New Intelligent Design Curriculum: “Discovering Intelligent Design”

If you folks keep persist in demeaning yourselves by arguing with Graham, you might as well invite Liddle back. Argue with a twerp, and its just makes two twerps. Axel

Barb @36, Lol! :D Chance Ratcliff

In turn, Bible-believing Christian faith is not to be equated to nazi-like theocratic agendas and a war against “science” and “progress” save insofar as those terms have been stolen and twisted into pretty labels for some pretty serious and too often sordid agendas with track records over the past 100 years that are such that the resort is to try to drag everything down in a crocodile death roll in a festering fever swamp. KF

This may be the single greatest sentence on the Internet. Barb

Barb: See the sort of talking points that were teed up and waiting to go behind that question? G2 knows, or should know per duties of care to the truth, accuracy and fairness, that design theory is not equal to creationism in a cheap tuxedo or otherwise. As the Creationists themselves sometimes complain. In turn, Bible-believing Christian faith is not to be equated to nazi-like theocratic agendas and a war against "science" and "progress" save insofar as those terms have been stolen and twisted into pretty labels for some pretty serious and too often sordid agendas with track records over the past 100 years that are such that the resort is to try to drag everything down in a crocodile death roll in a festering fever swamp. KF kairosfocus

Graham:

of course they do!! Yes, I acknowledge that. But let’s not deflect, as you are doing. That’s just wedgifying (i.e. Johnson’s evangelical ‘Wedge of Truth’) and people see through this IDist deflection tactic!

I didn’t think I was deflecting; your argument seems to revolve around the premise that ID=creationism=religion because of the religious beliefs of some IDists. Would you then, equate Darwinian evolution with atheism because of its proponents? You do realize that you’re committing the logical fallacy of guilt by association? Also consider that not everyone who is ID-friendly is a Christian. David Berlinski, an agnostic, is my exhibit A. Bradley Monton, an atheist who wrote an ID-friendly book, is my exhibit B.

Casey Luskin is a paid lawyer PR-propagandist for the DI, who has co-authored a book with two other evangelical Christians, an engineer/writer and his wife, a homeschooler who compares “ecology” and “botany” with “intelligent design” (lowercase) as academic fields.

You again commit the fallacy of guilt by association.

Yet academics (Luskin is not one), i.e. scholars, broadly reject the coherence of ‘intelligent design’ as an academic field.

This is the logical fallacy of jumping on the bandwagon. Something is not true or untrue simply based on the number of people who believe it.

This includes the vast majority of Christian scholars who have carefully examined its obviously scientistic claims. That IDists don’t recognise this is part of their typical myopia. Sorry to tell the truth if it stings, Barb!

Again, jumping on the bandwagon. And you indicate here that ID’s claims are “scientistic” and not “scientific”. Scientism, as I understand it, is the thought that science is the only way to understanding a concept. I really haven’t seen that in the ID literature I’ve read; in fact, it’s the opposite. It’s the diehard atheist evolutionists like Dawkins and Coyne who resort to scientism to make their points.

Do you or do you not (since timaeus has not risked an answer) advocate showing the film by Lee Strobel The Case for Christ at the DI’s Summer Program>, Barb? Is that a ‘strictly scientific’ IDist offering in your view? That film is part of the ‘curriculum’ at DI headquarters, and the new book in question in the OP quite obviously is an evangelical out-growth of it.

I haven’t seen that film but I did read the book a few years ago. I don’t think I’d argue that it’s scientific, but I see no reason to not show it as part of any curriculum. If atheists can debate and discuss philosophy and religion, then why can’t IDists? Again, the book in the OP is part of a homeschooling curriculum. If parents wish to include religion in that curriculum who are you—or anyone else—to tell them they can’t do so? You indicate that the book is “evangelical” in nature. How can you give a strong opinion about a book you haven’t read?

Oh, Casey, struck out at bat so many times, that the only courage he could show (since most people in his local evangelcial church are YEC’s?) was to become an IDist and to exaggerate/defend it as ‘strictly scientific’?

