Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Excerpt from new ID book: Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell


Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell by Thomas Y LoPaul K Chien, and Eric H Anderson  just dropped:

A few years ago I happened to turn on my car radio and caught the end of a lecture segment on public radio. Evolutionary biologist and prominent atheist Richard Dawkins was the guest. Dawkins held the position of Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University for more than a decade, and one of the questions posed to him made me quickly reach over and turn up the volume.

“How close are we to understanding the origin of life?” the moderator asked.

I half-expected Dawkins to acknowledge the many difficulties with abiogenesis, to admit that this was a huge open question, and to confess that we don’t yet have any good abiogenesis scenarios, while claiming, as so many proponents of evolution do, that the origin of life is a separate question from biological evolution. That is, I thought he might concede the many widely acknowledged difficulties still facing the origin of life but try to contain the damage for the materialistic outlook by emphasizing that at least things were well in hand for evolutionary theory after the origin of the first life.

To my surprise, Dawkins responded rather glibly that we have a pretty good idea how life started. Yes, there are some challenges, he acknowledged, but we know what happened in broad strokes and at this point, he implied, we are basically filling in the details.

Having studied the origin of life at length and being aware of the many and acute problems with abiogenesis theories, it struck me as more than a little irresponsible for someone wearing the title of “Professor for the Public Understanding of Science” to claim in a public venue to tens of thousands of listeners that we have a pretty good idea how life started. (more)

Eric H. Anderson, “Book Excerpt: A Factory That Builds Factories That Build Factories That…” at Evolution News and Science Today

If Dawkins stated the facts, the way James Tour would, the latte-rati who form the bulk of the audience for that type of programming would ignore him, he wouldn’t be invited again, and he would sink into obscurity. The power of his enduring popularity lies precisely in the fact that he reassures them that their mythologies are Facts. And they sense that they are cleverer than their neighbors.

As to:
"Having studied the origin of life at length and being aware of the many and acute problems with abiogenesis theories, it struck me as more than a little irresponsible for someone wearing the title of “Professor for the Public Understanding of Science” to claim in a public venue to tens of thousands of listeners that we have a pretty good idea how life started." - Eric H. Anderson
But alas, dishonesty towards the evidence is par for the course with Darwinists. When I first started debating Darwinists, I assumed that they must have some real time substantiating experimental evidence somewhere in order to justify why they so fervently Darwinism to be true. That simply is not the case. All their evidence, when examined in detail, turns out to be bluff and bluster. In fact, I have found that Darwinists believe Darwinism to be true IN SPITE of the empirical evidence against it instead of any real time empirical evidence supporting it. As Dr, Cornelius Hunter once wryly noted,
"Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." - Dr. Cornelius Hunter - PhD in biophysics
Thus, since they have no real time empirical evidence supporting their claims, and in order to indoctrinate school children, (and gullible adults), into believing Darwinian evolution to be true, Darwinists are vitally dependent on using misleading, even fraudulent, evidence in schoolroom textbooks. Jonathan Wells has written two books, (i.e. 'Icons of Evolution' and Zombie Science), documenting the fact that Darwinists use misleading, even fraudulent. evidence to try to indoctrinate school children into believing Darwinian evolution to be true.
Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong - 2002 https://www.amazon.com/Icons-Evolution-Science-Teach-About/dp/0895262002 Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary (2013) - video playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzTFeWL19Bs&list=PLR8eQzfCOiS2RPQAPifs6t__mIAqITpYy Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution - 2017 ,,, Discredited icons of evolution rise from the dead while more icons—equally bogus—join their ranks. Like a B horror movie, they just keep coming! Zombies are make believe, but zombie science is real—and it threatens not just science, but our whole culture. I https://www.amazon.com/Zombie-Science-More-Icons-Evolution-ebook/dp/B06Y398ML7/ref=sr_1_12 Zombie Science - video playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2UHLPVHjug&list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1rO4HiEiRBLalzTx-TaKYC
In short, whereas other theories in science are vitally dependent on experimental evidence to establish their validity, Darwinists, on the other hand, are vitally dependent on deception in order to 'sell' their 'theory' to impressionable school children. Thus, it no longer surprises me when I hear leading Darwinists, such as Dawkins, blatantly misrepresent the true state of the scientific evidence. Deception is simply the bread and butter by which the their theory stays afloat. Of related note, the one time that I'm aware of that Richard Dawkins was semi-honest with the evidence for OOL research, it backfired on him pretty badly.
BEN STEIN: “What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?” DAWKINS: “Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.” – Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview (3:18 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc
Dawkins recieved some pretty heavy backlash from his fellow Darwinists, so Dawkins had to backpedal pretty hard from the semi-honest confession he made in his interview with Ben Stein. In fact, he ended up claiming that he was taken out of context in the interview.
Puppetmaster Richard Dawkins Pulls Strings to Get Revenge on Ben Stein Excerpt: "the interview with Dawkins was long, exhaustive and in no way taken out of context. The bogus charges against the producers have long been laid to rest (see here, here, and here). The only person still smarting about this is poor Richard. https://evolutionnews.org/2009/02/puppetmaster_richard_dawkins_p/
Apparently Dawkins learned his lesson well the first time, and will never be semi-honest with OOL research again. In the Darwinian world, honesty simply doesn't pay. bornagain77
Professor for the Public Understanding of Science. Nice. The public understands science better than Dawkins does. polistra
There are two options. Either God exists or God does not exist. Rather than humanizing God, whose intelligence is far beyond human understanding, simply ask yourself the following questions and determine which is more plausible? How can life come from no-life? How do you get something from nothing? How can the laws that govern the universe exist? If chaos does not create order, then how did order, the laws, come to exist? BobRyan
. Congratulations to Eric! Upright BiPed
R Dawkins = Liar martin_r

Leave a Reply