David Berlinksi's clarity of insight

The usual crowd of darwinists often fall back to throwing a few standard claims at the burgeoning Intelligent Design movement, such as "ID is not properly defined" or "ID lacks rigour". Such attacks have always lacked merit but are now more ineffectual than ever. So noted philosopher of science David Berlinski's bestselling new book The Devil's Delusion comes along at a good time. David Berlinski is possibly one of the most perceptive minds in this field and the book is a joy to read and is quite the tour de force as we say here in Canada. It also stimulates the reader's own thoughts. As a textbook reviewer I've reviewed many textbooks and am happy to see that the Devils' Delusion comes with a downloadable discussion guide which makes it ideal for use in school settings where it is bound to spice up an otherwise dull philosophy or science classes. Berlinski has always strived lion-like to convey important matters to the wider public. Regal is another fine word. He dares to ask whether a designer whose nature we cannot fathom, using principles we cannot specify, constructed a system we cannot characterize, and lays bare the intellectual dishonesty of dismissing this essential question as "lacking rigour" or being a "science stopper".

Put in simple logical terms where the Darwinists go wrong is when they collectively root their pseudointellectual foundations in a profound overconfidence and misunderstaning of what they claim is the "scientific method" and even before they begin reject a priori a huge swathe of Human experience. This arises of course as an inevitable consequence of their syllogism mired in a miasma that was imposed initially by the enforcement of this so-called "methodogical naturalism". Thus they will adopt a fundamentally theological stance while claiming to reject any theological prerequisites to their postulates ipso facto. Blinkered to the inherent circularity of his reasoning the darwinist builds an ever more teetering tower of inferences and rhetoric on the weak sandy foundation of his mental alluvial mudflats. Recently this house of cards has begun to be shown for the shaky ivory tower construct it always was and is being increasingly rejected by a public demanding change. Wearing pink tasseled slippers and conical hats covered in polka dots the Darwinists descend, honking sadly, into the tar pits. Among the whole Darwinian Guild there is not a single first rate intelligence in the bunch.

But these aren't arguments you'll ever hear a darwinist give an answer to.

Find out why there's an intelligent design controversy...

ID "is not science" trotted out again

The Discovery Institute's Casey Luskin recently gave a lecture at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in which he argued very well that Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific realm of investigation regardless of what the loudmouth darwinist congregation might say. Speaking against Dr Luskin was a theologian, and isn't it strange that the darwinists sent a theologian to argue against Dr Luskin instead of a biologist. Truth be told, darwinism is pure theology and they know it.

Peter Hess, a theologian, author of "Catholicism and Science" and a defender of teaching evolution in schools. He said Intelligent Design is "not science'' but is "poor theology.''

Again with the tired old trope that Intelligent Design is "not science''. This might be hard for some people to understand but detecting design and making legitimate design inferrences from the world around us is too science.
Consider an episode of Diagnosis Murder. When Dr Mark Sloan finds a patient at Community General has been murdered he doesn't just leap to the conclusion that unguided materials and energies just happened by chance to create the appearance of murder. He meticulously examines the scene and performs experiments in the form of interviews to arrive at a logical deduction of how an intelligent agent performed the complex specified act. And he gets it done in under an hour despite being interrupted for commercial breaks. Intelligent Design researchers are just doing the same thing.

Stop already with trotting out the "ID is not science" pony.

Molecular clock really goes tick tock?

There's much puffery spoken by people who should know better about the supposedly exact "molecular clock" which the darwinists pin their hopes on to explain how bears turned into whales. Or at least they use it to proclaim loftily and mightily about when bears turned into whales even if they always forget to explain how and change the subject if anyone dares ask them or else come out with a stream of gabble which makes this science journalist's head spin or just as often simply accuse the questioner of misunderstanding. Unsurprisingly it turns out again their "molecular clock" isn't as accurate as we've been told. This time someone's been digging up frozen penguin corpses in antarctica and comparing the "molecular clock" to the true age of the birds

Penguins that died 44,000 years ago in Antarctica have provided extraordinary frozen DNA samples that challenge the accuracy of traditional genetic aging measurements, and suggest those approaches have been routinely underestimating the age of many specimens by 200 to 600 percent.
In other words, a biological specimen determined by traditional DNA testing to be 100,000 years old may actually be 200,000 to 600,000 years old, researchers suggest in a new report in Trends in Genetics, a professional journal.
The findings raise doubts about the accuracy of many evolutionary rates based on conventional types of genetic analysis.