Now you’re just slinging ad hominem arguments around. And you again commit the fallacy of guilt by association. Please look up a list of logical fallacies on the Internet (here’s one: http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm) and stop using them in forum threads. You’ll be taken more seriously if you do.

Barb, if in the end you actually value wisdom, you might wish to consider an alternative proposal: ‘Intelligent Design’ qua ‘theory’ is actually part of a larger conversation involving science, philosophy and theology/worldview (the Big-I, Big-D = signifying divinity give it away). But to admit this, you must abandon Casey’s DI propaganda that insists on the ‘strict scientificity’ of IDism (which has become an ideology). Given that alternative, what’s your (il)logical choice?

I do value wisdom, which is why I try to see both sides of an issue before making a decision about it. I disagree that ID isn’t strictly scientific, simply because (as I pointed out), not all who endorse it are religious. That alone disproves your premise that ID is a theologic worldview. It’s not. The problem with ideology, whether religious in nature or not, is that it deludes people. It inspires dishonesty and breeds fanaticism. Ideology makes one forgo independent thought in favor of having others think for you. Interestingly, ideology is not the province of the easily led: quite a few intellectuals fall victim to it (see the PhD thread, for example). Barb

nuff said, and then some. Graham2

F/N: It seems I need to reproduce a series of comments -- 58 - 64 inclusive [remember, I have already given remarks again on the reasonable range of relevant views, again ignored) -- from the earlier thread, as G2 insists on the same tactic. For record: _________ >>58 Eric AndersonMay 13, 2013 at 8:21 am (Edit) Graham2 @55: Did you consider that your question is too vague to permit a simple Yes/No answer? kf has given you a detailed answer that delves into the issues. If you are just trying to catch him in his word, then I suppose it would be easy to be disappointed that he didn’t fall prey to your trap and take the bait. Perhaps you can clarify what you really mean when you say “Do you believe all life on earth was created by god?” 1. Do you mean that every organism that currently lives was individually created de novo? 2. Do you mean that every organism that currently lives descended from an identical organism initially created de novo and that there has been no modification or evolutionary change over time? 3. Are you trying to focus in on predation, “evil” design, pain, or suffering caused by one organism to another? 4. When you ask if god is the designer are you asking whether that is a conclusion that flows from the empirical evidence, or are you asking who kf thinks the creator is, as a personal belief and separate from what intelligent design proper can demonstrate? If you properly clarify your question with the appropriate details and nuances then you can perhaps get a Yes/No answer. 59 Graham2May 13, 2013 at 4:01 pm (Edit) Eric: I expected that all this was understood and would be reflected in the answer. What Im seeing is a lot of ducking and weaving, but no answer. 60 Eric AndersonMay 13, 2013 at 4:27 pm (Edit) Graham2: I see. So you are not willing to ask the question in clear and unambiguous terms. Instead you want the listener to try to interpret what you meant and then cover all the bases. Sounds like a fishing expedition. Hmmm . . . 61 Chance RatcliffMay 13, 2013 at 4:28 pm (Edit) What a laugh. Eric invites Graham2 to meaningfully clarify his question, and Graham2 makes a turnabout accusation of “ducking” in response. There’s one for the irony files. 62 Graham2May 13, 2013 at 4:41 pm (Edit) Ducking, weaving, bluster and the chirping of crickets. 63 kairosfocusMay 13, 2013 at 4:56 pm (Edit) Onlookers: Alinsky’s rules for radicals: 13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. [NB: Notice the evil counsel to find a way to attack the man, not the issue. The easiest way to do that, is to use the trifecta stratagem: distract, distort, demonise.] In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’… “…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’ “One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” Just so you know why G2 is playing the cynical distraction, caricatured distortion, demonisation, disrespect, denigration and polarisation games he is playing. KF PS: That should make it clear why I refuse to answer a barbed, loaded question in a hostile context in a naive way. Instead, I have laid out a range of serious Christian options, and — pivoting on G2?s use of a disrespectful atheistical rendering of a Divine title — it is also why I have laid out the challegne evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers have in accounting for an evidently fine tuned cosmos, the origin of life, that of body plans including our own, as well as the grounding of mind and morals. That is often overlooked in the context of the attack-attack-attack tactics so often resorted to be advocates of evolutionary materialism. PPS: Observe as well, the context in which G2 has tried to play distractive attack rhetorical games. On a weekend where abuse of lawful power is making global headlines, the OP is about the embedding of a slanderous caricature of design theory in textbooks, intended to lead to marginalisation as being perceived as illegal and fraudulent, scapegoating and unjust targetting. In short, G2 is telling us worlds about his enabling behaviour by trying to distract attention through Alinskyite trollish tactics. Let us take due and proper note about what that implies about where such would lead our civilisation if unchecked. 64 Eric AndersonMay 13, 2013 at 5:32 pm (Edit) Ducking, weaving, bluster and the chirping of crickets. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I offer you Graham2 @62 as Exhibit A. —– Chance: Re your 61 and Graham2?s 62, I think your irony meter is about to explode. You can’t script this kind of stuff! :) >> __________ nuff said. KF kairosfocus

