Fine tuning News

They didn’t shut this down at the University of Toronto

Spread the love

A long way from Amarillo, it seems:

Dr. Ingmar Bitter (PhD, SUNY), an Engineer at Claron Technology, Toronto, addressed the question: “Does the World Show Evidence of a Designer?” at the University of Toronto as part of the following lecture series: “God and Reason: A Christian Perspective.”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

18 Replies to “They didn’t shut this down at the University of Toronto

  1. 1
  2. 2
    Joe says:

    “This was not sponsored by the university!”- any evolutionist


  3. 3
    REC says:

    Didn’t Ms. O’Leary herself teach an ID course in U Toronto’s Religion/Spirituality department?

    Campuses should (and generally do) provide broad academic freedom. If a campus Christian group wants to invite in the ID-B team to their private religious event so that he can evangelize using design arguments, that is fine with me.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “Campuses should (and generally do) provide broad academic freedom”

    That claim is false. Especially when it comes to questioning Neo-Darwinism on Campuses:
    If silencing by intimidation, or censorship, does not work, Darwinists simply ‘EXPEL’ anyone who disagrees with them:

    EXPELLED – Starring Ben Stein – video

    Slaughter of Dissidents – Book
    “If folks liked Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” they will be blown away by “Slaughter of the Dissidents.” – Russ Miller

    Origins – Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman – video

    How the Scientific “Consensus” on Darwinism Is Maintained – David Klinghoffer – September 30, 2014
    Excerpt: how it is that a scientist gets to evangelize for atheism at one public university while another at a different public university, Ball State physicist Eric Hedin, gets censured and silenced merely for apprising students of the existence of books offering scientific evidence for intelligent design.
    Hedin is well liked by his students according to, and makes an interesting comparison to David Barash who gets complaints about how he is “definitely an atheist and has an agenda to push,” “tries to throw dirt on those who believe in anything other than his ‘marvelous’ theories,” has a “clear agenda to push, as he’s always rambling off topic about how biology proves that God doesn’t exist.”
    Barash even publishes his sermon notes in the New York Times so no one can miss what he’s doing in his classroom, and that is just fine as far as I can tell with the administration across town here in Seattle at the University of Washington.
    It cannot be repeated too often that this is how the scientific “consensus” on Darwinism theory is maintained: one side in the controversy is coddled, the other intimidated.

    Moreover, despite the over the top black balling by Darwinists of anyone who disagrees with Darwinism, there is a consistent dissent from Darwinism by top scientists and mathematicians:

    Scientists stunned by the public’s doubt of Darwin – April 22, 2014
    Excerpt: (Stephen) Meyer said that view under-represents the real facts being discovered in evolutionary biology.
    “Very few leading evolutionary biologists today think that natural selection and random mutation are sufficient to produce the new forms of life we see arising in the history of life,” Meyer said. “And then when the public is catching wind of the scientific doubts of Darwinian evolution and expresses them in a poll like this, these self-appointed spokesmen for science say that the public is ignorant. But actually, the public is more in line with what’s going on in science than these spokesmen for science.”

    Dr. David Berlinski: Math and Darwinian Evolution – video

    Nature Admits Scientists Suppress Criticisms of Neo-Darwinism to Avoid Lending Support to Intelligent Design – Casey Luskin October 8, 2014
    Excerpt: “The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.
    Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.”
    (Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee, “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently,” Nature, Vol. 514:161-164 (October 9, 2014) )

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    corrected link:

    Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie)

  6. 6
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Dr. Ingmar Bitter (PhD, SUNY)- German PhD in Physics, 40 scientific publications, 10 patents, developed logarithmic analysis for cancer prevention …

    Just another ignorant creationist.

  7. 7
    Silver Asiatic says:

    I forgot to wink there. 😉

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    I don’t think anybody really minds an IDC group holding a seminar in a room or lecture hall at a university that is available for hire to the public. What they object to – quite rightly – is if that IDC group implies – wrongly – that the university has in some way sponsored or endorsed the event.

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    Silver Asiatic @ 6

    Dr. Ingmar Bitter (PhD, SUNY)- German PhD in Physics, 40 scientific publications, 10 patents, developed logarithmic analysis for cancer prevention …

    Just another ignorant creationist.

    If you say so. Not a biologist, though. Just saying.

  10. 10
    OldArmy94 says:


    Just out of curiosity, do you think that public universities and colleges should host groups that support Palestinian terrorism and anti-Semitism? Brooklyn College’s political science department is guilty of doing the same:

  11. 11
    Seversky says:

    Free speech inevitably means allowing the expression of views with which you strongly disagree. Public universities and colleges should be free to host groups that support Palestinian terrorism and even anti-Semitism. But they should make clear that they are neither sponsoring nor endorsing those groups. Assuming they aren’t. If they are then free speech means they must also accept criticism of that position from those who strongly disagree. It also means they cannot deny the use of their facilities to groups that oppose Palestinian terrorism and are pro-Israel.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    I’m sad to see that no Darwinist has yet made the claim that Darwinism is science and ID is not and that is why Darwinists can freely censor, or Expel, any descent of Darwinism on Campuses and in the classroom. Because the fact of the matter is Darwinism IS NOT science,,,

    Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science:
    1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis
    2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis
    3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection Are Both Grossly Inadequate as ‘creative engines’
    4. Information is not reducible to a material basis

    Even Darwin himself, in a private corespondence to Asa Gray, admitted that his ‘speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science’,,,

    Anti-Science Irony
    Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” Darwin was “anti-Science”.
    When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution.

