This is the wisdom promulgated by the “new atheists” at a recent conference.
From the cnsnews.com article: “Science must ultimately destroy organized religion, according to some of the leading atheist writers and intellectuals who spoke at a recent atheist conference in Northern Virginia.”
They might as well dream of destroying humankind’s urge to eat.
Al Gore won the Nobel Prize today for his work in global warming. I understand that each Nobel winner gets a cash award of about $1,500,000. This will come in handy for Gore, so he can pay all those utility bills for his home, which consumes more than 10 times the energy of the average American home.
Judgment Day, a Nova documentary on the Dover case, will be aired next month. In a report about this documentary, one reads the following: “Judgment Day captures on film a landmark court case with a powerful scientific message at its core,” said Paula S. Apsell, NOVA Senior Executive Producer. “Evolution is one of the most essential and least understood of all scientific theories, the foundation of biological science. We felt it was important for NOVA to do this program to heighten the public understanding of what constitutes science and what does not, and therefore, what is acceptable for inclusion in the science curriculum in our public schools.” The phrase that jumps out here is “least understood of all scientific theories.” Read More ›
See the whole interview in the Guardian here: In an interview with the Guardian, he said: “When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told – religious Jews anyway – than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.”
On Sunday, Bob Marks’s lawyer John Hugh Gilmore wrote an op-ed in the Waco Tribune expressing astonishment at the sheer, manifest vulgarity of the attempt to suppress the Evolutionary Informatics Lab:
As counsel for Baylor Distinguished Professor Robert J. Marks II, I was amazed and discouraged by the controversy surrounding his rather routine yet scientifically exacting Web site that was shut down by the dean of his Engineering Department. This action came after anonymous complaints, but without an opportunity for him to respond beforehand.
The crime? His research might implicate intelligent design.
This is how a serious university should behave?
John, you and I both know what is going on: Baylor does not want a Baylor prof who is not a proponent of Darwin’s theory of evolution to be in a position to provide evidence against it. They fear he has such evidence. Who knows? He might …
In short, they do not want the books balanced.
I have myself called Darwinism the Enron of Biology – for a reason. I’m told that Enron accounted for its operating expenses as capital assets. In the same way, whenever Darwinists encounter a check to their theory, they declare how great a theory Darwinism must be, to overcome so much contrary evidence ….
John asks, naturally, is this how a serious university should behave?
Well, let’s refine the question: By whom does Baylor want to be considered a serious university? Read More ›
Discovery Institute has just launched the website for the new book by John G. West, “Darwin Day in America” (ISI Books): www.darwindayinamerica.com. The book will be officially released and available in stores everywhere November 6th. What are reviewers saying already? *Provocative and important reading* — Chuck Colson, Founder, Prison Fellowship *Deep and comprehensive* — Larry Arnhart, Professor of Political Science at Northern Illinois University *Essential reading for all Americans* — Robert C. Koons, Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin *Superb overview of what happens once we start seeing man as an overachieving worm* — Marvin Olasky, Editor in chief, World Be sure to visit the new website today, where you can: –Watch the promotional trailer –Listen as the Read More ›
Posted without comment. Too busy today: the paper and reviewers’ reports are open access, so check it out. I’ll have more to say tomorrow. Well, one quick comment. Could Mike Behe or Scott Minnich (to name a couple of my ID friends) have published this paper? — not in the sense of having written and submitted the text, however. Rather, could they have made it through refereeing?
Details at The BRITES.
“Yeah, so what. So I spend a lot of time at this one Starbucks, sure, when other organ systems are busy working. Venti dark roast, room for cream.” “Doesn’t mean I don’t put in my time on the job.” “Do you really think natural selection would have kept me on the payroll this long if I wasn’t doing something?”
Several European friends have asked me what I think about the Council of Europe’s resolution against teaching ID and/or creationism. Alas, I won’t be able to blog on this in any detail for a couple of days, but here are a couple of thoughts: Read More ›
This debate is really worth a listen. Lennox speaks very well. What follows are some classic Richard Dawkins statements. What do you think? (A, B C refer to the sound files 1 2 and 3 form the download, and the number to the time into the sound file.) A14 I lost my faith because Darwin left me with no good reason to believe. B2 Life is explained by Darwin. Cosmology is waiting for its Darwin. B6 I invoke the Anthropic principle … and the multiverse. B18 I would not for a moment say that all religion is bad or all religion is dangerous or Christianity is dangerous. Only a minority of religious people are bad or do bad things. B20 The one belief I would give Read More ›
Last evening I truly enjoyed a wonderfully edifying experience at Biola University in La Mirada, California: a debate between Paul Nelson and Michael Ruse. The theme of what was characterized as an “undebate” was, What would it take to make you change your position on Darwinism versus ID? Both men were extremely articulate, and I witnessed a side of Ruse of which I had not been aware. He has a clever sense of humor. Nelson concentrated on two evidential issues and one philosophical issue: the problem of the origin of self-replicating biological systems and their complex machinery, the problem of the origin of new body plans (specifically the Cambrian explosion), and the truth-seeking deficiencies associated with the exclusion of design Read More ›
Interesting article in Tuesday’s NYTimes on digital forensics — especially as it applies to scientists who doctor their images and data. It would be interesting to see how much (or how little) “evolutionary evidence” can withstand the scrutiny of digital forensics. Need it be added that digital forensics consists in drawing design inferences. A Conversation With Hany Farid Proving That Seeing Shouldn’t Always Be Believing By CLAUDIA DREIFUS Published: October 2, 2007 HANOVER, N.H. — As Hany Farid sat in his office here at Dartmouth College on a recent morning, he fiddled with his laptop and cracked disconcerting little jokes. “Don’t ever send me a photograph of yourself,” said Dr. Farid, head of the Image Science Laboratory at Dartmouth. “I’ll Read More ›
In a previous post a commentor attacked design on moral grounds using this example: “Would you conclude that the designer was sadistic for creating insects that kill one another in the mating process?” Of course, at one level this attack has been answered again and again. In this blog’s “arguments that have been defeated over and over” section we say: This [argument] is really odd as it is basically a religious argument being made against Intelligent Design. The proponent of this argument is making a faith based assertion that God is perfect and hence incapable of bad design. ID makes no claim that the source of complexity is a perfect God incapable of imperfection [or, in the commenter’s example, sadism]. Read More ›
Here’s an interesting conference with some top-notch speakers on a topic central to ID. I wish I could make it. The conference takes place October 20th. Single Molecules and Molecular Machines Sponsored by: California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences and The New York Academy of Sciences Organizers: Clayton Heathcock and Susan Marqusee, California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences (QB3) Advances in single molecule methods have resulted in the exciting, burgeoning field of single molecule biophysics. These approaches have been exceptionally important in studies on molecular motors, the biological machines essential for providing force and movement in living organisms. Leaders in the field will present studies that reveal new behaviors and molecular details that are obscured by traditional ensemble-based approaches. . . . Read More ›