"do you acknowledge that they write according to their own biases and have their own ideology?" Of course they do!! Yes, I acknowledge that. But let's not deflect, as you are doing. That's just wedgifying (i.e. Johnson's evangelical 'Wedge of Truth') and people see through this IDist deflection tactic! ;) Casey Luskin is a paid lawyer PR-propagandist for the DI, who has co-authored a book with two other evangelical Christians, an engineer/writer and his wife, a homeschooler who compares "ecology" and "botany" with "intelligent design" (lowercase) as academic fields. Yet academics (Luskin is not one), i.e. scholars, broadly reject the coherence of 'intelligent design' as an academic field. This includes the vast majority of Christian scholars who have carefully examined its obviously scientistic claims. That IDists don't recognise this is part of their typical myopia. Sorry to tell the truth if it stings, Barb! Do you or do you not (since timaeus has not risked an answer) advocate showing the film by Lee Strobel The Case for Christ at the DI's Summer Program>, Barb? Is that a 'strictly scientific' IDist offering in your view? That film is part of the 'curriculum' at DI headquarters, and the new book in question in the OP quite obviously is an evangelical out-growth of it. Oh, Casey, struck out at bat so many times, that the only courage he could show (since most people in his local evangelcial church are YEC's?) was to become an IDist and to exaggerate/defend it as 'strictly scientific'? Barb, if in the end you actually value wisdom, you might wish to consider an alternative proposal: 'Intelligent Design' qua 'theory' is actually part of a larger conversation involving science, philosophy and theology/worldview (the Big-I, Big-D = signifying divinity give it away). But to admit this, you must abandon Casey's DI propaganda that insists on the 'strict scientificity' of IDism (which has become an ideology). Given that alternative, what's your (il)logical choice? Gregory

Um, KF, I asked you a simple question regarding your faith. B & BA had no problems. Graham2

PS: In Q 3, I allude to G2's use of a common g in addressing Deity, a typical snide dismissal used by too many atheists. I remember, the old Soviet Union's propagandists were notorious. kairosfocus

