The British Center for Selling Evolution

_{William Dembski

October 16, 2006

Darwinism, Evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/TruthInScienceMaterial … now receiving support from its colonial counterpart, the NCSE.

Comments

May I direct anyone wishing to get information about this new group to my investigative blog: British Centre for Science Education - Revealed The most recent story carefully documents how they deliberately mislead MPs in their recent lobbying. (Please don't post feedback comments here - I don't intend to check it. I have contact details on the blog). David Anderson http://bcse-revealed.blogspot.comdavidanderson_{October 19, 2006
October
10
Oct
19
19
2006
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

You don't know the half of it! Here in the UK everyone just accepts natural selection as not even a challenge to their religion! "Teach the controversy" means Darwin vs Lamarck! It's horrible. In fact, in the whole of Europe about 0% of the population even think there is an issue here. How can we wake them up?littlejon_{October 17, 2006
October
10
Oct
17
17
2006
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

Bob OH: Because most people who oppose evolution theory do so on religious grounds, that certainly seems to be the case in the UK. I would love to see the satistics for that. Most people I talk to oppose evolution because of the lack of science behind it. I know I am no longer an evolutionist for that reason. Bob OH: So showing that evolutionary biology and theology are compatible is a sensible tactic. As long as the people doing the "showing" also tell the people there isn't any difference between a "god" who uses "evolution" and no "god" at all. And if "god" did use "evolution" then that should be taught in the curriculum as well.Joseph_{October 17, 2006
October
10
Oct
17
17
2006
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

Oh yes, and guess what, they donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe in the separation of church and state! Of course, it is different in the UK.
Indeed. Advocating separation of church and state would be a serious political and constitutional position, which would have nothing to do with science. The only real reason to do it is that you could justifiably accuse your opponents of being antidisestablishmentatians.
Why the big effort to get clergy to accept Darwinism if it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t, at all, negate God or lead to atheism?
Because most people who oppose evolution theory do so on religious grounds, that certainly seems to be the case in the UK. So showing that evolutionary biology and theology are compatible is a sensible tactic. BobBob OH_{October 16, 2006
October
10
Oct
16
16
2006
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT}

Mats, "I hope that the British Center is more sucessful ... in providing evidence for evolutionism." That's a joke, they don't even try.bFast_{October 16, 2006
October
10
Oct
16
16
2006
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

I hope that the British Center is more sucessful than its American counterpart in providing evidence for evolutionism.Mats_{October 16, 2006
October
10
Oct
16
16
2006
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

Further to Rude's post at 6. "Endosymbiotic bacteria live in an extremely sheltered world and have a pared-down lifestyle, so they need a simpler set of instructions. Many of the metabolic pathways that free-living bacteria maintain have been lost after so many generations of living within insects." If they have "lost many of the metabolic pathways" this indeed gives us an idea of the power of evolution. Evolution can lead to loss of function. Birds who once could fly, now cannot fly. Bats who once could see, now are blind. We see a move from complex to simple. This is the second law at work. How does evolution produce sight and flight in the first place? These little bugs don't point to evolution by natural selection as the answer.idnet.com.au_{October 16, 2006
October
10
Oct
16
16
2006
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

Rude comment 6 "It's the smallest genome -- not by a bit but by a long way," said co-author Nancy A. Moran, UA Regents' Professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. "It's very surprising. It's unbelievable, really. We would not have predicted such a small size. It's believed that more genes are required for a cell to work." Note these parasites live inside a "special cell". It is interesting that they are so surprised that such a still hugely complex organism can exist. How do they think the first organism came to exist? It did not have a living cell to inhabit and from which to steal all the food it could not make for itself. I thought mitochondria were supposed to really be some form of symbiotic organism from the past. Why is not their genome considered the smallest?idnet.com.au_{October 16, 2006
October
10
Oct
16
16
2006
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

Is the Chris Hyland who posts here at UD https://uncommondescent.com/archives/1708#comment- the same Chris Hyland who runs "Science just Science"?idnet.com.au_{October 16, 2006
October
10
Oct
16
16
2006
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