That's a really useful clock you've got there that gains a week every day. Expect this study to be slipped quietly down the memory hole and the "molecular clock" to remain on its pedestal. After all, too many people have got their nice tenure funded by the taxpayers to want to confuse the huddled masses with the truth.


Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy!

Into the minds of infants

The Guardian of London is reporting that in Britain the Darwinianist establishment which is increasingly losing its grip on adults and teens is shifting its aim to catch future believers when they're at the youngest and most impressionable by peddling their dogma in junior school

The government is ready to put evolution on the primary curriculum for the first time after years of lobbying by senior scientists.
The schools minister, Diana Johnson, has confirmed the plans will be included in a blueprint for a new curriculum to be published in the next few weeks.
It follows a letter signed by scientists and science educators calling on the government to make the change after draft versions of the new curriculum failed to mention evolution explicitly.

And who are these "scientists and science educators" who were so up in arms that a government might actually serve children with an education instead of an indocrination of atheist fairy tales? Hold onto your hats and prepare to be shocked, shocked, shocked:

Among the signatories were the Oxford University evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.
The letter expressed alarm that the theory of evolution through natural selection, which it describes as "one of the most important ideas underlying biological science", was ignored in the revamped curriculum.
"We consider its inclusion vital," the letter said.

Of course Dawkins considers it vital. It's the atheist Creation myth and he knows there's no better time to get someone to believe that molecules somehow turned into fish somehow turned into men than when they still believe in Santa Claus.

That this is proposed in England, the home of Saint Darwin and coincidentally a country with single payer government healthcare and where homeschooling is practically illegal, is hardly surprising. It's more important than ever that people realize what's at stake.


Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:


Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Time for civil debate

The erudite Casey Luskin, Head of Logic at the Discovery Institute, makes the case in the Washington Examiner for the Darwin-worshippers to restore civility to the debate in the intelligent design controversy.

In today’s highly charged political climate, scientific debates over controversial subjects such as climate change and evolution increasingly substitute such overblown rhetoric for careful analysis.

We commonly see one side depicting the other as not only wrong, but as unreasonable, irrational, or immoral. As a result, two terms are presently in vogue to describe those who question scientific ideas: “Skeptic” and “Denier.”

In place of rhetorically charged labels like denier, I suggest using more civil terms like “critic” or “skeptic,” even when describing one's opponents. ID proponents are critics of Darwinian evolution.

[...]

Once the rhetoric is toned down, perhaps we can have a real discussion about the evidence and find out which side’s skepticism is most convincing in this intriguing debate.

Quite right. Just because their heads are filled with a Nazi-inspiring dogma which causes school shootings and allows them to euthanise seniors and abort babies and behave as they like without moral consequence doesn't give the Darwin-worshipping herd any right to remove civility from an important public debate at the razor's edge of scientific discovery.

Discover why there really is a controvery about Intelligent Design!

Dinosaurs disowned

After decades of inisisting that the fossil record provides "overwhelming evidence" for evolution the darwinists are now quietly confessing that the fossil record isn't all it's cracked up to be. They've gone back to look at the bones and found that maybe a third of the dinosaur species they'd been luring kids with didn't exist after all.

Their demise comes after a three-horned dinosaur, Torosaurus, was assigned to the dustbin of history last month at the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology meeting in the United Kingdom, the loss in recent years of quite a few duck-billed hadrosaurs and the probable disappearance of Nanotyrannus, a supposedly miniature Tyrannosaurus rex.

These dinosaurs were not separate species, as some paleontologists claim, but different growth stages of previously named dinosaurs, according to a new study.

Good job for me that I don't care how the tyrannosaur died because next year they'll probably be telling us that the tyrannosaur never existed. As I've always told my students; don't take a paleontologist at face value until he can tell you how many types of dinosaurs there actually were, and they've never managed to settle on a number yet.

Find out why there's an intelligent design controversy!

PZ Myers challenged to show cat robot

Atheist professor of Darwin and loudmouth Jesus desecrator PZ Myers is insulting Dinesh D'Souza's excellent arguments for an afterlife in his normal loud and disjointed way. Of course he doesn't address the substance of any of Professor D'Souza's masterful logic but instead resorts to the basest crudities like talking about defiling himself over Ann Coulter. But he's made one big mistake by making a verfiable claim to have "built a robot and included in its circuitry some code that inclined it to avoid colliding with cats".
I challenge him now to show us this robot and the computer pro-gram he wrote to make it avoid cats. It should be a simple matter. If he can't do this it casts the truthfulness of his other statements in a very poor light.
That a man like this is busy filling students' heads with Darwin worship is sad but I suppose inevitable given the state of modern academia.