Bruce Chapman and John West: Are the Darwinists afraid to debate us? We want a discussion of ideas 07:37 AM CDT on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 Nowhere is the free exchange of ideas supposed to be more robust or uninhibited than on college campuses. Thus, it is disheartening that certain professors and even some journalists are seeking to prevent scientists and philosophers who support the theory of intelligent design from explaining their views at the Darwin v. Design conference on the Southern Methodist University campus Friday and Saturday. At the conference, scholars will present empirical data from biology, biochemistry, physics, mathematics and related fields that provide strong evidence that features of living things and the universe are the products of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as the neo-Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random (chance) mutations. Unfortunately, would-be censors are trying to get the conference banned from campus by ludicrously comparing intelligent design proponents to faith healers or even Holocaust deniers. Faith healers and Holocaust deniers are not on the faculties of reputable universities. Scientists who support intelligent design are. These scientists include biochemist and author Michael Behe at Lehigh University (who will be speaking at the SMU conference), microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho and astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University, whose research has been featured in Scientific American and who co-authored a book describing the evidence for design of the cosmos that has been praised even by some leading evolutionists. Scholars who support intelligent design are making their arguments in books put out by academic publishers such as Cambridge University Press and Michigan State University Press and in technical articles published in peer-reviewed science and philosophy of science journals. If the evidence for design can be presented in such forums, what is so frightening about allowing it to be heard at SMU? Proponents of Darwin's theory typically insist that the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that no rational person can challenge it, but they equivocate on the meaning of "evolution." Intelligent design does not challenge the idea that evolution occurs, rather the claim that the development of the intricate and highly functional features in nature is the result of a blind and undirected process that cannot select for future function. Contrary to the bravado of Darwinists, there is considerable empirical evidence of the insufficiency of the Darwinian mechanism. Research published by protein scientist Douglas Axe in the Journal of Molecular Biology shows just how astonishingly rare certain working protein sequences are, casting severe doubts that a Darwinian process of chance mutations could generate them. In the words of Dr. Axe, the rarity of these working protein sequences among all the possible combinations is "less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion." Various science professors at SMU have called on their university to ban our conference, and more recently some of them have declared that they "have a duty as practitioners of science to speak out" against intelligent design. But if they truly believe that they have a duty to "speak out," why not speak out by engaging intelligent design scholars in a serious discussion? We invited the chairs of SMU's departments of biology, geological sciences and anthropology to send representatives to the first night of our conference so they can present their objections and even interrogate intelligent design scholars with their toughest questions. As we were writing this, the anthropology department declined due to a scheduling conflict, but the other departments have not responded. Unfortunately, this behavior is all too common among defenders of Darwinian theory. They publicly disparage intelligent design (often showing through their comments that they know very little about what it actually proposes), but they refuse to engage in genuine dialogue. What a different approach from that modeled by Darwin himself, who humbly and patiently responded to objections to his theory and who frankly acknowledged that "a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." What are today's Darwinists so afraid of?
another of those "talk to me" article... u guys are so desperate for attention could that be frustration from a "school of thought" that is just not able to make its case?... take a look at the wedge document again http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1299704&highlight=wedge#post1299704 THE WEDGE STRATEGY Phase I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making Phase III. Cultural Confrontation & Renewal how about those phase I deliverables? haven't seen anything yet
Airbrushing the Evidence for Reverse Engineering in Biology: Darwinist Makes Wikipedia Reference âDisappearâ By Michael Egnor In the Soviet Union, censors would routinely make out-of-favor party leaders disappear from photographs... Darwinists, who are scientific, rather than political, materialists, have an affinity for airbrushing as well. When sneering, name-calling, and obfuscation donât make the evidence go away, Darwinists just wipe it away. A recent example of Darwinian airbrushing is worth noting. I recently noted that the discovery of the structure and function of DNA was a good example of reverse engineering in biology and that the discovery of DNA had nothing to do with Darwinâs theory. Reverse engineering in biology is an inference to design, even if the inference is implicit and not explicit, and even if the scientist using the reverse engineering methodology doesnât agree with the philosophical implications of the design inference. Much of modern molecular biology is the reverse engineering of biological molecules. To illustrate my point, I linked to the "Reverse Engineering" entry in Wikipedia, which had a nice succinct definition: Reverse engineering... is the process of discovering the technological principles of a device or object or system through analysis of its structure, function and operationâ¦Reverse engineering is essentially science, using the scientific method. Sciences such as biology and physics can be seen as reverse engineering of biological 'machines' and the physical world respectively (emphasis mine) .My post was published on Evolution News and Views on April 3rd. On April 4th, the Wikipedia reference to biological reverse engineering was airbrushed out. It was changed to: Reverse engineering ⦠is the process of discovering the technological principles of a device or object or system through analysis of its structure, function and operation. It often involves taking something (e.g. a mechanical device, an electronic component, a software program) apart and analyzing its workings in detail, usually to try to make a new device or program that does the same thing without copying anything from the original. The verb form is to reverse engineer. This was airbrushed: Reverse engineering is essentially science, using the scientific method. Sciences such as biology and physics can be seen as reverse engineering of biological 'machines' and the physical world respectively . The biological reverse engineering analogy was part of the original definition, and had been present until the day that I linked to it in my post. Someone (perhaps a Darwinist?) went to work with an eraser. The history of the redactions shows that "DrLeeBot" deleted the phrase applying reverse engineering to the scientific method. He wrote, "Removed reference to scientific method; the analog [sic] is too abstract to be worth mentioning." Looking a little further, is seems that DrLeeBot has an agenda. He has repeatedly modified Wikipedia articles on "pseudoscience" and modified articles on President Bush in ways that that make them more critical of the President. Darwinists felt so threatened by my mundane observation that they actually airbrushed out the relevant part of the Wikipedia link for reverse engineering. This is how Darwinists debate. I made the simple point that much of modern molecular biology is biological reverse engineering, and that the implicit inference to design may be helpful in guiding biological research. Their reply: delete the evidence. What are Darwinists afraid of? Intelligent Design scientists try to help people see the evidence. Darwinists are afraid they'll see it.
OMG :eek: is it just me or does the above reek of Scientology??? ya know, the "we're just trying to help people" bit... http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Narconon/scam.htm just food for thought, trying to help people too
What role did the inference to design play for scientists who gave us electricity? By Michael Egnor Mike Lemonick, Time Magazineâs senior science writer and credulous Darwinist, has a habit of writing things that make even his Darwinist friends cringe. He recently posted an essay sympathetic with Darwinists who are trying to shut down the Southern Methodist University Darwin vrs. Design conference. He called the Discovery Institute all kinds of names, including "propagandists" and purveyors of âhalf truths [that] will actually make people more ignorant." Mr. Lemonick made this remarkable statement: If the DI had been around when people thought lightning was stuff the gods threw when angry, we might still not have electricity. Letâs ask: what role did the inference to design play for scientists who gave us electricity? The 19th century physicists whose research formed the basis for our modern understanding of electromagnetism were Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell. Michael Faraday was a devoutly religious Christian. He understood his life as a search for Godâs design in nature. He was a member of Sandemanian church, an offshoot of the Church of Scotland. Sandemanians were considered particularly fervent believers, even by Victorian standards. Faraday was an elder in the church, and a sermon he delivered was recorded by his friend and biographer J.H. Gladstone: It [is] his turn to preach. On two sides of a card he has previously sketched out his sermon with the illustrative texts, but the congregation does not see the card, only a little Bible in his hand, the pages of which he turns quickly over, as, fresh from an honest heart, there flows a discourse full of devout thought, clothed largely in the language of Scripture. Michael Faraday's life was a seamless blend of science and faith, and his life of passionate Christian belief would equal or exceed that of many of the scientists who have signed the Discovery Institute's Dissent from Darwin List. Faraday would be appalled to see his work used as an example of science divorced from faith in God and from the inference to design in nature. He believed passionately in both. If he lived today, Mr. Lemonick would derisively label him a "fundamentalist" and a purveyor of âhalf truths [that] will actually make people more ignorant." James Clerk Maxwell, a devout Presbyterian, was also an intensely religious man. In a letter to the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, Maxwell explained his view of the unity of faith and science and the design he saw in the natural world: At the same time I think that each individual man should do all he can to impress his own mind with the extent, the order, and the unity of the universe, and should carry these ideas with him as he reads such passages as the 1st Chap. of the Ep. to Colossians (see Lightfoot on Colossians, p.182), just as enlarged conceptions of the extent and unity of the world of life may be of service to us in reading Psalm viii, Heb ii 6, etc. Like Faraday, Maxwell saw Godâs design everywhere in his science. He explicitly believed that God's design was evident in nature, and that it was his job as a scientist to study the design. Like Faraday, he would be appalled to see his work used to advance scientific materialism. If Maxwell lived today, Mr. Lemonick would dismiss him a creationist "propagandist." Itâs ironic that Mr. Lemonick would choose electromagnetism as a vignette for the design inference in science. The two scientific pioneers of classical electromagnetism, Faraday and Maxwell, were particularly devout Christians who inferred design everywhere in nature. They believed that God designed everythingâincluding electricity. Their approach to science was pure design inference, undiluted by atheism or materialism. Contra Mr. Lemonick, we have electricity because of men who believed in God and in the evident design in nature. Mr. Lemonick misunderstands the philosophical origins of modern science. The Scientific Revolution emerged within, and only within, Judeo-Christian civilization, and nearly all of the scientists who gave us modern scienceâ-Copernicus, Pascal, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Leibniz, Harvey, Vesalius, Linnaeus, Lavoisier, Mendel, Pasteur, as well as Faraday and Maxwell, were devout Christians who inferred design in all of nature. They worked entirely from the design inference. Mr. Lemonickâs misunderstanding of the history of electromagnetism, as well as the history and philosophy of science, is on a par with his misunderstanding of the Darwinism/ID debate. Thereâs reason for his blindness: Mr. Lemonick has an ideological axe to grind. He detests any approach to science that crosses the boundaries set by scientific materialism, and he wants science scrubbed of any hint of transcendence. Science, and all philosophy, have a basis in culture. Western science is rooted in Judeo-Christian culture. If Mr. Lemonick seeks a culture that enforces the monopoly of materialistic science stripped of any inference to God or of any inference to design, there are places in the world in which materialistic science is de rigueur and de jure. North Korea, for example.
