Review of Darwin’s Doubt slams ID theorists for not publishing in Darwinist-run journals

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 6, 2018

Books of interest, Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Peer review}

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

From Daniel Muth at Living Church, reviewing Steve Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt:

I am fairly certain that there are thoughtful and potentially influential intellectual movements that have been subjected to more shameful and inexcusable misrepresentation and ill treatment than Intelligent Design (ID), but the list is not long (Roman Catholic teaching on artificial birth control comes to mind). To be fair, ID theorists have invited critique in no small part by tending to hold theirs out as a valid area of scientific research while mainly publishing popular books rather than peer-reviewed articles. If their intention was not to be lumped in with creationists, it has not worked.

From the disastrous Dover School Board lawsuit to the propaganda screeds of the New Atheists, ID has managed in a short time to fix itself in the popular consciousness as little but another movement of bellicose anti-scientific crackpots. That is a shame, because the theorists are generally quite thoughtful and reputably credentialed. The stuff they have written is informative, challenging, and worthwhile. More.

Muth appears to believe the incorrect information I (O’Leary for News) know for a fact that they were not. They thought the Dover school board’s decision, which resulted in the case, was appalling but also felt they ought to get involved to try to minimize the damage. The myth he refers to persists because people often don’t actually want to know what happened. If they do, they can’t really say the things they feel burdened to say and can gain approval for saying.

As for “mainly publishing popular books rather than peer-reviewed articles,” surely Muth is not so naive as to imagine that Darwinist-run journals would publish good ID research?

Just recently, Gunter Bechly, the gifted scientist who was disappeared from Wikipedia after he turned out to be an ID supporter described a beautiful dragonfly fossil with ID implications, which he had spent some time studying, in a peer-reviewed ID journal, BIO-Complexity.

He was promptly slammed for not publishing it in a Darwinist-run journal—as if Darwinists would have accepted it. And as if they would allow a discussion of the way it upsets neat Darwinian categories—other than a discussion entirely controlled by themselves which closes with reassurances that all is well.

But then that is probably what Living Church readers want: reassurances that a good Christian just accepts whatever mainstream science says, whatever it is. Makes life easier.

Here’s a thought: When a “thoughtful and potentially influential intellectual” movement is “subjected to more shameful and inexcusable misrepresentation and ill treatment,” it is usually due to intellectual corruption in the establishment. Again, one hesitates to believe that Muth is too naive to know that, but is there a better explanation? If so, what?

See also: Evolution News slams “sloppy” IV book by BioLogos advisor

and

Fossil dragonfly named in Mike Behe’s honor has implications for ID

Note: In the combox below, bornagain77 offers examples of what happens when ID theorists or sympathizers try to publish in Darwin-sympathetic journals. I he taken the liberty of posting it here to the OP. Essentially, the evidence the ID theorists offer against Darwinism proves that they are outsiders. Insiders circle the wagons to protect a theory (Darwinism) that has become largely meaningless where it is not metaphysical. It has become so vague as to be largely unfalsifiable. And they like it that way. And they plan to keep evolution studies that way. nyway, here are some stories to ponder in that light:

—

At post 9 Allan Keith states this in regards to Darwinian journals not allowing ID friendly papers:

I often here this claim but I have never seen any concrete examples. It would be of great interest to post a rejected paper here along with the reviewers comments and reason for rejection.

Well, here are a few examples of Darwinists publicly suppressing dissent from their views:

Richard Sternberg

Richard Sternberg – Smithsonian Controversy
In 2004, in my capacity as editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, I authorized “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” by Dr. Stephen Meyer to be published in the journal after passing peer-review. Because Dr. Meyer’s article presented scientific evidence for intelligent design in biology, I faced retaliation, defamation, harassment, and a hostile work environment at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History that was designed to force me out as a Research Associate there. These actions were taken by federal government employees acting in concert with an outside advocacy group, the National Center for Science Education. Efforts were also made to get me fired from my job as a staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Subsequently, there were two federal investigations of my mistreatment, one by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel in 2005 , and the other by subcommittee staff of the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform in 2006. Both investigations unearthed clear evidence that my rights had been repeatedly violated. Because there has been so much misinformation spread about what actually happened to me, I have decided to make available the relevant documents here for those who would like to know the truth.
http://www.richardsternberg.com/smithsonian.php

Douglas Axe:

