Tag Archives: Intelligent Design

Great Lines: April 18 2008

Neil gets around. A lot.

There have been at least two cases this week where I’ve found some new blog or something outside my regular reading and there in the comments was Neil, arguing with lucidity and alacrity for truth in whichever topic was being discussed.

Truly an amazing man… being from the greatest state in America has it’s benefits.

But one comment in particular stood out to me this week, or today.

On the Forbes.com blog Digital Rules, Rich Karlgaard wrote regarding freedom of thought in academia and science, specifically in context of the issue of Evolution and alternative theories and the newly released documentary/movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

To be a skeptic of Darwinism today is indeed costly. You will be publicly ridiculed. You will be called stupid, ignorant, bigoted, irrational and unenlightened. You will be compared with Neanderthals and flat-earthers. You could easily limit your career if you work in academia or science.

He ended his post with a query:

What do you think? Do advocates of intelligent design have a case? Is Darwinism flawed and are its proponents trying to silence the debate?

Neil concluded his reasoned response:

We have lots of evidence for the existence of God – cosmological (“first cause”), teleological (design), morality, logic, the physical resurrection of Jesus, etc. If atheists don’t find that compelling, then so be it. I’m on the Great Commission, not the paid commission. But to insist that we have no evidence is uncharitable in the extreme and makes reasoned dialogue impossible.

Today’s Interesting Stuff – December 3rd, 2007

As this years begins winding to a close, we have one of those news days which just makes me happy.

Hugo Chavez, the communist thug who wanted to run things forever in Venezuela, has been told he can’t hang around any longer than 2012, his original term limit. Students formed a coalition and grassroots campaign to fight his power grabs, and because he’s still constrained by a constitution he must abide by the law. The Communist News Networks print mouthpiece, Time Magazine, had the temerity to call Chavez’ power grabs “reforms“.

They cannot stand the thought of not using murdered babies to try to improve lives. And they aren’t afraid to lie about it. There has not been a single case of successful treatment of any condition using human embryonic stem cells. The only reason the government is being petitioned to fund this research is because private industry will not.

And what of the propriety of the government funding research anyway? Is it the responsibility of the government to do such things? Consider another expensive project: space travel. Now consider such programs as the Ansari X Prize which encouraged the production of vehicles which can enter space and return with a usable payload twice in two weeks. Using private money and initiative. Can the space shuttle do that? Can the government do that?

The State of Texas School Board fired their science curriculum coordinator for sending around an article critical of Intelligent Design. And the ruckus begins. With baited headlines such as “Hey Science, Don’t Mess With Texas” from the Huffington Post (which is apparently a major Yahoo Op/Ed outlet now) and “Evolution: Don’t even talk about it in Texas” the frenzied crowds cry foul. However, where is the issue? I’m not going to make a judgment on whether the coordinator ought to have been fired, there may have been other issues which led up to this. It would be unwise to fire someone just for sending around a document such as this. But a common thread through this hue and cry is that Intelligent Design and Creationism are some super heavy-weights in the world stage which have dominated Evolutionary theory in education and elsewhere.

Now tell me this: which theory has had the greater part of the last 50 years to indoctrinate our youth, guide our scientific inquiry, and silence any and all public debate? It’s not Creationism or Intelligent Design. No, evolution, a theory without proof or even a preponderance of evidence beyond that offered by the need for man to be able to define himself apart from an omniscient God, has enjoyed all formal and official public support. Evolution is no spunky underdog in this fight, it is instead the 800 pound gorilla which has dominated all arguments and quashed all dissent. Evolution is a flighty, sensitive thing too, which does not allow argument or dissent.

Further joy from the religion of Peace. Thank God she has been pardoned and is back in the UK now. Though with the ‘peaceful’ nature of British Muslims, her safety may not be guaranteed at this point.

The hurricane season is over. It was average, low average. And less than was predicted.

If they can’t predict a single season, why do they think they can predict the end of the world?

Today’s Interesting Stuff

Beginning with a quote from the gibbon, I mean a quote from Gibbon:

In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again. – Edward Gibbon

How salient to our current situation in America is that statement. I definitely want to read Gibbon now, though I’ve heard his tomes (Rise And Fall Of The Roman Empire is his most famous) are quite, ummmm, thick.

Iterations of Complexity: The Continuing Argument for Intelligent Design

You’ve heard of single layer dependencies between various creatures in the kingdoms of nature. One beastie hitching a necessary ride on some unsuspecting host beastie. These dependencies befuddle evolutionary biologists who cannot explain methods by which these organisms evolved separately or the chances necessary for them to have evolved together.

Now see this:

As the sun rises over a grassy pasture, and the morning light glints from the countless clinging drops of dew, a single snail resolutely inches toward a mound of steaming nourishment. But unbeknownst to the armored gastropod, this seemingly ordinary heap of cow dung conceals a legion of tiny Dicrocoelium dendriticum eggs, each of which contains the embryo of a sinister mind-controlling parasite. As the snail gorges itself on the fibrous feast, it unwittingly sets the collection of unborn lancet flukes on a miniature adventure which will lead them through slime, zombies, and bile to ultimately find their own unique kind of utopia

These Flukes will live consecutively in the Snail, in an ant (which they will control to suicide through its nervous system), and finally in a cow. Catch that, at least four separate organisms in a dependency cycle, each step a necessary part of the growth process and life cycle of this Fluke.

My bet is the chance is impossibly slim that this cycle evolved.

Evolution And Permutations Of Information

Those who question the idea of evolution are typically faced with the mental gymnastic of the idea that even though it is improbable, it is not impossible that monkeys typing random letters on typewriters may eventually turn out lines of Shakespeare. However, there are assumptions being made and accepted by even that simple statement which must not be accepted, but instead should be turned on the hypothesizer for their false intent and use.

This acceptance of “minor” assumptions on which major falacies are based is as or more dangerous than the acceptance of the major falacy for their insidiousness, and the laxity that accompanies their acceptance. And they are not exclusive to the debate on evolution, but are common to every debate, philosophical, ideological, scientific, or any combination of those or others.

We ought not accept minor assumptions because they are likely just as false, and a house of logic may be built on even the flimsiest of ideas if they are not caught by thoughfulness and attacked with the wind of truth.

In regards to the typing monkeys, the assumptions are the existance of monkeys, the creation of typewriters, and the genius of Shakespeare. Evolution assumes that given enough time, for instance, proteins and the random intent of Dawkins’ “Blind Watchmaker” will create DNA and RNA, and a cell with purpose will occur. But what about proteins? Or enzymes? Where do they come from? And their building blocks, the harmonics of energy which appear to make up the quarks and other sub-atomic particles: Order moves to chaos, so all must begin with order so that order may continue for a while. Or else we are stuck with the question: Where did the order come from?

Truly, the permutations of information drive nails into the coffin of evolution.

A Christian and a Creationist ought not fear gazing into a telescope or peering into a microscope, for from the micro to the macro, the fractal logic continues throughout, and the evidence only ever has and only ever will show the glory and handiwork of God.

Dawkins, in a desperate attempt to indoctrinate the future that they might not question what they actually see, said that “Biology is the study of complicated things which give the appearance of purpose and design.” When one sees a watch on the ground, one cannot assume that the rocks and metal filings, and wind and rain worked in concert to create this timepiece, but one assumes that there was a designer behind the designed watch, William Paley stated famously in his oft lambasted, but never refuted logic argument for the necessity of an intelligent designer of this creation we can observe. And Darwin himself, towards the end of his life stated that “The sight of a feather in a Peacocks tail, when I gaze at it, makes me sick.”

There is no explanation for life occuring within a closed system with any complexity, let alone the layers upon layers, the permutations of complexity and information necessary for that complexity. And the chances don’t get better as time goes by. Each moment has exactly the same chance of the unthinkable occuring as the moment before, and given enough zeros following the probability statement, it is hardly inconceivable that such long-shot chances as, say, the entire earth happening just so, is an actual impossibility.

Truly, the permutations of information nail securely the lid of the coffin of evolution.