    One way to clearly see that Darwinism is not a science, but is instead a pseudo-science, is to see if it has ever led to any profound breakthroughs in science,,, In fact, materialists/atheists like to claim evolution is indispensable to experimental biology and led the way to many breakthroughs in biology. Yet in a article entitled “Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology”, this expert author begs to differ.

    “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.,,, In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.”
    Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

    The late Dr. Skell is not alone in his analysis of the superfluous nature of Darwin’s theory

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
    Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
    A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    Even the staunch atheist Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, agrees that Darwinism does not guide biological research, (and apparently not even his own research of discovering DNA),

    “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood.”
    Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit (1988)

    Jonathan Wells looks at many profound breakthroughs in biology in the following video and finds that ‘Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution’,,,

    Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution – Jonathan Wells – video

    At the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, Dr. Behe gives an example of how positive evidence is falsely attributed to evolution by using the word ‘evolution’ as a ‘narrative gloss’ in peer-reviewed literature:

    Michael Behe – Life Reeks Of Design – video

    Here are a few more examples of Darwinists falsely attributing positive evidence to evolution,,,

    Like a Grandfather Clock: The Splicesome’s Intricate Dance of Parts – June 17, 2014
    Excerpt: Like a late-model SUV equipped with a buggy whip, this was an elegant design article carrying unnecessary baggage. Intelligent design did the work. Evolution, as a useless narrative gloss, adds mass but no force.

    It’s Optimal. It Must Have Evolved! – August 16, 2014
    Excerpt: These (optimal) solutions “have been arrived at” — by design? No; read the last sentence in the paper: “It is appealing that one might look to biology for insights into solutions of hard optimization problems, arrived at as a result of evolution within an information niche.” Evolution did it. Give evolution the engineering design award.

    Whereas, unlike Darwinism, ID is ‘a driver of science’ instead of being merely a narrative gloss or useless baggage:

    “It has become clear in the past ten years that the concept of design is not merely an add-on meta-description of biological systems, of no scientific consequence, but is in fact a driver of science. A whole cohort of young scientists is being trained to “think like engineers” when looking at biological systems, using terms explicitly related to engineering design concepts: design, purpose, optimal tradeoffs for multiple goals, information, control, decision making, etc. This approach is widely seen as a successful, predictive, quantitative theory of biology.”
    Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design – David Snoke – 2014

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    corrected link:

    Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution – Jonathan Wells – video

  14. 14
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky @ 9

    Not a biologist, though. Just saying.

    Thanks for illustrating my point.

    You question his credentials for a discussion on “Does the World Show Evidence of a Designer”. Apparently, the world = biology? And only biologists are qualified to understand that topic?

    As for Dr. Bitter, he did research for the National Institute of Health and patented algorithms to detect polyps in the prevention of cancer. He currently builds software for medical imaging and radiology to advance surgical techniques in health care.

    But “not a biologist”. Of course, how could he possibly understand the sophisticated world of Darwinian theory otherwise?

  15. 15
    Robert Byers says:

    recently the famous Ontario Science centre had creationists, iD/YEC i think, give evidence to amn audience about origins and God/creatior. so the science centre was agreeing iD is science eh!
    it is a absurd censorship or attempt to hyjack a commonly held university to a anti Christian/creation position.
    its not the university anyways but the thinkers within its walls that matter. if Christian/creation conclusions are not dominate or included then its just dumb and dumber as a identity of any school!
    University’s were created by christian thinkers and those who inherit it today owe a debt of freedom of thought, speech, and plain good investigation into the complicated things.

  16. 16
    Seversky says:

    Silver Asiatic @ 14

    If you had a toothache would you consult a plumber or a dentist? If you want an expert opinion on evolutionary biology would you consult a software designer or a biologist?

    No one is disputing Dr Bitter’s expertise or achievements in his chosen field but do they invest his opinions on evolutionary biology with greater weight than yours or mine? Would you credit his views with the same special insights if he were talking about quantum mechanics or relativity theory?

  17. 17
    Robert Byers says:

    Tharts a two way street.
    forever and longer evolutiondom says they are right because SCIENCE, SCIENTISTS, the SCIENCE ORGANIZATIONS, this and that body of sciency types says evolution is true.
    they never stress just those who study biology origins can only be regarded as authority.
    its simply about those who think and study these matters enough to prove they are credible to contend on these matters.

  18. 18
    groovamos says:

    Seversky: If you had a toothache would you consult a plumber or a dentist? If you want an expert opinion on evolutionary biology would you consult a software designer or a biologist?

    See thing is, I’ve consulted right here in this board and on another one with evolutionary biologists. And they have ended up obfuscating, deflecting the conversation or resorting to ridicule or vituperation without answering me, so yes there are a lot of other PhD. scientists out there who can be more honest with themselves and me than many or most evolutionary biologists, who seem to be the most insecure scientists regarding the criticisms of their field by other scientists.

    What have I consulted with them on? The following: how did the tens of billions of cilia operating in concert in the mammalian respiratory epithelium come to be, in Darwinian fashion? Did they start out few in numbers as some sort of survival mechanism? Were they functionally connected for mucus transport when they were few in mumbers, too few to actualy function? If they were too few in numbers to function how did a couple of percent increase provide selective advantage? How did the functional interconnection occur if the wavelike motion could not expel mucus because of the limited numbers and in such case what did the interconnection provide in the way of selective advantage? Same thing goes if the numbers were there but the interconnection was not or only partially there, precluding proper end-to-end mucus transport.

    See bud, just throwing out something about evolutionary biologists not being consulted means nothing when people in that field will not admit the severe logical fallacies they have to skip over when promoting the party line, but other scientists have no problem pointing out the logical nonsense and having a big laugh while so doing. BTW have at the problem.

Leave a Reply