Intelligent Design

Medical Doctor writes new pro-ID book for grade-school kids

Spread the love

Billions of Missing Links

See: Billions of Missing Links

Dr. Geoffrey Simmons focuses on the millions of structures and systems on the Earth that came about all at once, entire…with no preceding links, no subsequent links, no “sideways” links.

To illustrate, he surveys examples like…

the hummingbird and its circulatory system
insects and insect–eating plants
the role of the thousands of species of viruses
chemical signals and the sensory apparatus that detects them
the self–regulating capacity of the Earth’s ocean/air/soil system

There will be a book release party at the Discovery Institute, February 16, 2007. Details are here.

15 Replies to “Medical Doctor writes new pro-ID book for grade-school kids

  1. 1
    Collin says:

    I like the books that are easy to understand but make good points. I think I’ll get this one.

  2. 2
    IDist says:

    I think we need books like this, comparing evolutionary scienarios to the actuall fossil evidence.

  3. 3
    rb says:

    and more gaps in the fossil record are discovered everyday as now transition forms are found. For every transition form found 2 gaps replace the preexisting 1 gap. so it won’t be long until simmons can write a book called Trillions of missing links

  4. 4
    scordova says:

    and more gaps in the fossil record are discovered everyday as now transition forms are found. For every transition form found 2 gaps replace the preexisting 1 gap. so it won’t be long until simmons can write a book called Trillions of missing links

    This principle has been affectionately labeled, “Gish’s law” after the creationist Duane Gish.

    However, that is not how the gaps are being demonstrated (via Gish’s law), the gaps are being demonstrated by the fact that even a theoretical transitional does not make sense. I’m eager to pose questions to Darwinists like, “describe the common ancestor of plants and animals, then give me a description of about 10 theoretical transitionals between that common ancestor and plants, and 10 transitionals from that ancestor and animals”.

  5. 5
    scordova says:

    By the way, Geoffrey Simmons was a Darwinist most of his life. It was through his spouse that he was motivated to re-examine what he thought about the evolution of life, and his views were changed ever since.

    A comparable situation is how Dean Kenyon became an ID proponent through one of his students giving him AE Wilder-Smiths book. Another story is how Richard Lumsden renounced Darwinian evolution because his student began asking innocent questions about evolutionary theory…

    The moral of the story is that lack of a large base of scientific training does not have to be an impediment to helping someone much more knowledgeable than yourself see the truth. Simmons, Kenyon, Lumsden, and many others are examples of what happens when open-minded people come to terms with empirical facts through the simple prompting by people you would least expect to be successful at persuasion…..

  6. 6
    jb says:

    “describe the common ancestor of plants and animals, then give me a description of about 10 theoretical transitionals between that common ancestor and plants, and 10 transitionals and animals”.

    LOL! This conjures up the image of the greenhouse plant on The Adams Family that would attack anyone standing near it.

  7. 7
    scordova says:

    LOL! This conjures up the image of the greenhouse plant on The Adams Family that would attack anyone standing near it.

    There is truth to that statment, and indeed these kind of creatures are just what the Doctor (of evolution) ordered. In fact almost those very words were used by a biologist when commenting on a similar problem of how to characterize such creatures. A biologist in 2000 by the name of Peterson remarked: “[it] is something of the project for the X-files”.

    If one is willing to set aside half an hour, using google to learn unfamiliar terms in the following paper, one will be much enlightened about the problem of theoretical (not even empirical) gaps. See this from Paul Nelson and Marcus Ross: Problems with Characterizing the Protostome-Deuterostome Ancestor.

    There is an interesting anecdote to this paper. PZ Myers happened to be present when Nelson was at the gathering where Nelson presented this idea. Nelson roundly stumped Myers in his tracks. hehehe…

    I mean, the following day or so, Myers actually had nice things to say about Nelson!

    Nelson’s account is here ISCID Problems with Characterizing the Protostome-Deuterostome Ancestor

  8. 8
    dacook says:

    Wait a minute. I thought doctors weren’t scientists and didn’t know anything about Evolution.

    D. A. Cook, M.D.

    P.S. If I send a link will you publicize my book on here too? 🙂 (It’s not directly about evolution but it is a story about some medical people who notice their biology isn’t like most of the rest of the planet.)

  9. 9
    scordova says:

    Please send me the link, I think we can do somthing for one of our ID-friendly physcian friends!!!

    Also, if you have a little blurb about your history and views of ID from your perspective as a medical doctor, I’ll incorporate that into the post. I was much impressed with your achievements, so don’t be shy in listing them. I think it would be inspiring to many of our readers….

    Having volunteered time on the college campuses, I meet many pro-ID pre-med students majoring in biology. They are the ones I’m deeply concerned about. I think people like yourself will be an inspiration to them…

    Salvador

  10. 10
    shaner74 says:

    Scordova wrote:
    “A comparable situation is how Dean Kenyon became an ID proponent through one of his students giving him AE Wilder-Smiths book”

    I never bought NDE hook line and sinker, but it was the late AE Wilder Smith who played the lead role in my complete “awakening” from the Darwin slumber. Through his taped lectures and writings I gained a great deal of knowledge. I am very grateful to him for it. There is a rumor that he was very convincing when facing Richard Dawkins in the Huxley Memorial debate in 1986, but I don’t know if there’s any truth to it.

  11. 11
    littlejon says:

    Are we sure this is pro-ID? It just looks anti-evolution to me, and presumably that might prompt creationism, or indeed any other non-evolutionary theory, rather than ID…

  12. 12
    scordova says:

    littlejon,

    Are we sure this is pro-ID? It just looks anti-evolution to me, and presumably that might prompt creationism, or indeed any other non-evolutionary theory, rather than ID…

    An anti-evolution hypothesis in favor of special creation is a sufficient but not necessary condition to make it pro-ID. That means there can be pro-ID and pro-Evolution (as in common ancestry) hypotheses.

    Recall, ID is a big tent….

  13. 13
    dacook says:

    Salvador;
    OK, great, but I’m not sure how to send it to you… do you have an email or should I just put the info. in one of these reply posts?
    Thanks
    Dave C.

  14. 14
    scordova says:

    Dave,

    I looked up your e-mail address which you provided when you registered at UD.

    I just you an e-mail. Let me know if you received it. I look forward to hearing from you.

    regards,
    Salvador

  15. 15
    dacook says:

    Salvador,
    A blurb and link are in the mail. If you don’t get it let me know.
    Thanks,
    Dave

Leave a Reply