Douglas Axe, director of the Biologic Institute in Seattle, knows this first-hand. As a post-doctoral researcher at the prestigious Medical Research Council Centre in Cambridge in 2002, he was experimenting on protein structures when his superiors discovered that his research was being funded in part by an intelligent design organization. The science was solid – he later published his findings in a prestigious journal – but his association with intelligent design was considered unacceptable. He was asked to leave.
http://www.jewishpress.com/ind…..016/07/27/

Granville Sewell

ENV readers will recall that last year, University of Texas El Paso mathematics professor Granville Sewell was disallowed from publishing an article in Applied Mathematics Letters (AML) simply because it was (indirectly) critical of Darwinian evolution.
https://evolutionnews.org/2012/04/double_censorsh/

Guillermo Gonzalez

As we amply documented at the time, the real reasons Gonzalez did not get tenure at ISU were simple: discrimination and intolerance. Despite an exemplary record as a scientist, Gonzalez was rejected by ISU because of his support for intelligent design.
https://evolutionnews.org/2013/07/setting_the_rec/

Günter Bechly

Wikipedia Erases Paleontologist Günter Bechly
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/10/wikipedia-erases-paleontologist-gunter-bechly/

William Dembski and Robert Marks:

Academic Freedom Expelled from Baylor University
https://evolutionnews.org/2007/09/academic_freedom_expelled_from/

Michael Behe

ID theorist Mike Behe was refused a response in Microbe – September 22, 2013
https://uncommondescent.com…..n-microbe/

So, Michael Behe Was Right After All; What Will the Critics Say Now? – Casey Luskin July 16, 2014
Excerpt: Will Ken Miller, Jerry Coyne, Paul Gross, Nick Matzke, Sean Carroll, Richard Dawkins, and PZ Myers now Apologize to Michael Behe? (for their ad hominem attacks),,,
Is an apology from Behe’s critics then forthcoming? In a world where debates were conducted with the goal of discovering truth rather (than) scoring points, it sure ought to be. Unfortunately, I’m not sure we live in that world.
What we’ll probably get is nothing more than PZ Myers’s concession, offered in the context of the rant quoted above,,,
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2…..87901.html

Stephen Meyer

The Letter that Science Refused to Publish – November 8, 2013
Excerpt: Stephen Meyer sought the opportunity to reply, in the pages of Science, to UC Berkeley paleontologist Charles Marshall, who reviewed Darwin’s Doubt in the same publication. Without explanation, the editors refused to publish the letter. We offer it for your interest.
See more at:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2…..78871.html

The attempted censorship of the book “Biological Information: New Perspectives”

Censorship Loses: Never Forget the Story of Biological Information: New Perspectives
Casey Luskin – August 20, 2013
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2…..75541.html

James Tour and anyone he knew who signed the “Dissent from Darwinism” list

“In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (Dissent from Darwinism list)(I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys… ”
Professor James M. Tour – one of the ten most cited chemists in the world
https://uncommondescent.com…..evolution/

If silencing by intimidation, or censorship, does not work, Darwinists simply ‘EXPEL’ anyone who disagrees with them:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

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
http://www.amazon.com/Slaughte…..0981873405

Origins – Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman – 2011 – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk

Slaughter of the Dissidents – Dr. Jerry Bergman – June 2013 – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v5nAYU2GD0

Here are some of the peer reviewed papers supporting ID that have been published in spite of the systematic bias against ID:

BIBLIOGRAPHIC AND ANNOTATED LIST OF PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN – UPDATED – July 2017
http://www.discovery.org/scrip…..8;id=10141

Evolutionary Informatics Lab – Main Publications
http://evoinfo.org/publications/

Bio-Complexity Publication Archive
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/…..ue/archive

Biological Information – New Perspectives – Proceedings of the Symposium – published online May 2013
http://www.worldscientific.com…..8818#t=toc

Dr. David L. Abel (The Gene Emergence Project) – list of published papers
http://lifeorigin.academia.edu/DrDavidLAbel/Papers

Of related note:

