Intelligent Design

New Poll: No One Is Buying It

Spread the love

After evolutionist James Shapiro claimed he was misquoted by certain members of the Texas state’s school board textbook review committee, even though he wasn’t misquoted; and that those members made a “completely false statement” about novelty being an unsolved problem for evolutionary theory, even though it was Shapiro who misrepresented novelty as well in hand; and that he was “the victim of skillful misquoting for an anti-science purpose,” even though expecting our public schools to teach accurate science is certainly not “anti-science” and it is evolution which consistently makes the anti-science claim that evolution is a fact; and that  Read more

7 Replies to “New Poll: No One Is Buying It

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related note:

    Darwinists/Atheists will many times insist that science must include only naturalistic/materialistic explanations, i.e. methodological naturalism. For instance, this quote from a peer-reviewed article urging teachers to ignore any “supernatural” explanations for the Origin Of Life:

    “It is crucial for teachers to “understand the nature of science” in order to be able to explain why appeals to the supernatural are out of place in explaining the origin of life”
    Eugenie C. Scott – The Soft Underbelly of Evolution? – 2012

    Yet contrary to this a-priori, and artificial, limitation that atheists have self-servingingly placed on what we are supposedly allowed to investigate with science, (i.e. methodological naturalism: no matter what the evidence says to the contrary, only materialistic answers are allowed to be considered), it is impossible for us to truly “understand the nature of science” without an appeal to what would be, on a methodological naturalistic view of reality, a “supernatural” explanation for our ability to practice science in the first place. Here are a few notes in that regards:

    Is Life Unique? David L. Abel – January 2012
    Concluding Statement: The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy. Neither can language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems, the integration of circuits, computation, categorizations, results tabulation, the drawing and discussion of conclusions. The prevailing Kuhnian paradigm rut of philosophic physicalism is obstructing scientific progress, biology in particular. There is more to life than chemistry. All known life is cybernetic. Control is choice-contingent and formal, not physicodynamic.

    “Nonphysical formalism not only describes, but preceded physicality and the Big Bang
    Formalism prescribed, organized and continues to govern physicodynamics.”

    How we could create life – The key to existence will be found not in primordial sludge, but in the nanotechnology of the living cell – Paul Davies – 11 December 2002
    Excerpt: Instead, the living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer – an information processing and replicating system of astonishing complexity. DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff – hardware – but as information, or software. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.

    Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer – video – (Notes in description)

    “One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears… unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.”
    —C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry (aka the Argument from Reason)

    Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012
    Excerpt: By their (Materialist’s) own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.

    Mind and Cosmos – Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False – Thomas Nagel
    Excerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history.

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time ….
    Interviewer:… Come again(?) …
    Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.

    Dr. Eben Alexander Says It’s Time for Brain Science to Graduate From Kindergarten – 10/24/2013
    Excerpt: As long as scientists hold onto that simplistic (materialistic) thinking they are going to be mired down to never, ever explain consciousness or the enigmas of quantum mechanics. But there are a lot of scientists out there who do get it,,,
    The pure scientific materialist model that I worshiped for so many years has absolutely nothing to offer up in terms of explaining how consciousness might emerge from the physical brain.,,,
    consciousness is a far deeper, more profound mystery than “kindergarten level” scientific materialism offers up. Now that’s why I include in my book the hard problem of consciousness and the enigma of quantum mechanics.,,,
    It’s time for brain science, mind science, physics, cosmology, to move from kindergarten up into first grade and realize we will never truly understand consciousness with that simplistic materialist mindset.
    Of note: Dr. Alexander is working on a new book he says will unpack the science behind his recently adopted theories on brain, consciousness, and spirituality.

    Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett’s Inequality)

  2. 2
    Robert Byers says:

    When scientific conclusions are uniquely fought over in the media, school boards, courts then there is something really special about this subject.
    Could it be that evolution is a attack on the bible, God, America, Canada, and mankind??
    Could it be that evolution always was used to tell and teach the masses that a new world order should replace the old one?
    Could it be just about this?
    Not weighing the evidence on origin subjects!

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Around the 13:20 minute mark of the following video Pastor Joe Boot comments on the self-defeating nature of the atheistic worldview in regards to absolute truth:

    Defending the Christian Faith – Pastor Joe Boot – video

    “If you have no God, then you have no design plan for the universe. You have no prexisting structure to the universe.,, As the ancient Greeks held, like Democritus and others, the universe is flux. It’s just matter in motion. Now on that basis all you are confronted with is innumerable brute facts that are unrelated pieces of data. They have no meaningful connection to each other because there is no overall structure. There’s no design plan. It’s like my kids do ‘join the dots’ puzzles. It’s just dots, but when you join the dots there is a structure, and a picture emerges. Well, the atheists is without that (final picture). There is no preestablished pattern (to connect the facts given atheism).”
    Pastor Joe Boot

    The scientist in the following video, who works within the field of Quantum Mechanics, scientifically confirms Pastor Joe Boots intuition and shows how conservation of energy in the universe requires quantum non-locality to be true in order for the universe to have coherence as a whole.

    Is Richard Dawkins proving the existence of God after all? – Antoine Suarez – video

    Moreover, as much as they try to deny it to the contrary, even atheists themselves cannot rid themselves of ‘design thinking’:

    Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? – October 17, 2012
    Excerpt: “Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find.” The article describes a test by Boston University’s psychology department, in which researchers found that “despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose” ,,,
    Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation.

    The Great Debate: Does God Exist? – Justin Holcomb – audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site
    Excerpt: The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,,

    Dr. Stephen Meyer brief overview of the Christian History of Science – video

    Founders of Modern Science Who Believe in GOD – Tihomir Dimitrov – (pg. 222)

    50 Nobel Laureates and other great scientists who believed in God by Tihomir Dimitrov

    Quote, Verse, and Music:
    <blockquote cite="
    ‘O God, I am thinking your thoughts after you!’
    Johann Kepler, after discovering the laws of planetary motion:

    Job 12:13
    "To God belong wisdom and power; counsel and understanding are his.

    O Holy night by Celtic Woman
    </blockquote cite="

  4. 4
    tjguy says:

    Everyone has a bias!

    Facts don’t interpret themselves.

    Some conclusions are obvious, but many are filtered through the lens of our worldview and affected by our bias.

  5. 5
    Barb says:

    In the magazine American Laboratory a biochemist wrote this about his children’s schooling: “The child is not presented with evolution as a theory. Subtle statements are made in science texts as early as the second grade (based on my reading of my children’s textbooks). Evolution is presented as reality, not as a concept that can be questioned. The authority of the educational system then compels belief.” Regarding evolutionary teaching in higher grades, he said: “A student is not permitted to hold personal beliefs or to state them: if the student does so, he or she is subjected to ridicule and criticism by the instructor. Often the student risks academic loss because his or her views are not ‘correct’ and the grade is lowered.”

    Evolutionary views permeate not only the schools but all areas of science and other fields such as history and philosophy. Books, magazine articles, motion pictures and television programs treat it as an established fact. Often we hear or read phrases such as, ‘When man evolved from the lower animals,’ or, ‘Millions of years ago, when life evolved in the oceans.’ Thus, people are conditioned to accept evolution as a fact, and contrary evidence passes unnoticed.

    When leading educators and scientists assert that evolution is a fact, and imply that only the ignorant refuse to believe it, how many laymen are going to contradict them? This weight of authority that is brought to bear on evolution’s behalf is a major reason for its acceptance by large numbers of people.

  6. 6
    gpuccio says:


    I think you are absolutely right. I have expressed often the idea that conformism is the main support of neo darwinism, and in general of scientism.

    One frequent objection that I have received, while discussing here, is that my beliefs are not shared by the many. That is something I am really proud of. Maybe I am a little cynical, but my faith in human nature is not so overwhelming that I can believe, even for a moment, that consensus is a clue to truth.

    That’s why I remain happy of being a minority guy 🙂

  7. 7
    Mapou says:

    All Darwinists are totalitarians by nature. Forced indoctrination is their favorite method of spreading their stupid religion. How they get away with it in a democracy is an enduring mystery.

Leave a Reply