F/N 2: The ducked challenge to G2: 1] Your empirically grounded evidence that blind chance and mechanical necessity are plausibly adequate to form a life friendly cosmos, trigger OOL and then body plans (including our own with the crucial linguistic ability) is: ______________ ? [Cf. here on.] 2] Your empirically grounded evidence that things like FSCO/I are not empirically tested, found reliable indicators of design is: ____________ ? 3] Your adequate reason for dismissing the reality of God . . . is: ___________ ? [Cf. here.] 4] In that context [of evident evolutionary materialism], your grounding of the credibility of the human ability to reason and know (note here onlookers) is: ______________ ? 5] In that context, your grounding of OUGHT in an IS at worldview foundation level adequate to sustain rights as more than the nihilistic, amoral “might and manipulation make ‘right’ . . . ” warned against by Plato in The Laws, Bk X, is: _______________ ? [Onlookers, cf. here and here for why this is absolutely important.) 6] Your best explanation for the minimal facts at the historical foundation of the Christian Faith is: _____________, and it is best warranted as ____________ ? 7] In light of the above, your best account for the system of reality we see in the world around us and in our hearts is: ______________, and it is best warranted as a worldview because ____________ ? Let's see if there is any better luck this time around. (BTW, notice, context cues with "Chorus" onstage, for onlookers are INTERLEAVED with questions addressed to G2. So much for yet another loaded distortion above.) I think, in the wider context of dealing with this contentious matter, something like these Q's would help put things in perspective. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Cf. deliberate "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" red herring distractor here on, noting options I laid out here and request to G2 by EA here and -- on G2's ducking, the onward comment here about G2's evident fishing expedition hidden agenda. Which we see a clear sign of in what he did here before I intervened on my eye being caught by a comment in the string on the main page. Just to put matters on a reasonable footing and to begin to restore the thread to a focus on something important, let me first give the range of suggested options:

this on the relationship between specifically Christian faith and the possibilities for origin of life and body plans compatible with or undermining of it:

[Theistic, specifically Christian] faith (= confident trust in the cumulative force of evidence and experience leading to willingness to act on that trust . . . here amounting to moral certainty [cf. here, again]: evidence warranting a conclusion to a degree that is not equivalent to demonstrative deductive proof on axioms acceptable to all but which is sufficiently compelling on cumulative impact that one would be irresponsible to dismiss or ignore it when making decisions of great moment . . . ) would be compatible with: direct creation of the cosmos and world of life in either a young or an old creation frame. With, also, a broadly theistic evolutionary view, up to and including universal common descent similar to Behe’s view. With also, a view that God simply picked the cosmic simulation run or equivalent, that ends up with us. Or, whatever. Such a frame is empirically testable, as it would be INCONSISTENT with/severely undermined by a world in which on solid, systematic evidence there is no reason to infer to design as a key feature of the cause of the observed cosmos or of the world of life.

It so happens, however, that the cosmological evidence — independent of that in the world of life — strongly points to fine tuning of the observed cosmos for life, and that the world of life — per FSCO/I etc — shows strong signs of design. That is, we have scientific evidence providing support, not undermining.

Since the "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" loaded accusation is so common, I think it is reasonable for a curriculum to clarify what responsible Christians and others think, then highlight how such have contributed and continue to do so, to the birth, development and continued practice of science. A text box on the specifically Christian contribution to the rise of modern liberty and democracy would also help counter the "theocracy" slur that stands in for the code: fascists or worse. This would be beyond the scope of such a curriculum, but it is worth the pause to list the questions presented to G2 as a challenge (unanswered, as usual), too. KF kairosfocus

G2: Kindly drop the word games. You know that B and I are in very different circumstances and that the question is loaded. You also know you said a distortion of my response, out of context and behind my back, to make me look silly. I gave you a reasonable answer, a range of responsible views. If they are nonsensical, all you need to do is refute, especially by providing actual direct observational evidence, starting with OOL. The 6,000 word essay challenge has been open for above 8 months no serious answer. As for speaking to onlookers in the presence of an objector, that you would try to stretch that to a pretended equivalency to what you just did, speaks volumes. I suggest you go read or watch Shakespeare sometime. KF kairosfocus

KF: A simple, general question about your beliefs shouldnt be such a drama. If its 'loaded' then its only because you have made it so. I imagine you would have no trouble at all discussing this stuff inside the big tent. While we are on the subject of speaking of others, Its a common habbit here to refer to 'onlookers', suggesting you have excluded the 2nd party from your remarks, rather like a doctor discussing a mad uncle in his presence. Its not a big deal but not good manners either. Graham2

G2: I notice you have a habit of speaking about people adversely in their absence. You know you asked a poorly worded, vague, loaded question, in an extremely hostile context, of someone targetted by hate sites. You were asked by others to make your question clear and refused. That tells us the question was not asked in good faith. In any case, I gave you a range of responsible answers that design thinkers who are theists may take and indicating that my fundamental view is that here is a range of reasonable possible views, there is no need for pigeon-holing. Now, you are willfully mischaracterising the exchange, which tells me that you probably asked the original question for reasons not in good faith -- trying to trap in words is how someone else put it. This confirms that I was right not to give a naive answer. Do better next time, please. KF kairosfocus

I appreciate your candour. I asked KF and he nearly exploded. Graham2

Yes, Graham, I do. Barb

Graham2, you ask:

So Barb, I presume you believe your god created all life on earth ? You too BA77 ?

I believe, because of the evidence, that God is the source of universe and all life in the universe: The 'Top Down' Theistic Structure Of The Universe and Of The Human Body https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NhA4hiQnYiyCTiqG5GelcSJjy69e1DT3OHpqlx6rACs/edit bornagain77

So Barb, I presume you believe your god created all life on earth ? You too BA77 ? Graham2

Graham, let's review the biblical account and see if it agrees with what science knows. Regarding Adam, the Bible says: “Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7) Is this statement scientifically credible? The book Nanomedicine states that the human body is made up of 41 chemical elements. These basic elements—carbon, iron, oxygen, and others—are all present in the “dust” of the earth. Thus, as Genesis states, humans truly are formed “out of dust from the ground.” How did those lifeless building blocks come together to form a living human? To illustrate the enormity of the challenge, consider the NASA space shuttle, one of the most complex machines ever devised. This technological marvel contains a staggering 2.5 million parts. It took teams of engineers years to design and put it together. Now consider the human body. It is made up of some 7 octillion atoms, 100 trillion cells, dozens of organs, and at least 9 major organ systems. How did this biological machine of mind-boggling complexity and superb structure come to be? By blind chance or by intelligent design? What of the description in Genesis that Eve was fashioned from Adam’s rib? (Genesis 2:21-23) Before dismissing the account as myth or fantasy, consider the following facts: In January 2008, scientists in California, U.S.A., produced the world’s first mature cloned human embryos from adult skin cells. In fact, using similar techniques, scientists have cloned at least 20 animals. The most famous of these, Dolly the sheep, was cloned in 1996 from the mammary gland of an adult sheep. What will come of such experiments remains to be seen. But the point is this: If humans can use biological material from one organism to produce another one of its kind, could not the almighty Creator fashion a human from existing biological material of another human? Interestingly, surgeons routinely use the rib bone in reconstructive surgery because of its ability to regrow and replace itself. While the Adam and Eve account may not agree with the theory of evolution, it matches what is known to science. Barb

I went to the mutation database website cited by Dr. John Avise and found:

HGMD®: Now celebrating our 100,000 mutation milestone! http://www.hgmd.org/ (of note the word 'celebrating' has now been removed from the site)

This more recent study found a lower figure than the estimate of 60 mutations per generation:

Human Mutation Clock Half Off - October 20, 2012 Excerpt: New studies have shown about 36 mutations between generations in Icelandic families. The rates seem to be converging on “1.2 × 10?8 mutations per generation at any given nucleotide site,” or “1 in 2.4 billion mutations per site per year,” which is less than half the previous estimate. http://crev.info/2012/10/human-mutation-clock-half-off/

Which, at 30, is still far, far, higher than even what leading Darwinists say is compatible for Darwinian evolution to be feasible:

Human evolution or extinction - discussion on acceptable mutation rate per generation (with clips from Dr. John Sanford) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC_NyFZG7pM

Bottom line Graham2, your theology is juvenile in its conception, and the science itself, without Darwinian theological blinders on, is what falsifies your theory! bornagain77

i.e. Graham2, since the Bible correctly and uniquely predicted the ex-nihilo creation of the universe, perhaps it would be well for you to check the Bible to see if God might actually allow detrimental mutations to occur before you erroneously assume that He would not allow as such?