But Darwinism is universally accepted among “real” scientists! – December 30, 2016
Excerpt: A friend started making a list of books that doubt all or most of modern Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, the slightly elastic Extended Synthesis, and came up with a three-tiered, hardly exhaustive, shelf:
St. George Mivart, On the Genesis of Species (1871)
Charles Hodge, What Is Darwinism (1874)
Samuel Butler, Evolution, Old and New (1879)
Henri Bergson, Creative Evolution (1907/tr. 1911)
Svante Arrhenius Worlds in the Making (1908)
Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution (1940)
Jacques Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage (1941)
Lecomte du Nouy, Human Destiny (1947)
Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (1959)
Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (Delta, 1971)
Pierre Paul Grassé: “L´evolution du vivant” (1973)
Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (Harper, 1983)
L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1984)
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985)
Soren Lovtrup Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987)
Rupert Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past: The Memory of Nature (1988)
R. F. Baum, Doctors of Modernity: Darwin, Marx & Freud (1988)
Robert Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, MIT (1991)
Dorothy Kurth Boberg, Evolution and Reason – Beyond Darwin (1993)
Remy Chauvin: “Le darwinism où le fin d´un mythe” (1997)
Lynn Margulis, Symbiotic Life: A New Look at Evolution (1998)
Stuart Newman and Gerd Muller (eds.), Origination of Organismal Form” (2002)
David Stove, Darwinian Fairytales (2006)
Etienne Gilson, From Aristotle to Darwin & Back Again : A Journey in Final Causality, Species and Evolution (2009)
Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, What Darwin God Wrong (2010)
Gerd Muller and Massimo Pigliucci, Evolution: the Extended Synthesis” (2010)
George McGhee, Convergent Evolution: Limited Forms Most Beautiful, MIT (2011)
Thomas Nagel, Mind & Cosmos (2012)
A Lima-de-Faria, Evolution without Selection: Form and Function by Autoevolution (2013)
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (2015 [updated from 1985])
Suzan Mazur’s:
The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry (2009)
Paradigm Shifters (2015) and
Public Evolution Summit (2016).
https://uncommondescent.com…..cientists/

Even though neo-Darwinists still like to complain that Intelligent Design advocates don’t have that many published peer-reviewed papers, it turns out that if one looks at the peer-reviewed papers coming from neo-Darwinists themselves, the evidence will many times directly, and overwhelmingly, support the Intelligent Design position (such as ENCODE research), while their explanation for the evidence is found to be, many times, highly contrived, and twisted, just to support their presupposed philosophical conclusion of neo-Darwinism.

Darwinian ‘science’ in a nutshell:
Jonathan Wells on pop science boilerplate – April 20, 2015
Excerpt: Based on my reading of thousands of Peer-Reviewed Articles in the professional literature, I’ve distilled (the) template for writing scientific articles that deal with evolution:
1. (Presuppose that) Darwinian evolution is a fact.
2. We used [technique(s)] to study [feature(s)] in [name of species], and we unexpectedly found [results inconsistent with Darwinian evolution].
3. We propose [clever speculations], which might explain why the results appear to conflict with evolutionary theory.
4. We conclude that Darwinian evolution is a fact.
https://uncommondescent.com…..ilerplate/

Comments

Allan Keith, apparently you are familiar with the Darwinian technique/art of literature bluffing made famous by Nick Matzke and others. Instead of just literature bluffing and blustering with inaccessible journals, Perhaps you have actual experimental results, for all the readers here to see, showing, I don't know, perhaps Darwinian processes producing a single molecular machine?
“The argument that random variation and Darwinian gradualism may not be adequate to explain complex biological systems is hardly new […} in fact, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject — evolution — with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses works in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.” Prof. James Shapiro – “In the Details…What?” National Review, 19 September 1996, pp. 64. ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA in 2014 Franklin Harold admited: “we may still be missing some essential insight" Franklin Harold - 2014 http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/12/origin-of-life-research-has-failed-to.html Talking Back to Goliath: Some Advice for Students in the Evolutionary Biology Classroom - Paul Nelson - September 30, 2014 Excerpt: (if neo-Darwinism) is true, we should be able to find in the scientific literature the detailed explanations for the origin of complex structures and behaviors, rendered strictly in terms of random variation plus natural selection. Guess what? Those explanations aren't there; they don't exist. If anyone doubts this, he should try looking for himself. Choose any complex structure or behavior, and look in the biological literature for the step-by-step causal account where the origin of that structure (that is, its coming-to-be where it did not exist before) is explained via random variation and natural selection. You'll be looking a long time. The explanations just aren't there, and this fact is well known to evolutionary biologists who have become disenchanted with received neo-Darwinian theory. When proponents of the received theory, such as Richard Dawkins, face the task of making random variation and natural selection work, they resort to fictional entities like Dawkins's "biomorphs" -- see Chapter 3 of The Blind Watchmaker (1986) -- or flawed analogies such as the "methinks it is like a weasel" search algorithm scenario. No one would have to employ these toy stories, of course, if evidence were available showing the efficacy of random variation and selection to construct novel complexity. "Research on selection and adaptation," notes Mary Jane West-Eberhard, a disenchanted evolutionary theorist, "may tell us why a trait persisted and spread, but it will not tell us where a trait came from....This transformational aspect of evolutionary change has been oddly neglected in modern evolutionary biology" (2003, p. 197). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/talking_back_to_1090141.html Molecular Machines: - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: JME is a journal that was begun specifically to deal with the topic of how evolution occurs on the molecular level. It has high scientific standards, and is edited by prominent figures in the field.,,, In the past ten years JME has published 886 papers. Of these, 95 discussed the chemical synthesis of molecules thought to be necessary for the origin of life, 44 proposed mathematical models to improve sequence analysis, 20 concerned the evolutionary implications of current structures, and 719 were analyses of protein or polynucleotide sequences. There were zero papers discussing detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures. This is not a peculiarity of JME. No papers are to be found that discuss detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Nature, Science, the Journal of Molecular Biology or, to my knowledge, any journal whatsoever. http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm “The response I have received from repeating Behe's claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.” David Ray Griffin - retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology Calling Nick Matzke's literature bluff on molecular machines - DonaldM UD blogger - April 2013 Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along. Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard. Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past. https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-453291
Also of note, Dr. James Tour, a top ten rated synthetic chemist in the world, who, in my honest opinion, currently builds the most sophisticated man-made molecular machines in the world, will buy lunch for anyone who can explain to him exactly how Darwinian evolution works:
Does Science Make Faith Obsolete? James Tour - video - March 9, 2015 (talk given February 18, 2015 - 30:20 minute mark - he publicly asks Darwinists to explain macro-evolution to him) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CB3ZmLatcUI#t=1827
After commenting on the failure of ANY atheist to ever respond to his request for lunch for 8 or 10 years in order to explain how Darwinian processes can produce molecular machines, i.e. 'macro-evolution, Dr Tour comments:
“One graduate student from Berkeley, (i.e. Nick Matzke), said that he would come if he had a ticket so somebody said “I’ll buy you the ticket”, but then he said, “Well, I’m not going to go because Tour doesn’t want it recorded.” The reason I didn’t want it recorded is because I did not want one-ups-man-ship. I said ‘I’ll buy you lunch, just explain it to me’. And then the guy said he would send me some articles on evolution of a complex system from a molecular perspective and I am still waiting. That’s over one year ago he was suppose to send them to me. They don’t exist.” – James Tour – 35:22 minute mark of the video https://youtu.be/CB3ZmLatcUI?t=2122
bornagain77_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

LateMarch @ 49 - Thank you. I wasn't aware of that parable (it doesn't seem particularly Biblical, and in the UK "two by four" doesn't have any particular cultural significance, so I'm afraid that was lost on me. Now can you explain the stake through the heart metaphor. It seems to refer to killing people, but apparently not.Bob O'H_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

BA77,
Allan Keith, One of the primary failings of Darwinian Theory is its failure to be experimentally criticized (i.e. testability).
So, you have read all of the research papers in here?
https://www.springer.com/life+sciences/evolutionary+%26+developmental+biology/journal/10914 And here? https://www.springer.com/life+sciences/evolutionary+%26+developmental+biology/journal/427 And here? https://www.springer.com/life+sciences/ecology/journal/13127 And here? https://www.springer.com/life+sciences/evolutionary+%26+developmental+biology/journal/239 And here? https://www.springer.com/life+sciences/plant+sciences/journal/606 And here? https://www.springer.com/life+sciences/animal+sciences/journal/12711 And here? https://www.springer.com/life+sciences/journal/11084
And amongst these thousands of papers that you have read (and these are only the Springer journals), you are claiming that none of them have tested various aspects of evolutionary theory? Forgive me if I find this hard to believe. Especially considering the hundreds of papers that News posts on this web site that are critical of various aspects of evolutionary theory.Allan Keith_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

Allan Keith, One of the primary failings of Darwinian Theory is its failure to be experimentally criticized (i.e. testability). Other theories in science, such as Quantum Theory and General Relativity, (and even Intelligent Design), have become robust theories of science precisely from their ability to withstand repeated testing and/or criticism of their claims. Darwinism simply offers no such criteria to experimentally criticize and/or test against.
“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003
That Darwinists would be the ones to complain about criticism of their theory, when other theories in science thrive on surviving experimental criticism and/or testing, is rich indeed.
"Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical. The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin's account of evolution is hardly considered. ... The methodological skepticism that characterizes most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic." Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/second_thoughts098141.html
bornagain77_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Allan:
Followed by a criticism of evolution.
And that part was followed by support for ID. BTW evolutionism- we argue against evolutionism, ie evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. ID is not anti-evolution.ET_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

Allan:
Then you obviously did not see the flaw in your response to Bob O’H.
What flaw? Science mandates all design inferences eliminate non-telic processes. So even if Darwin never posited anything about natural selection such a scenario would have to be invented, considered and then eliminated to satisfy that mandate. Thankfully we already have 150+ years of evolutionary failures at fulfilling Darwin's main concept of natural selection being able to produce the appearance of design. In effect evolutionists have eliminated their position as a viable alternative to ID. ba77 also provided support for ID.ET_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

BA77,
Are you seriously trying to maintain that Darwinian evolution should be immune from criticism???
No.Allan Keith_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

ET,
You mean your quote-mine of 77? response? Yes, I see the flaw in that.
I'm not sure that you understand what a quote mine is. A quote mine is quoting something out of context to infer a different meaning. Let's re-cap. Bob O'H said,
Or perhaps that’s ID’s biggest failing – it doesn’t have any theory of its own, so it just consists of criticising other theories.
BA77 responded to this with,
Darwinian evolution is not a science. It is a pseudoscience.
Followed by a criticism of evolution. To summarize, he responded to the claim that ID consists of criticizing other theories by criticizing other theories.Allan Keith_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Allan Keith, please do tell me the "flaw" in Intelligent Design being found to be a testable/falsifiable science and Darwinian evolution being found to be a unfalsifiable pseudoscience.
Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ
Are you seriously trying to maintain that Darwinian evolution should be immune from criticism??? Please do tell,,, This will be interesting. I'll go get popcorn and a coke.bornagain77_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

Bob (and weave), as to the "undead" I almost forgot this gem of a quote from Dennett:
“(Daniel) Dennett concludes, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.” J.W. SCHOOLER & C.A. SCHREIBER - Experience, Meta-consciousness, and the Paradox of Introspection - 2004 https://www.scribd.com/document/183053947/Experience-Meta-consciousness-and-the-Paradox-of-Introspection
And there you have it folks, absolute proof that when you deny the reality of your own immaterial mind you have in fact lost your mind!bornagain77_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

BA77,
Allan Keith, unlike you and other Darwinists, I provided proof for my claim that Darwinian evolution is a unfalsifiable pseudoscience and for Intelligent Design being a testable, potentially falsifiable, science.
Then you obviously did not see the flaw in your response to Bob O'H.Allan Keith_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

Allan Keith, unlike you and other Darwinists, I provided proof for my claim that Darwinian evolution is a unfalsifiable pseudoscience and for Intelligent Design being a testable, potentially falsifiable, science. Only someone with an personal bias and prior agenda would so blatantly ignore that huge "falsifiable" elephant in the room that I pointed out. But please do go on. I'm certain the unbiased readers can see just how disingenuous Darwinists really are as to the evidence in hand.bornagain77_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

Allan:
Am I the only one who sees the flaw in BA77’s response?
You mean your quote-mine of 77' response? Yes, I see the flaw in thatET_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

"PaV made no mention of the undead," No that would be Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Alex Rosenberg, Brian Farrell, Paul Feyerabend, Richard Rorty, Daniel Dennett, Francis Crick, Steven Pinker, Matthew Lieberman, and Thomas Nagel, who, among other leading atheists, made mention of atheists being "undead" neuronal illusions if Darwinian evolution were actually true! :)
Ross Douthat Is On Another Erroneous Rampage Against Secularism – Jerry Coyne – December 26, 2013 Excerpt: “many (but not all) of us accept the notion that our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” Jerry Coyne – Professor of Evolutionary Biology – Atheist https://newrepublic.com/article/116047/ross-douthat-wrong-about-secularism-and-ethics At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: “consciousness is an illusion” A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s “There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.” – A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10 The Consciousness Deniers – Galen Strawson – March 13, 2018 Excerpt: What is the silliest claim ever made? The competition is fierce, but I think the answer is easy. Some people have denied the existence of consciousness: conscious experience, the subjective character of experience, the “what-it-is-like” of experience.,,, Who are the Deniers?,,, Few have been fully explicit in their denial, but among those who have been, we find Brian Farrell, Paul Feyerabend, Richard Rorty, and the generally admirable Daniel Dennett.,,, http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/ “that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” Francis Crick – “The Astonishing Hypothesis” 1994 The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness By Steven Pinker - Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there's an executive "I" that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. http://www.academia.edu/2794859/The_Brain_The_Mystery_of_Consciousness “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.” Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor "I have argued patiently against the prevailing form of naturalism, a reductive materialism that purports to capture life and mind through its neo-Darwinian extension." "..., I find this view antecedently unbelievable---a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense". Thomas Nagel - "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" - pg.128
bornagain77_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Bob O: Maybe you just don't know the parable. Copied from the web.
A man sold a mule to a farmer and promised that as long as the farmer was nice and polite to the mule, the animal would perform any task without hesitation. For months the farmer politely tried to get the mule to work but the stubborn animal wouldn’t do a thing. Finally, fed up, the farmer called the man who sold him the animal and complained that no matter how polite he was he got no cooperation. The man told him he’d come over to help. The man showed up at the farm and asked the farmer what he wanted the mule to do. The farmer said he wanted the mule to plow his field. As the farmer watched, the salesman walked up to the mule hit him on the head with a two-by-four — hard. He then calmly and politely asked the mule to please plow the farmer’s field. The mule went right to work. Shocked, the farmer exclaimed to the salesman that he told him to be nice and polite to the mule to get him to do anything, yet he had hit him on the head with a chuck of wood. The salesman replied that he was polite, but he first had to get the mule’s attention.
So dense that it requires a 2X4 to the head to get your attention....metaphor.Latemarch_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H,
Or perhaps that’s ID’s biggest failing – it doesn’t have any theory of its own, so it just consists of criticising other theories. BA77 responds,
Darwinian evolution is not a science. It is a pseudoscience.
Am I the only one who sees the flaw in BA77's response? :)
Allan Keith_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

kf - PaV made no mention of the undead, so I'm afraid that doesn't help. Unless the undead are a continuation of the metaphor, but then that still doesn't help me understand what the metaphor is.Bob O'H_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

BO'H, see number 5 on the un-dead. KFkairosfocus_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

PaV @ 43 - yes, I know what a metaphor is. But I can't work out where the metaphor is @ 4, still less what the metaphorical meaning is. Can you explain it to me?Bob O'H_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

B O'H:
perhaps that’s ID’s biggest failing – it doesn’t have any theory of its own, so it just consists of criticising other theories
After all these years it is astonishing that it is still so difficult for objectors to acknowledge that simply being able to credibly identify design as a key causal factor due to its observable characteristic traces is highly significant in this generation's intellectual climate. Indeed, revolutionary. KFkairosfocus_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H: From Merriam Webster:
"You're a peach!" We've all heard the expression, and it's a good example of what we call metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase denoting one kind of object or action is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them: the person being addressed in "you're a peach" is being equated with a peach, with the suggestion being that the person is pleasing or delightful in the way that a peach is pleasing and delightful. A metaphor is an implied comparison, as in "the silk of the singer's voice," in contrast to the explicit comparison of the simile, which uses like or as, as in "a voice smooth like silk."
PaV_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

TWSYF @ 7:
To be honest, I don’t really like a/mats and could care less what happens to them.
Jesus died even for murderers. Christianity is a hard road.
Blowhard a/mat haters like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Bill Maher, etc. are my enemies… not my friends.
They are arguably among the Pharisees (Sadducees?) of our day, and we see Jesus verbally slapping them in the face on numerous occasions. That being said, I agree with Nietzsche on a few things, including his pointer on fighting with monsters.LocalMinimum_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H: perhaps that’s ID’s biggest failing – it doesn’t have any theory of its own, so it just consists of criticising other theories. Maybe Darwinists are an anomaly, but I've always understood that real scientists try to falsify their own theories. Darwinist, if they are real scientists with a real theory, or set of theories, should welcome ID theorists with open arms.mike1962_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H is just confused or scientifically illiterate. There isn't a scientific theory of evolution. There aren't any testable hypotheses borne from the proposed mechanisms. It is a total non-starter. And that means ID does NOT criticize any theories. ALL design centric venues are mandated to eliminate other causes first. Newton's four rules of scientific reasoning tell us why that is. Is there a theory of archaeology? Is forensic science a theory? But I digress. ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92): 1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. There you have it- to falsify Intelligent Design all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection can produce irreducibly complex biological systems. The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” That is the positive case. That little bit is still by far more than evolutionism has. Focus on your lame position, Bob. Lead by example or shut up.ET_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Darwinian evolution is not a science. It is a pseudoscience. Lack of a rigorous falsification criteria is the precise reason why Darwinian evolution is more properly classified as a unfalsifiable pseudoscience rather than a testable science.
Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ
The primary reason why Darwinian evolution lacks any of the rigor that is usually associated with the hard sciences is because Darwinian evolution has no mathematical model to test against. As Dr. Robert Marks states “Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. ,,, there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”
“There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” – Robert J. Marks II – Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – June 12, 2017 https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/
And the primary reason why nobody has ever been able to build a realistic mathematical model for Darwinian evolution to test against is simply because there is no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for mathematicians and physicists to ever build a realistic mathematical model upon:,,, ,,, And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such an embarrassing disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, etc..) (and can even appeal to conservation of Quantum information),,, in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science. And since Intelligent Design is mathematically based on the ‘law of conservation of information’, that makes Intelligent Design very much testable and potentially falsifiable, and thus makes Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinism, a rigorous science instead of a unfalsifiable pseudoscience.
The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.” If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness
In fact there is currently up to a 5 million dollar prize being offered for the first person that can “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”
The Origin of Information: How to Solve It – Perry Marshall Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community: “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer. A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 5 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research. http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/
Verse:
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
Of supplemental note as to the 'mechanism' of Design.,,, Design DOES HAVE a viable mechanism with Agent Causality! ID, in their appeal to Agency (which is something each of us directly experience first hand), IS NOT appealing to some grossly inadequate or unknown mechanism as atheists are currently doing within neo-Darwinian theory:
A Professor's Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist - University of Wyoming - J. Budziszewski Excerpt page12: "There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition. If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don't know. "But there is gravity," you say. No, "gravity" is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. "But there are laws of gravity," you say. No, the "laws" are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term "laws"; they prefer "lawlike regularities." To call the equations of gravity "laws" and speak of the apple as "obeying" them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the "laws" of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more. The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn't trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn't have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place." http://www.undergroundthomist.org/sites/default/files/WhyIAmNotAnAtheist.pdf Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4
bornagain77_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

OldAndrew -
First I’ll beat the dead horse. ID is not a theory of how anything was designed. Understanding this requires a child’s level of reading comprehension.
Indeed, isn't that Paul Nelson's point? It's ID's biggest failing.
Sorry, you can’t be a restaurant critic and eat from a dumpster.
Or perhaps that's ID's biggest failing - it doesn't have any theory of its own, so it just consists of criticising other theories. I would genuinely like to see ID develop its own theory - even if I thought it was wrong, I think it would be fascinating to see how it could develop. The nearest you've come to is front-loading, but that doesn't seem to have gone anywhere.Bob O'H_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

Seversky:

“Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a real problem.”
It still is.
This is a jaw-dropping statement. Or it would be if it wasn't so common. First I'll beat the dead horse. ID is not a theory of how anything was designed. Understanding this requires a child's level of reading comprehension. Evolution, on the other hand, is supposedly a theory of "how", and yet carefully skates above offering specifics of how anything evolved. It cloaks itself in science while substituting vague narratives like "it acquired," "it evolved," and "was adapted." The standards are so relaxed that there are none. Without exception any research which claims to explain evolution in any detail simply explain the differences and tack on the detail-starved narrative that those differences arose by some unobserved mechanism of change. Mainstream science has finally gone to the extreme of making up preposterous, unverifiable speculations about physics to support anything that might exclude design. Sorry, you can't be a restaurant critic and eat from a dumpster.OldAndrew_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

