Darwinism and popular culture: Seattle DOESN'T love Lucy? Oh, ... how could they not?

Whodathunkit? The Lucy (yer granny was an ape!!) exhibition is not a big draw, even in Seattle.

A friend writes:

"I actually went to see Lucy yesterday and it was very revealing. Not only was I underwhelmed with the incompleteness of Lucy’s skeleton, but I was struck with the admissions from the video playing with Donald Johansen admitting that he found Lucy’s bones over the course of an entire hillside, and that if there were one more rainstorm, her bones may have been washed away never to be seen again. So what happened in the prior rainstorm to transport her bones from somewhere else? This makes me skeptical that Lucy represents one individual, or one anything. Who really knows."

Look, basically,"Lucy" is a cultural artifact. She didn't need to exist, really. She just needed to serve a purpose at a certain time - to convince people that materialism is true and religions, including Christianity, are false, and living on borrowed time.

Of course, that's nonsense, but it's elite nonsense, so we must defer to it. More troubling: We must also pay taxes to support it.

By the way, just so you know, this is the real Lucy (of "I love Lucy"), an icon of my childhood, and I have no time for anyone who doesn't love her.

Darwinism and popular culture: The point of Darwn's theory is - surprise, surprise - a No God religion

At Access Research Network, British physicist David Tyler writes,

The take-home message from Pigliucci is clear: Darwin's major contribution was not in the originality of his thought or the details of his theory (which have evolved and developed with the passing of time) but in championing a science committed to naturalism: i.e. only natural causes are acceptable within science. Once people grasp this, many things become clear.

1. Scientists committed to naturalism find it really difficult to understand Intelligent Design primarily because they are operating within a different paradigm.

2. Those who regard ID as a threat to science and education are actually seeking to promote a version of science and education that is committed to philosophical naturalism.

3. The Bicentennial celebrations for Darwin are more inspired by a commitment to the Darwinian worldview rather than to Darwin's contribution to science.

4. Gould's NOMA thesis and the complementarity approach of theistic evolutionists are way off the mark because they fail to acknowledge the critical role played by naturalistic philosophy in contemporary science.

I will have more to say about this later, but just for now: I run into people all the time who inform me that they are "Christian, but don't believe in intelligent design."

I ask them the obvious question: If you do not believe that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design, why, exactly, are you a Christian? What's the take-home point of being a Christian for you?

Usually, they are abashed and say that, well, ... they do believe that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design but they don't believe in some specific theory.

Okay. Which one? Why not?

It invariably turns out that they don't know which theory they don't believe, only that they have been commanded by some high panjandrum to Not Believe. And to not think about it either.

Honestly, ... watching people forge their chains, manacle by manacle, is embarrassing and unsightly.

I have bounced numerous trolls from my Inbox by just asking them to read at least ONE serious work on the subject, Edge of Evolution, for example.

But they don't, because it would be too scary for them to discover that there really are reasons for doubting Darwin.

It's safe, but it's not science.

The Cambrian explosion: Why Darwinism is just propaganda for a worldview you do not really want

Robert Deyes explains, over at Access Research Network:

The Cambrian 'Expulsion': Crucial Evidence That Kicked Out Darwinian Gradualism

There is one accomplishment that stands out as spectacular for the simple reason that it changed the way scientists looked at the origins of multicellular life. The discovery of the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies by the American geologist Charles Doolittle Walcott in the summer of 1909 was an occurrence that required both good fortune and opportunity (Ref 3, p.42). It likewise satisfies our romantic view of scientific discovery. According to folklore, Walcott was riding on horseback together with his wife Helena and son Stuart when his wife's horse stumbled on a rock. Dismounting his horse, Walcott broke open the rock to reveal a host of soft-bodied fossils (Ref 3, p.42).

In the days that followed Walcott and his party found more fossils amongst the pieces of broken shale that covered the neighboring hillside. So it was that several years later, after a number of return expeditions to the Burgess Shale, Walcott would describe his finding as "the finest and largest series of Middle Cambrian fossils yet discovered" (Ref 3, p.44).

Go here for an intro to the Burgess Shale, also here for more. Darwin, incidentally, knew about the sudden appearance of new life forms, and tried to talk his way out of the problem for his theory, claiming that the fossil record was "incomplete." From what we can tell today, when it is "complete," it will still show sudden appearances. The challenge is to account for that, not to explain it away.

Don't believe in God? Doubt Darwin anyway? No problem ... thank Richard Dawkins!

Discovery Institute (yes, yes, the evil Discos) writes to say,

Zogby Poll Shows Dramatic Jump in Number of Americans Who Favor Teaching Both Sides of Evolution

Surprisingly Strong Support Seen Among Democrats and Liberals

A new Zogby poll on the eve of Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday shows a dramatic rise in the number of Americans who agree that when biology teachers teach the scientific evidence for Darwin’s theory of evolution, they also should teach the scientific evidence against it. Surprisingly, the poll also shows overwhelming support among self-identified Democrats and liberals for academic freedom to discuss the “strengths and weaknesses” evolution.

Over 78% of likely voters agree with teaching both the evidence for and against Darwin’s theory, according to the new national poll.

“This represents a dramatic 9-point jump from 2006, when only 69% of respondents in a similar poll favored teaching both sides,” said Discovery Institute’s Dr. John West. “At the same time, the number of likely voters who support teaching only the evidence that favors evolution dropped 7 points from 21% in 2006 to 14.4% in 2009. More here.

Here's the whole gruesome poll.

I personally believe that the change in the numbers who say, "Aw, just teach it all," is due to the strident celebration of Darwin by materialist atheists. They need his theory to be true, despite evidence, and they are simply out of step with what most people think.

Oh yes, and dim Bible School profs who think we all need protection from the Darwinists. "No conflict between science and religion," says the prof.

Yeah sure, but what does the prof think science is, and what does he think religion is? Darwin thought that black people were closer to gorillas than white people are. Is that really science?

Also, the universe shows overwhelming evidence of intelligent design. Is that really religion?

I am tempted to get down on my knees and thank the "new atheist" movement, and especially, Richard Dawkins, for these results. Everyone now wants the window to be opened, to dissipate the foul air.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Message to Darwinists: Quit lying about Darwin's racism. It is not doing you any good.

Darwinists: Re the white–black-gorilla thing Quit lying about the fact that Darwin thought that black people are closer to gorillas than white people are. Just own up to it, reject it, and move on.

Of course, you must then admit that Darwin's whole idea of how different species develop is not a good one. Because you know perfectly well that Darwin's key point in Descent of Man was that different races are in the process of becoming different species.

Do you believe that, or not? I suspect you don't. Disowning Darwin's theory is surely a small price to pay, to move on to a post-"scientific racism" world?

And if not, why not?

Scholars also turn a blind eye to the argument for racism that eugenicists drew from The Descent. Darwin there claimed that the break between apes and man in evolution fell "between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." West argues that Darwin's allegation about blacks belonging to "a more primitive stage of human evolution" soon became a powerful scientific rationale for racist public policies, including laws against miscegenation*.

*Miscegenation means marrying a person of a different skin shade from oneself, and then having kids. It is the kind of offence only a demented society could invent. Darwinism helped dement societies in that specific way, because Darwin and his followers thought human groups were separating into different species. If Darwinists refuse to repent of such nonsense, I recommend disbelieving everything else they say.