What Exactly Does Genetic Similarity Demonstrate? By Logan Gage Francix X. Clines, an excellent writer for The City Life and Editorial Observer sections of The New York Times, today (April 23, 2007) repeats what may be the most common mistake in trying to sell Darwinism to the public. In âEvolution, on Broadway and Off,â Clines writes of the American Museum of Natural Historyâs exhibition on evolution: The DNA exhibit shows how the chimpanzeeâs DNA has been conclusively shown to be 98.8 percent the same as the visitorâs DNA. Hey, thatâs no show stopper for the monkey-song chorus â it still allows a one in 100 chance theyâre right. In other words, you are silly for not believing in Darwinism because you have very similar genes which make the proteins in your body as the chimps do to make their proteins. Game over, right? Not so fast. The Main Issue: Unintelligent vs. Intelligent Mechanism My hope is that one day thinking about Darwinian Theory will become clearer in the public square. Recall that Darwin made two claims: (1) all living beings descend from one or a few original ancestors, and (2) the mechanism driving the changes among species is the blind, unguided mechanism of natural selection. The controversial claim, of course, is the second oneâthe idea that a purely material mechanism, without any intelligence involved, is responsible for all of the genetic information necessary for life (DNA) and hence for all of lifeâs diversity. Clines and others seem to think that evidence for claim one establishes claim two. This is poor thinking. Sequence similarity may indeed be evidence for a common originâbut it does nothing to show that the common origin stems from a material cause rather than an intelligent cause. Sequence Similarity Alone Does NOT Prove Common Ancestry Second, the 98.8% DNA sequence similarity between chimps and humans that Clines references does not even establish claim one (common ancestry). And âyou donât have to take my word for it,â as LeVar Burton always used to say on Reading Rainbow. As Francis Collins, head of the project which mapped the human genome, has written of DNA sequence similarities, âThis evidence alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestorâ because an intelligent cause can reuse successful design principles. We know this because we are intelligent agents ourselves, and we do this all the time. We take instructions we have written for one thing and use them for another. The similarity is not the result of a blind mechanism but rather the result of our intelligent activity. Some design proponents think the evidence for common ancestry is good (e.g., Michael Behe), while othersâciting the fossil record, especially The Cambrian Explosionâdo not. But neither group thinks that sequence similarity alone proves either common ancestry or the Darwinian mechanism, as so many science writers of our day seem eager to assume.
University of Missouri Doctor Lectures on Design By Logan Gage It looks like CSC contributor Michael Egnor is not the only professor of medicine to stick his neck out for intelligent design and face severe personal attack. Dr. John Marshall of The University of MissouriâColumbia lectured this week on his own campus with the title "Intelligent Design: Is It Science or Religion?" From both news and private reports, it sounds like he was verbally attacked in the Q&A session for his reasonable view that ID should be "part of the scientific discussion." According to one news report: Rather than convince detractors that intelligent design was truth, Marshall repeatedly said he wanted the theory to become part of the scientific discussion, asking scientists to have tolerance toward his view. One attendee told me he was astounded by the level of immaturity and name-calling from professors hostile to Dr. Marshall's position. Earlier on April 6th Dr. Marshall debated chemistry professor Kenneth Schmitz at The University of MissouriâKansas City as to whether or not ID is science. Though he was mostly calling for civil dialogue and open discussion, Dr. Marshall said that "as a theory, I believe that intelligent design fits the evidence of biology better than Darwinian evolution." As his example shows, this is a tough claim to make in today's univeristy environment.
There is no science in ID - aka creationism so It's no more than you might expect Trying to make extravagant claims ( especially in a lecture ) that have no basis in science , to scientists, is pointless and pathetic. A lot like the c&p creationist propaganda you are reduced to. Non of it has any scientific or practical lessons or values and doesn't even reach the standard of a good ol â Goldilocks tale