Rude: I know that this is completely off-topic, but someone sent me thisÃ¢â‚¬â€œResearchers Find Smallest Cellular Genome
The smallest collection of genes ever found for a cellular organism comes from tiny symbiotic bacteria that live inside special cells inside a small insect.
IOW it is not a free-living organism, but it is still a very interseting find. As for "Truth in Science" it appears to me that no one outside of ID is really interested in such a concept.Joseph_{October 16, 2006
October
10
Oct
16
16
2006
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

I know that this is completely off-topic, but someone sent me this--Researchers Find Smallest Cellular Genome http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061012184647.htm)--which maybe ought to be commented on somewhere on this blog. Sorry.Rude_{October 16, 2006
October
10
Oct
16
16
2006
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

No kidding, huh? I can't understand people that demonize some groups that never advocate violence. I think many atheists (I assume they're likely atheists) attack these groups because they simply despise traditional values and want to transform society to a much more liberal mindset. Groups like Focus on the Family, I can assure you, poses no danger in any sense of the word. Why is this distorted view of these groups and demonizing someone by associating them with the group okay for Darwinists, but when you rightfully point out the nazi regime's love of NDE to support its ideas in eugenics, it's suddenly an unfair and evil association? (nazis and eugenics is just one example.)JasonTheGreek_{October 16, 2006
October
10
Oct
16
16
2006
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

Oops. Make that 'NDE DOES lead to atheism' Dawkins has said many times that it does. Provine has said the same thing. Forrest and Scott belong to atheist groups. Wilson has said the same things, etc. Why the big effort to get clergy to accept Darwinism if it doesn't, at all, negate God or lead to atheism? I'd like those questions answered.JasonTheGreek_{October 16, 2006
October
10
Oct
16
16
2006
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

Europeans seem to have some bizarre misconceptions about the U.S. They link Focus on the Family with a political philosophy that advocates the murder of political opponents.russ_{October 16, 2006
October
10
Oct
16
16
2006
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

There's that double standard we've all come to know and love! They attack Stephen Meyer, because they say he worked with the media group before. Thus- he can't be trusted. Further- why does it matter that the group is religious in nature? Does that void their arguments somehow? If it does- the following men also have to be ignored and their arguments voided: Dawkins Provine EO Wilson Barb Forrest Eugiene Scott that's just a small list...I'm sure we could name thousands who are connected to atheism or atheist groups and "defend TRUE science" (aka NDE). Thanks BCSE- now we can officially ignore all those who attack ID and are also connected to atheist groups! Shocking news alert- EVERY human has a worldview. Having a theistic worldview doesn't discount your arguments. Worse- they have the section specifically for the clergy- trying to sell Darwinism to them. Problem? Well, the problem is- if a theist is attacked as having no credibility on the issue, this lends support to the idea that NDE DOES lead to Darwinism. If it doesn't- why do they discount the arguments of anyone associated with a theistic (Christian) group? Going as far as to label them radical! I think they protest too much...Darwinism does, indeed, lead people to atheism. Richard Dawkins is right, and this site proves the theory.JasonTheGreek_{October 16, 2006
October
10
Oct
16
16
2006
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

Oh yes, and guess what, they don't believe in the separation of church and state! Of course, it is different in the UK. Still, they attempt to enlist the clergy in their battle: http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/ForClergy And then, in the "Religion and Science" link they say "The question of whether or not God exists lies beyond the realm of empirical science, and properly belongs to religion and philosophy. " Hold on, have they consulted and done due diligence with Sir Richard Dawkins? I mean, does he not use empirical science to draw the conclusion that no God could possibly exist and make any sort of sense, given his keen observation and interpretation of the cosmos and living organisms? Wow, and then they go on to say "Properly, scientists will respect these beliefs of their religious colleagues, realizing they may very well provide those colleagues with the moral guidance which makes them better scientists. The importance of moral guidance, and, more specifically, the moral courage to deal with the ever-present possibility of failure in both the existential and cognitive realms, is not to be underestimated. " Yes, this is all stated with a straight face. What, all in the Darwinian camp have not gotten the message of the great respect that must be paid to those of faith, and how important it is to the very future of humanity? Wow. We must alert Panda's Thumb and the others right away, they probably were left off the distribution list inadvertantly.Ekstasis_{October 16, 2006
October
10
Oct
16
16
2006
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply