Darwinism Intelligent Design News

Somebody gets it in the neck (again)

Spread the love

for saying Darwinism isn’t totally and completely true

The professor, Ned Bowden, was writing ian an official university publication,  Iowa Now, and 25 of his fellow faculty members took umbrage. They signed a collectively authored letter chastising him, reminding Dr. Bowden that Evolution Is a Fact — “we no longer debate the central principles of evolutionary theory as a scientific framework for understanding Earth’s diversity” — and chiding Iowa Now for publishing the piece and thereby doing “a disservice to the university.”

There are several points of interest here.

First, Bowden’s remark about the semi-truck is actually in the context of a very mild article, …

Note: By “evolution,” they do not mean change over time, they mean Darwinism. When they are trying to enforce it in the school system, they always mean Darwinism.

He probably never knew what hit him:

This hit was done by a bunch of useless profs your taxes pay for.

Question: How can there be science if we are not allowed to debate? Isn’t that just a way of protecting established interests?

18 Replies to “Somebody gets it in the neck (again)

  1. 1
    butifnot says:

    “we no longer debate the central principles of evolutionary theory as a scientific framework for understanding Earth’s diversity”

    Sounds like a cult – I imagine kind of a monotone voice.

  2. 2
    News says:

    The best definition of science is What if not?

    You could abbreviate it as a question mark.

    ?

  3. 3
    Upright BiPed says:

    “…in the best scientific tradition; rather, they have chosen to hold it as a truth beyond question, thereby enshrining it as mythology.”

    Robert Shapiro – Prof Emeritus Chemistry, New York University (1935-2011)

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Bowden’s comment

    “There are, of course, holes in the theory of evolution that are big enough to drive a semi-truck through,”

    Is actually an understatement. The hole is actually far wider than a semi-truck:

    “a very rough but conservative result is that if all the sequences that define a particular (protein) structure or fold-set where gathered into an area 1 square meter in area, the next island would be tens of millions of light years away.”
    Kirk Durston PhD. BioPhysics

  5. 5
    Upright BiPed says:

    You have to wonder about the organic mud materialist must sling to enforce their views. Take a look at this comment on Inside Higher Education defending the admonishment of Ned Bowden:

    Perhaps you can explain to us some of the “scientific” benefits of adopting a theory of intelligent design. While the the religious right masquerades faith-based scientific reasoning as merely an epistemological point, there are numerous problems with intelligent design at the experiential level, not least that it tends to essentialize difference that we know to be socially constructed (e.g. Black people are inferior to Whites because God made them that way; God placed human above all animals, so we have no ethical obligation to non-human beings). It is for this reason that this professor’s opinions have no place in a university publication.

    What an idiot. Moderate what?

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Is that actually written against Bowden? Actually the truth is that Christianity was integral to ending slavery, whilst Darwinism, well from the horses mouth:

    “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla”
    ? Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

  7. 7
    Brent says:

    “we no longer debate the central principles of evolutionary theory . . .

    This appears to be a factual statement.

  8. 8
    Brent says:

    Sorry for the flubbergubber above.

    “we no longer debate the central principles of evolutionary theory . . .”

    This appears to be a factual statement.

  9. 9
    Mapou says:

    Mediocre minds are always the first to join a lynch mob. The University of Iowa should fire all 25 of those jackasses, for their opposition to free speech alone. But we all know that is not going to happen.

  10. 10
    lifepsy says:

    They are terrified.

    Proponents of a real scientific theory would not wet their pants whenever someone publicly criticizes it.

  11. 11
    humbled says:

    A water tight evidence based theory should be able to stand up to scrutiny.

    If they are as confident in their theory as they claim, put it out there, let people attack and turn it inside out. If it’s any good it will stand on its own without the need for censorship etc.

  12. 12
    gpuccio says:

    Indeed, there are no holes, because there is no fabric.

    Trucks can come and go whenever they like, wherever they like.

  13. 13
    Axel says:

    That’s it, lifespsy: they are terrified.

    #12: ‘Indeed, there are no holes, because there is no fabric.

    Trucks can come and go whenever they like, wherever they like.’

    My first reaction, gpuccio, was that your statement, above, was very funny. Then I realised that, while the metaphors have nice satirical ring to them, the truth they express is wholly factual.

  14. 14
    Axel says:

    Here’s an interesting article on the so-called ‘conspiracy theorist’ – evidently implied by that other sorry excuse for an insult: the so-called, Expelled Syndrome peddled by ‘our friends’.

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/are.....g=politics

  15. 15
    Barb says:

    I always find it amusing that when evidence of “Expelled Syndrome” is found publicly, the Darwinian apologists (Alan Fox, Jerad, et al) find a small corner in which to hide.

    A good scientific theory stands up to criticism and experimentation. At least that’s what scientists have told me.

  16. 16
    Robert Byers says:

    Lets think about this!
    Are these peers saying Bowden should not be employed as a prof? How could he be wrong on this? He’s a prof? wE are told the scientists agree with evolution but when one doesn’t BANG its back to a vote!
    Hey kids! tHis prof says evolution is gappy in its evidence!
    Its so important that he said this that the others have to refute him. Too late.
    its not a head count. Its about the evidence of science.
    They say its aplenty of evidence but thats just what they say.
    Wheres the evidence? If it doesn’t persuade a prof then why should it persuade regular folks?
    Another incident of not just dissent, suggesting more dissent from more scared dissenters, but another incident of police control from a dying old wrong idea.
    i think 15 years will not pass before evolution is no longer a scientific theory and not a credible hypothesis.

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    A few notes to fan the flames of the “EXPELLED Syndrome”

    Guillermo Gonzalez and Stephen Meyer on Coral Ridge – video (Part 1) – 2011
    http://www.truthinaction.org/i.....=CRH1118_F

    Guillermo Gonzalez and Stephen Meyer on Coral Ridge – video (Part 2) – 2011
    http://www.truthinaction.org/i.....=CRH1119_F

    Of side note, Coral Ridge is now led by Billy Graham’s grandson:

    Coral Ridge Votes to Keep Billy Graham’s Grandson – 2009
    http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/.....egachurch/

    returning to my EXPELLED Syndrome:

    EXPELLED – Starring Ben Stein – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-BDc3wu81U

    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 – 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

    “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
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/

    Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows That Evolution Doesn’t Work – James Tour, Phd. – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCyAOCesHv0

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    Here Dr. Behe, a tenured professor, relates how the president of the National Academy of Sciences sought to ostracize him for supporting Intelligent Design:

    TEDxLehighU – Michael Behe – Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCP9UDFNHlo

    Dr Sewell, also a tenured professor, relates how Darwinists tried to censor him here

    How the Scientific Consensus is Maintained – Granville Sewell (Professor of Mathematics University of Texas – El Paso) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRLSwVRdNes

    Casey Luskin points out that the following anti-ID philosopher even goes so far as to publish a paper saying that the bullying tactics of neo-Darwinists are justified since many ID proponents are Christian:

    Anti-ID Philosopher: “Ad hominem” Arguments “Justified” When Attacking Intelligent Design Proponents – Casey Luskin – June 4, 2012
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....60381.html

    Also of interest is that neo-Darwinists have a legal history of trying to suppress free speach:

    On the Fundamental Difference Between Darwin-Inspired and Intelligent Design-Inspired Lawsuits – September 2011
    Excerpt:
    *Darwin lobby litigation: In every Darwin-inspired case listed above, the Darwin lobby sought to shut down free speech, stopping people from talking about non-evolutionary views, and seeking to restrict freedom of intellectual inquiry.
    *ID movement litigation: Seeks to expand intellectual inquiry and free speech rights to talk about non-evolutionary views.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....50451.html

    Intelligent Design Supporter Expelled from Civil Liberties Organization – podcast – January 2013
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....1_00-08_00

    “Evolution is the only ‘scientific theory’ that needs laws to protect it!”
    Author Unknown

    There was even a peer-reviewed paper in a philosophy journal by a materialist/atheist that sought to ostracize, and limit the free speech of, a fellow materialist/atheist (Jerry Fodor) who had had the audacity, in public, to question the sufficiency of natural selection to be the true explanation for why all life on earth exists.

    Darwinian Philosophy: “Darwinian Natural Selection is the Only Process that could Produce the Appearance of Purpose” – Casey Luskin – August, 2012
    Excerpt: In any case, this tarring and feathering of Fodor is just the latest frustrated attempt by hardline Darwinians to discourage people from using design terminology. It’s a hopeless effort, because try as they might to impose speech codes on each another, they can’t change the fact that nature is infused with purpose, which readily lends itself to, as Rosenberg calls it “teleosemantics.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....63311.html

    But alas for neo-Darwinists, no matter how much materialists/atheists try to tell fellow materialist/atheist, such as Jerry Fodor, to ‘shut up’, there is nothing they can ever really do to scratch Fodor’s ‘primal itch’ that has him asking such searching, and probing, questions about reality in the first place:

    The Itch Atheists Can’t Scratch – August 2012
    Excerpt: Isn’t it odd that we have such a great longing for things that don’t exist? Nowhere else in our human experience has an “itch” so primal, so central to our humanity, developed without any correspondence to a real “scratch.” We’re hungry? We have food. We’re thirsty? We have water. We’re lonely? We have friends and family. But we need meaning, order, and wonder…and we have drugs to distract us from that need? It seems a bit wasteful of evolution to work so hard developing a complex need to match a phantom solution that never existed.
    http://str.typepad.com/weblog/.....ratch.html

    “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.” –
    C. S. Lewis (Mere Christianity, 136-137)

    Brooke Fraser- “C S Lewis Song” – music
    http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=DL6LPLNX

Leave a Reply