BA, 26 (attn, AK et al), Let's clip his first linked, regarding Nick Matzke:
This is a crucial point: How many times have we heard ID critics (like Matzke) say things like “ID shouldn’t be taken seriously because it doesn’t present research at scientific conferences, or publish scientific papers.” But then what happens when us ID proponents do exactly what they say we should do: We present research papers at a scientific conference at a top research university (Cornell) and then seek to have it published by a world-class scientific publisher (Springer)? Does Matzke applaud us for doing what he demanded? No. ID-critics like Matzke work hard to prevent its publication. This is sheer hypocrisy. But Matzke and his cohorts never had any intention of evaluating ID in a serious way, under any circumstances. This episode is a reminder that ID’s most vehement critics were never interested in giving ID a fair hearing. Their purpose is, at any cost, to prevent ID from being recognized by anyone as possessing any scientific merit whatsoever. For them, this is not a scientific debate at all. It’s an ideological power struggle — one that, moreover, tells you something important about the would-be censors. Do people who are confident they are right normally behave like this? No, they don’t. People who are confident welcome challenges as opportunities to demonstrate the merit of their case and advance its standing in public opinion. Never forget the origins of Biological Information: New Perspectives. It is a story that reveals exactly what the Darwin lobby is about: its main strategy is viewpoint suppression, but note too the inner weakness and doubt that all its bluster tries to conceal.
Springer is a major scientific publisher. Note the comment from article 1 in the series, citing a blurb:
World Scientific Publishing has just released the proceedings of a symposium held in the spring of 2011, where a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to critically re-examine neo-Darwinian theory. This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics.
Note, what that 1st article goes on to say:
The volume Biological Information: New Perspectives is an interdisciplinary volume. For the most part, it comprises papers presented at the aforementioned Cornell conference. The papers are divided into four main sections. The first is on information theory and biology, and was edited by Robert J. Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University. The second, on biological information and genetic theory, was edited by John C. Sanford, Courtesy Professor in the Department of Horticulture at Cornell, and notoriously the primary inventor of the gene gun. Sanford hosted the conference; were it not for his efforts and contributions, the conference probably would not have taken place, and the volume wouldn’t have been published. The third section is on theoretical molecular biology, edited by Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University. The final section, on biological information and self-organizational complexity theory, was edited by Bruce L. Gordon, Associate Professor in History and Philosophy of Science at Houston Baptist University. The book contains contributions from some prominent proponents of intelligent design, such as Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, and others. However, while some of the papers do expressly advocate intelligent design, it isn’t entirely, or even mostly, about ID. In fact some of the contributors are explicitly anti-ID. For example, the fourth main section of the book, “Biological Information and Self-Organizational Complexity Theory,” contains contributions by scientists who are critical of Darwinism but believe the solution to the problem of origins is a materialistic form of evolution along the lines of self-organization
Science works on the celebrity system, and behind the scenes suppression therefore effects a lock-out. We need to instead actually look at the merits. Again, what is the only observed known effective cause of functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information (FSCO/I)? Ans: intelligently directed configuration, backed up by a trillion observed cases and the needle in haystack config space search challenge. Observe how that will be side-stepped and/or dismissed and how what has never been seen to create FSCO/I and has no credible answer to search challenge will be put in its place. Then, observe the ideologies at work. KFkairosfocus_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

Folks, on the topical issue, I think it is clear that our intellectual culture has become increasingly morally and consequently intellectually bankrupt as radical secularism and ideological activism more and more come to rule the roost. In the case of ID, which is not a specifically Christian but rather a significant scientific movement on cosmological as well as world of life fronts, the prejudice, slander and go with the tide patterns are clear. Despite that, significant research has been done and has been published on both fronts. More than enough to make the point, for those who have enough intellectual integrity left to pay attention -- and yes, at this point, that is a material issue. (Our minds and intellectual life are morally governed by duties to truth, right, reasonableness, sound reasoning, fair-mindedness and much more; if you think you can play with ideologies that utterly corrupt such governance without being tainted, think again.) And, if you think researchers working in the secularist ideological materialist frame of thought with similar background and publication records would have been treated as scientists and thinkers supportive of ID have been, there is fine Caribbean beach front property in Montana for sale at excellent prices. KFkairosfocus_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT}

Democrats Boo God (at Democratic National Convention)! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3CRsnMf1xQ The Democrats’ God Gap By DAVID FRENCH - May 2, 2018 Excerpt: There’s a big “God gap” between Republicans and Democrats — 70 percent of Republicans believe in the God of the Bible compared with 45 percent of Democrats — but there’s an even larger God gap within the Democratic party. Only 32 percent of white Democrats believe in the God of the Bible, compared with 61 percent of nonwhite Democrats — an almost 30-point gap: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/democrats-god-religion-gap/bornagain77_{May 7, 2018
May
05
May
7
07
2018
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply