Amazon.com Widgets

More evidence of Darwinism’s demise?

From a peer-reviewed paper (source here).

Biological Theory
Volume 6, Number 1, 89-102, DOI: 10.1007/s13752-011-0007-1

The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis

David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber

Abstract: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the “creative factor” in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems. (Emphasis added.)

Alleged The Movie

Website. Trailer…

Evolutionist Hypocrisy

William Dembski Interview

Get it here: www.thebestschools.org/blog/2012/01/14/william-dembski-interview/

I love Dembski. He is an intellectual genius, and honest to the heart. With the persecution he has faced both inside and outside the church, he is also like a modern Galileo.

Key Figures in Intelligent Design Measure the Impact of Discovery Institute

The podcast is here: intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-12-12T16_36_18-08_00

What same-sex “marriage” has done to Massachusetts

Read all about it…

www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

New Scientific Visualization Out of Yale: From Conception to Birth

From here.

For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.
(Psalm 139:13-16 ESV)

A great Christmas present for all ages

Available here in New Zealand or from Amazon here:

Historian: Fool or coward? For Dawkins, that is not an easy choice

From here.

Further to “Dawkins speaks: Why he won’t debate William Lane Craig … Craig advocates “ genocide”

In “Richard Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for refusing to debate William Lane Craig” (The Telegraph, October 21, 2011), historian Tim Stanley offers,

He likes to pick fights either with dunces (like the deliciously silly and obviously gay Ted Haggard) or with incredibly nice old Christians with no fire in their belly (like Rowan Williams). Dawkins has gotten away with his illiterate, angry schtick for so many years because his opponents have been so woolly. This is a damning indictment not only of him, but of the clerical establishment of Great Britain. But this time, he understood that he was up against a pro. In America, evangelicals have to compete in a vibrant, competitive marketplace of different denominations. That breeds the very guile and theatricality that are so sorely lacking among the Anglican clergy. In Craig, Dawkins met his match. Like Jonah, he was confronted by the truth and he ran away.

Stanley provides critical context for Craig’s treatment of Old Testament slaughters.

Craig’s purpose in writing this piece is to unravel the paradox of a moral Bible that also includes lashings of apparently random violence. Craig stresses that these passages of the Bible are difficult for us to read because we are not of the age in which they are written – they are just as alien to us as Beowulf or the Iliad. That’s because Christian society has been shaped by the rules of life outlined in the New Testament, not in the section of The Bible in which this massacre occurs. Far from using this passage to celebrate the slaughter of heathen, Craig is making the point that the revelation of God’s justice has changed over time.

Which is pretty much the standard view.

It’s hard to figure out why Dawkins, who holds forth regularly on religion, would not know that. Or …

Hominid Hype and the Election Cycle

Casey Luskin writes:

It’s that time of the election cycle again. You know, the time when the media starts regularly deploying the “evolution test” to decide whether a candidate is mentally impaired. Those who capitulate to the Darwinian consensus are deemed of normal intelligence and fit for office. Those who don’t are subjected to public mockery and humiliation.

Summary: Yeah, scientists are smart and everyone else is dumb. Now that we have that out of the way, we can look at Casey’s list of greatly celebrated then delegated fossil hoaxes.

  • Piltdown man — a fraud
  • Ramapithecus — touted as an ancestor of humans, then ‘paleoanthropologists soon afterward were lamenting, “Ramapithecus walking upright has been reconstructed from only jaws and teeth” with “his legitimacy sanctified by millions of textbooks and Time-Life volumes on human evolution.” In fact, those claims were overturned in the 1970s and 1980s when more complete specimens were discovered, showing the species was unlike humans, and probably an extinct orangutan-like ape.’
  • Homo habilis — later reclassified
  • In 2002, Sahelanthropus tchadensis was touted as the “oldest fossil human,” even though all that was reported was one skull and a few jaw fragments, which some paleoanthropologists have suggested might have belonged to a female gorilla.
  • Ida — introduced by the media as the “eighth wonder of the world” whose “impact on the world of palaeontology” would be like “an asteroid falling down to Earth.” Famed BBC broadcaster Sir David Attenborough got involved, making a documentary titled Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor: The Link, to explain why Ida is “the link that connects us directly with the rest of the animal kingdom.” Just a few months later, Ida’s reign came to a sad end after scientists inspected the fossil and determined that “[m]any lines of evidence indicate that [Ida] has nothing at all to do with human evolution.”
  • ArdiScience journal’s “breakthrough of the year,” yet admitted that her bones were originally “crushed” and required over a decade of “reconstruction.” Other paleoanthropologists noted that Ardi was initially “crushed nearly to smithereens” and resembled “Irish stew.” Later, after cooler heads had prevailed, multiple studies found that Ardi was more similar to apes than humans, and concluded she was not a human ancestor. As Time magazine later reported, critical scientists regard “the hype around Ardi to have been overblown.”

Yeah, no wonder that we trust scientists like we trust clairvoyants. And human evolution is fact Fact, FACT — except when it is sham, Sham, SHAM. Global cooling Global warming Climate change hype… this is not science. It is philosophical and political hypemongering, coming from a secular priesthood trying its best to mirror and out-do the religious priesthood of the pre-Reformational Catholic church.

Listen to the audio presentation below:

Is it a bird? Is is a plane? No, it’s Supercon

From The Guardian:

Archaeopteryx, supposedly the oldest and most primitive bird on Earth, might not have been a bird after all, scientists say.

The controversial claim, if confirmed, is something of a bombshell for researchers who have viewed the evolution of birds and feathered flight through the lens of the species since it was discovered 150 years ago.

The finding leaves palaeontologists in the awkward position of having to identify another creature as the oldest and original avian on which to base the story of birdlife.

Mmmmmm.  Gotta love David Berlinski:

Before you can ask ‘Is Darwinian theory correct or not?’, You have to ask the preliminary question ‘Is it clear enough so that it could be correct?’. That’s a very different question. One of my prevailing doctrines about Darwinian theory is ‘Man, that thing is just a mess. It’s like looking into a room full of smoke.’ Nothing in the theory is precisely, clearly, carefully defined or delineated. It lacks all of the rigor one expects from mathematical physics, and mathematical physics lacks all the rigor one expects from mathematics. So we’re talking about a gradual descent down the level of intelligibility until we reach evolutionary biology. – from Expelled April 18 2008 29.33.

(Source: www.uncommondescent.com/tree-of-life/he-doubted-darwins-tree-of-life-but-he-was-just-a-creationist-then/)

Yeah, it’s just not real science.

Richard Weikart Hector Avalos, Hitler, Darwinism

From a comment here.

Richard Weikart is a Christian and professor of History at California State University. He has drawn controversial conclusions regarding the role of Darwinism in providing a rationale for Hitler’s Nazi ideology. Hector Avalos is an atheist and Professor of Religious Studies at Iowa State University. He disagrees with Weikart, saying that Christian anti-semitism is the more likely explanation for Nazi ideology.
www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable

Synthese and Intelligent Design

Casey Luskin writes:

We’ve recently discussed how earlier this year, some leading intelligent design (ID) critics organized an issue of the philosophy journal Synthese using mockery, motive mongering, guilt-by-association, and other fallacious arguments to attack intelligent design (ID). For example, ID was called “irrational,” or alternatively a “rational pathogology.” It was also called a “threat” which academics should “combat,” or a “weed” which academics should “pull.” (Another suggestion offered to oppose ID was: “Bash Harder.”) ID’s actual arguments were routinely misrepresented and rarely engaged. (If you want to see more of what I’m talking about, see herehere, or here.) We also observed recently that the head-editors of Synthese (who didn’t organize the issue) had high academic standards, and thus felt compelled to include a disclaimer as follows:

Source here.

Evolution Battle Brews In Texas

Last night I was reading a recent Dorling Kindersley book on life on earth aimed at (indoctrinating) kids, and was appalled at the early pages in which creationism was simply dismissed as myth while evolution was introduced as fact, even thought the evidence presented was speculative, laughable and out of date.

Nick Matzke, mentioned in the article below, and others should be honest and admit that no one has any idea how complex life could have begun naturalistically.  No wonder many of us, when comparing real sciences like physics and chemistry with goo-to-you-via-the-zoo evolution, consider this “fairy story for grown-ups” as nothing more than a pseudo-scientific creation myth for dogmatic fundamentalist materialists.

Source here.

See also:
Oxford mathematician John Lennox on the chances of life developing without a supermind to guide it

Dr Emil Silvestru of Creation Ministries International

…will be visiting New Zealand on Sunday 1 to Sunday 8 May 2011

Genesis, the Gospel and the Creation/Evolution Issue
Sunday 1 May 10.00am
Auckland Bible Church
Meeting at Parents Inc Centre, 300 Great South Road, Greenlane, Auckland

The Darwin Delusion
Sunday 1 May 6.00pm
Public meeting, Elim Christian Centre-East 159 Botany Road, Howick, Auckland

Genesis, the Gospel and the Creation/Evolution Issue
Monday 2 May 7.30pm
Public meeting, Hamilton Central Baptist Church 33 Charlemont Street, Whitiora, Hamilton

Genesis, the Gospel and the Creation/Evolution Issue
Tuesday 3 May 7.00pm
Public meeting, City West Church 62C Poplar Grove, Whalers Gate, New Plymouth

Waters of Contention: Was Noah’s Flood Fact or Fantasy?
Wednesday 4 May 12.30pm
Massey University Christian Fellowship
Meeting at Massey University, Social Sciences Lecture Block, Room SSLB1, Turitea, Palmerston North

Genesis, the Gospel and the Creation/Evolution Issue
Wednesday 4 May 7.30pm
Public meeting, Crossroads 220 Church Street, Palmerston North

The Darwin Delusion
Thursday 5 May 7.30pm
Public meeting, Reformed Church of Silverstream 8 Blue Mountains Road, Pinehaven, Upper Hutt

Waters of Contention: Was Noah’s Flood Fact or Fantasy?
Friday 6 May 7.30pm
Public meeting, Lincoln Event Centre William Street, Lincoln

The Darwin Delusion
Saturday 7 May 7.30pm
Public meeting, Oamaru Baptist Church 12 Severn Street, Oamaru

Genesis, the Gospel and the Creation/Evolution Issue
Sunday 8 May 10.30am
South Dunedin Baptist Church 414 King Edward Street, Dunedin South, Dunedin

Genesis, the Gospel and the Creation/Evolution Issue
Sunday 8 May 6.00pm
Public meeting, Harvestfield Christian Centre 497 Herbert Street, Waverley, Invercargill

Karl Giberson, Francis Collins, William Dembski

By William A. Dembski:

“There’s nothing wrong with selling one’s ideas. But it needs to be done honestly, and that’s just what I don’t find in this book.”

Oh, you reject Darwinian evolution; you can’t be a premier scientist. What counterexample would convince Giberson and Collins to retract such a claim? How about Henry Schaefer’s signature on a “Dissent from Darwin” list? Schaefer heads the computational quantum chemistry lab at the University of Georgia, has published over a thousand peer-reviewed journal articles, and is one of the most widely cited chemists in the world. Then again, Giberson and Collins look askance at this list (according to them, it has too many emeriti professors and not enough biologists). But why engage in such posturing about scientific pecking order in the first place? The issue is not who’s doubting Darwinism, but what are the arguments for and against it and whether they have merit. Giberson and Collins’ constant drumming of mainstream and consensus science is beside the point—science progresses by diverging from the mainstream and by breaking with consensus.

Full article here. Article with comments at UD here.

The Nature of Nature: Examining the Role of Naturalism in Science

Seven years in the making, at 500,000 words, with three Nobel laureate contributors, this is the most thorough examination of naturalism to date. Buy online from Amazon.com Further discussion here.

The Only Game in Town? Richard Dawkins and the Limits of Reason

Dr. Albert Mohler writes:

Evolution by natural selection is “the only game in town, the greatest show on Earth,” asserts Richard Dawkins. We have come to expect claims like this from Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most famous defender of Darwinian evolution alive today. Unlike many intellectuals, Dawkins manages to stay singularly focused and on message. He is the planet’s foremost evangelist for evolution, and he is absolutely certain that the evolutionary worldview is indeed “the only game in town.” He is clearly frustrated that so many dwellers of the Earth refuse to accept his message.

Read more.

Evolution: Fact or Fantasy?

Source: The Apologetics Study Bible (YouTube video)

by Phillip E. Johnson (YouTube video)

Evolution is a fact only at a very small scale. It is fantasy when it is used to explain how plants and animals came into existence or how human beings supposedly evolved from apelike ancestors. We might summarize the fantasy by saying that, where the theory of evolution is true, it is not very interesting, and where it is most interesting, it is not true.

If “evolution” merely refers to a process of cyclical (back and forth) variation in response to changing environmental conditions, then evolution is a fact that can be observed both in nature and in laboratory experiments.

For example, when a population of insects is sprayed with a deadly chemical like DDT, the most susceptible insects die but the individuals most resistant to the poison survive to breed and leave offspring, which inherit the genes that provide resistance. After many generations of insects have been sprayed, the entire surviving population may be comprised of the DDT-resistant variety, and some new form of insect control will have to be applied. Such changes are not permanent, however, because the resistant mosquitoes are more fit than the others only for as long as the insecticide is applied. When the environment becomes free of the toxic chemical, the insect population tends to revert to what it was before.

A similar effect explains how disease-causing bacteria become resistant to antibiotic drugs like penicillin, which then are no longer as effective in controlling the disease as they formerly were. [Read more...]

New PDF magazine from Reasons to Believe

Here it is: www.reasons.org/files/ezine/ezine-2011-01_Final.pdf