by their Darwinian peers. Here are a few falsifications of Darwinian evolution that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:
Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Besides Darwinists refusing to adhere to the criteria of falsification for their supposed scientific theory, by any other reasonable measure that one may wish to judge whether Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science or not, as is shown in the following video, Darwinian evolution fails to meet those criteria as well:
“There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.” – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17 Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw
Simply put, Darwinian evolution simply fails to qualify as a rigorous and testable science by any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke and is therefore more properly classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than ever being classified as a real and testable science. In other word, the Emperor is completely naked, he does not even have any underwear on! Moreover, contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism. Moreover, following the restriction of methodological naturalism on science, that is to say, following the presumption that only natural, material, and/or physical causes are allowed to be given in order to explain any effect in science, leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory. Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM
Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic and/or naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinian materialists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. Again, It would be hard to fathom a worldview that turns out to be more antagonistic towards modern science, indeed more antagonistic towards reality itself, than the presumption of methodological naturalism has turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Bottom line, without God nothing turns out to be truly real in the atheist’s worldview. Not even the atheist himself turns out to be real in his materialistic worldview. And again, if Bob's 'embarrassment meter' were working properly he should rightly be VERY embarrassed to even admit that he believes in such an absurdity as Darwinian evolution. But alas, despite his nakedness, Bob, like the Emperor, apparently wants to be seen as wise by his Darwinian peers so he will never honestly admit to himself and to others that he is, in reality, completely naked with not a stitch of scientific clothing on.
Romans 1:22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools,
thank you Mr. Rasmussen i hope your money, lots of money, will be used wisely...unlike Darwinians would do... p.s. Mr. Rasmussen, you are an engineer. Me too... we engineers can recognize another Engineer's work instantly (unlike biologists, natural science graduates) ... Especially when we see a very sophisticated design beyond our comprehension- like for instance SELF-REPLICATION.... martin_r
Hey! ET! Bob O'H could make it all up by tithing his income for research, especially given that research gets him a living. And then, surely, he is entitled to his opinion, no? News
LoL! @ Bob O'H, the human embarrassment. ET
Bob O'H, we assume that you are and will remain an exemplary contributor to research funding, according to your income position. News
That's embarrassing - he got his degree at NTH, which morphed into the university I now work at. BTW, there is quite a bit of private money that goes into research in the Nordic countries - there are a bunch of funds, and in Norway I can get a tax break if I contribute. The biggest private research foundation is probably Carlsbergfondet, in Denmark - it owns almost a third of the Carlsberg brewery. Bob O'H

Leave a Reply