Romans 8:20-23 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

And once again Graham2, I point out that the fact that an overwhelming rate of slightly deleterious mutations is, without Darwinian theological blinders on, a very powerful SCIENTIFIC argument against Darwinism: Here's a interesting talk by Dr. John Sanford. Starting at the 17 minute mark going to the 22 minute mark. He relates how slightly detrimental mutations, that accumulate each time a cell divides, are the primary reason why our physical/material bodies grow old and die.

John Sanford on (Genetic Entropy) - Down, Not Up - 2-4-2012 (at Loma Linda University) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PHsu94HQrL0#t=1040s

Notes from John Sanford's preceding video:

*3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations Reproductive cells are 'designed' so that, early on in development, they are 'set aside' and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,, *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation.

This following video brings the point personally home to us about the effects of genetic entropy:

Ageing Process - 80 years in 40 seconds - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSdxYmGro_Y

Here are the papers that were cited by Dr. Sanford in the preceding 'Down, Not Up' video at the 24:40 minute mark:

The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health?risk?* - James F. Crow - 1997 Excerpt: If war or famine force our descendants to return to a stone-age life they will have to contend with all the problems that their stone-age ancestors had plus mutations that have accumulated in the meantime. http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.full Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? Kondrashov A.S. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/jt/1995/00000175/00000004/art00167 Why are we still alive? - LAURENCE LOEWE - Institute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, - 2006 Excerpt: In the last few years evolution@home has accumulated over 100 years of computing time in its quest for a better understanding of the consequences of mutations that are slightly harmful and therefore might not be removed from populations by natural selection.,,, Results show that this may be less than 20 million years, resulting in a genomic decay paradox, since mitochondria in the human line are (presupposed to be) older. http://www.evolutionary-research.net/news/2008/04/01/why-are-we-still-alive Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation - Michael Lynch - 2009 Excerpt: Thus, although there is considerable uncertainty in the preceding numbers, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the per-generation reduction in fitness due to recurrent mutation is at least 1% in humans and quite possibly as high as 5%. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.full

Additional notes:

Human Genome in Meltdown - January 11, 2013 Excerpt: According to a study published Jan. 10 in Nature by geneticists from 4 universities including Harvard, “Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants.”,,,: "We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs [single-nucleotide variants] and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000 -10,000 years. The average age of deleterious SNVs varied significantly across molecular pathways, and disease genes contained a significantly higher proportion of recently arisen deleterious SNVs than other genes.",,, As for advantageous mutations, they provided NO examples,,, http://crev.info/2013/01/human-genome-in-meltdown/ “Our Missing Genes” - The Scientist - February 18, 2012 Excerpt: On average, a person will have about 20 genes that are completely “lost”—meaning that both alleles have inactivating mutations. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/genetics/at-least-1-percent-of-human-genes-can-be-shut-down-without-causing-serious-disease/

the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for scientists have already cited over 100,000 mutational disorders.

Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design - Pg. 57 By John C. Avise Excerpt: "Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens."

bornagain77

Graham2 states: "I saw your biblical references and got carried away" and yet,,, The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.” George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE "Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’ It is also very interesting to note that among all the 'holy' books, of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was correct in its claim for a transcendent origin of the universe. Some later 'holy' books, such as the Mormon text "Pearl of Great Price" and the Qur'an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact. (Hugh Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5) The Uniqueness Of The Bible Among 'holy books' and Evidence of God in Creation (Hugh Ross) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjYSz1OYG8Y The Most Important Verse in the Bible - Prager University - video http://www.prageruniversity.com/Religion-Philosophy/The-Most-Important-Verse-in-the-Bible.html The Uniqueness of Genesis 1:1 - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBXdQCkISo0 Perhaps Graham2, you would do well to use Theology properly instead of using Darwin's distorted view of theology to try to make a scientific case for Darwinism? bornagain77

Sorry, I saw your biblical references and got carried away. Graham2

Graham2, "what is your explanation for all our built-in/god-given genetic defects ?" And so, since you believe God should not allow as such therefore Darwinism is true?,, Again Graham2, please try to stay focused. That is a THEOLOGICAL argument. That IS NOT a scientific argument! Moreover,,, Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? Kondrashov A.S. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/jt/1995/00000175/00000004/art00167 Genetic Entropy and The Mystery Of the Genome - Dr. John Sanford - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwCu4rh7kUk bornagain77

Graham2, well please go ahead and show me your evidence! “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast: Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time - December 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00 further notes: Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit further note on presuppositional apologetics: Comprehensibility of the world Excerpt: ,,,Bottom line: without an absolute Truth, (there would be) no logic, no mathematics, no beings, no knowledge by beings, no science, no comprehensibility of the world whatsoever. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/mathematics/comprehensibility-of-the-world/ Presuppositional Apologetics - easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php bornagain77

I forgot ... what is your explanation for all our built-in/god-given genetic defects ? Graham2

I never know if you are baiting me or not. No, its not the 'entire argument', as I pointed out above, its just an aside. As for the 90% myth, you really should pay more attention to just what the paper (that one!) was saying. Graham2

Graham2 and that is your entire argument for Darwinism???,, Perhaps you would like to say that God would not design 90% junk DNA??? OH wait a minute He didn't do that! that 90% junk DNA figure was just another lie, upon a history of lies, that Darwinists insisted was true just so as to make it seem their theory was true. Such reasoning gives me the convincing impression that Darwinists are 'incompetent boobies' :) bornagain77

BA77: I dont think Science is 'heavily dependant' on theological thingys, its just that its so hard to resist a jab now and then. The great designer in the sky just gives such a convincing impression of an incompetent booby. How do you explain it ? Graham2

Here, at about the 55:00 minute mark in the following video, Phillip Johnson sums up his, in my opinion, excellent lecture by noting that the refutation of his book, 'Darwin On Trial', in the Journal Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world, was a theological argument about what God would and would not do and therefore Darwinism must be true, and the critique from Nature was not a refutation based on any substantiating scientific evidence for Darwinism that one would expect to be brought forth in such a prestigious venue:

Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) – lecture video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw

And in the following quote, Dr. John Avise explicitly uses Theodicy to try to make the case for Darwinism:

It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species – Cornelius Hunter - June 2012 Excerpt: "Approximately 0.1% of humans who survive to birth carry a duplicon-related disability, meaning that several million people worldwide currently are afflicted by this particular subcategory of inborn metabolic errors. Many more afflicted individuals probably die in utero before their conditions are diagnosed. Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence. [112]" - Dr. John Avise - "Inside The Human Genome" There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/awesome-power-behind-evolution-it-is.html

What’s completely ironic is that Dr. John Avise’s theological argumentation from the overwhelming rate of deleterious mutations for Darwinism turns out to be, (without Darwinian Theological blinders on), a very powerful ‘scientific’ argument against Darwinism: http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/evolution-professor-special-creation.html?showComment=1340994836963#c5431261417430067209 Thus Gregory, since Darwinism is in fact heavily dependent on faulty Theological premises in order to make itself appear to be 'scientific', then why in blue blazes are you not also up in arms about their blatant use of Theology as you seem to be about ID's use? Verse and music:

Matthew 7:5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. Francesca Battistelli - "Strangely Dim" (Official Audio) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5qD9HOoGpQ

bornagain77

Now Gregory, you are a strange bird. You continue to rant and rave here on UD, (even though you swore you were going to leave UD and never come back), that ID is being completely disingenuous to the evidence. But, as Barb pointed out, why do you not hold Darwinism to at least some minimum standard accountability as well? When compared side by side, its not even close as to which theory is being disingenuous. I can't count the number of times I've been outright lied to by Darwinists,, claiming they have all this overwhelming evidence for Darwinism when in fact, when I, and others, thoroughly search the matter out, I find they have no evidence whatsoever. So paltry is the actual state of evidence for Darwinism that Plantinga observed that the main argument in Dawkin's book 'The Blind Watchmaker' was this:

"Darwinism Not Proved Impossible Therefore It Must Be True" - Plantinga - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10285716/

Moreover Gregory, if you are really so hyper concerned that Theology is intruding on science with ID, (although in reality science is not even possible without theistic premises as to the rationality of the world and of the human mind to comprehend it), I would suggest you take that hyper concern and apply it to Darwinism. It turns out, as has been pointed out many times on UD before, that Darwinism is based mainly on a distorted view of Theodicy as to how God should and should not act in this world. ,, Don't believe me? Well the following peer-reviewed paper shows how Darwin used Theodicy in 'Origin":

Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human begins are not justfied in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html

Here's an excellent lecture that drives the point firmly home:

The Descent of Darwin - Pastor Joe Boot - (The Theodicy of Darwinism) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKJqk7xF4-g

Gregory, you may say that was then and this is now. Darwinists no longer use Theological argumentation, as to how God should or should not act in the world, to make their case. Well you would be wrong if you hold that position:

The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning - Paul A. Nelson - Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517 Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution. http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3n5415037038134/?MUD=MP Dr. Seuss Biology | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVx42Izp1ek accompanying pdf http://www.ctvn.org/origins/pdf/1212%20Dr%20Seuss%20Biology.pdf

In this following video Dr. William Lane Craig is surprised to find that evolutionary biologist Dr. Ayala uses theological argumentation in his book to support Darwinism and invites him to present evidence, any evidence at all, that Darwinism can do what he claims it can:

Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg

bornagain77

Gregory, everyone who authors a book has a reason (or reasons) for doing so. You harp on the ideology and propaganda of IDist; do you give atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens a free pass, or do you acknowledge that they write according to their own biases and have their own ideology? Barb

Yawn, "strictly scientific." Yawn. Neutral, no agenda. Impersonal. Without ideological motivation. Yawn. "Coming Clean," harped Dembski? "most home schooled kids in America are Christian" Yup, that's the DI-IDM's main market. (And you know that a 'market' involves money, right BA77?) "Christians for the most part have little tolerance for being purposely deceived!" That's exactly why American IDism (and its 'creationist' bedfellows) is such an amazing case-in-point clearly showing otherwise! Casey Luskin is a paid lawyer PR-propagandist for the DI. Do you really believe, in your heart-of-hearts BA77, that his message is "strictly scientific," that it even could be?!? Gregory

Intelligent Design/Casey Luskin/home schooling/religion. Graham2

Uhh Gregory, the book is strictly for homeschooling. Thus, since most home schooled kids in America are Christian, whose families do not want their kids indoctrinated with materialistic nonsense, do you not think that if DI were truly the great big conspiracy factory that you imagine it to be, they would do their utmost to market it as a Christian book where they could benefit the greatest monetarily ? I mean really why bother? Christians for the most part have little tolerance for being purposely deceived! I have every confidence that Casey and company did their best to let the evidence speak for itself so as to let the readers draw their own conclusions as to where the evidence best leads, Darwinism, Design, random multiverse or ex-nihilo Creation by God) bornagain77

@Gregory: Have you read the book? JWTruthInLove

"Discovering ID is strictly scientific in its approach" - Casey Luskin Yeah, right. I don't buy that for a second. After dining with Luskin, not a chance. There's no philosophy, no ideology, no propaganda and no theology/worldview in the book? Tell us another whopper of a tale. ;) How many times in a single interview does the guy have to repeat "strictly scientific"? He's a lawyer, after all. He must be speaking the truth, right American IDists? This Movement-talk is transparent. "You could say that the project "evolved" from there into the curriculum we have today!" - Luskin Wink, wink, giggle, giggle. ;) (As if we really don't get the joke!) IDists are actually, honestly, really 'evolutionists' using 'cool' language too! Pass it on, using "scare quotes"... Gregory