Conservative blog charges: The ID think tank is in league with Islamic radicals

Here's a weird turn of events: Conservative blog Little Green Footballs thinks the ID think tank Discovery Institute is in league with Islamic radicals.

And here all those other conspira-zozos insist the evil Discos are fundie Christians who think all Muslims are going to hell! Who knew how fast things could change?

Head evil Disco Bruce Chapman (a Reagan admin official in a former life) responds,

The blog site Little Green Footballs has slandered Discovery Institute, whether
intentionally or not, by implying that we are in league with Islamic radicals in Turkey. They base this fantasy, apparently, on a CBC radio report of a year ago that was so poorly researched that it called Discovery Senior Fellow David Berlinski "Paul
Berlinski" and referred to us as the "Christian Discovery organization." Then they interview a host of people of varying views in Turkey who are critical of Darwinism and imply that they are all connected. They seemingly imply Discovery's involvement in this situation based on the fact that Berlinski was invited to speak at a conference held by the municipal government of Istanbul last year. Big deal. (Berlinski, by the way, is a secular Jew, so work with that fact for a while, boys.)

If people at LGF think they can make the case that Discovery Institute is somehow soft on Islamic radicalism and terrorists, perhaps they should pick up a copy of our Senior Fellow John Wohlstetter's new book, The Long War Ahead: And the Short War Upon Us. It is published by Discovery Institute Press and I challenge the LGF folks to read it—or any of my own writings on the Iraq War and the war on terrorism generally—and continue contending that this institute would ever have any truck with people—Muslim or otherwise—who doubt the danger of Islamic fascism.

I think Chapman is wasting his time. Many North Americans are not prepared to be rational either about most Muslims or about the evidence for design in nature. So this is their chance for two freakouts for the price of one.

I am surprised that Little Green Footballs would so easily credit anything that the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) broadcasts on the intelligent design controversy. The last thing the CBC people would do would be to pick up the phone to anyone in Canada who knows the Discos and ask how likely this is.

Speaking for myself, I have met a good number of the Discos, and have a pretty shrewd idea what they are like (earnest eggheads and lab rats, mostly). I certainly wouldn't protect them if I had any reason to believe that they were burka boys. It all sounds to me like a disinformation campaign.

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy, and other good stuff free

Brought to you by the evil Discos:


1. http://www.idthefuture.com/

Deconstructing Dawkins

Click here to listen.
On this episode of ID the Future, Logan Paul Gage reviews Alister McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion, the first book-length critique of Richard Dawkins' infamous The God Delusion. Listen in as Gage explains where McGrath succeeds in writing "with a scholarly care and graciousness," but fails to address Darwinism, assuming instead that theism is compatible with Darwin's theory.

Full text of Gage's review is available here.

[I usually begin any response to claims that Darwinism is compatible with theism by pointing out that it didn't work for Darwin. He became less and less of a theist throughout his life and ended up pleading that he perhaps "deserve[d] to be called a theist." Hmmm. Whatever happened to "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty .... " (the opening statement of the historic Christian creed - which does not sould like an invitation to doubt and waver, and wonder if there might be another way, or think that one deserves to be called anything - other than a sinner saved by grace)]

2. Evidence for Intelligent Design

What do you do when your professor challenges you to come up with facts in support of intelligent design (ID)? A group of students went to the source and asked CSC’s Casey Luskin, who answered them at Evolution News & Views and Intelligent Design the Future:

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin responds to emails from students who want to know the scientific evidence for intelligent design.

What do we really mean when we say that evolution is a scientific theory? Is there a positive case to be made for ID? Listen in and find out.

For more information, check out The Positive Case for Design.

[We need more of this. Government-funded nonsense is everywhere, now, and many of the blinkered profs supporting it have never even considered the possibility that it might not be well-founded. ]

Also:

3. To read more at Evolution News & Views, click here.

The Rise of the New Spontaneous Generationists
Spontaneous Generation — the idea that new life could form from nonliving matter — was popular 300 years ago, and now it’s experiencing a resurgence. As Robert Deyes at The ID Report explains:

"One explanation for the origin of life is that the first living cell, or cells, developed from nonliving matter according to chemical laws that we can observe today. This explanation is called the theory of chemical evolution or prebiotic (before biological life) evolution. The 'chemical evolution' theory assumes that matter and energy somehow self-originated into complex forms without any outside intelligence directing the process. We call this process of self-organization without outside intelligence spontaneous generation. In most forms, the theory assumes that a very long time was needed to "test" millions of chemical combinations until the right combination for life was found" (Ref 8, p.41).

To summarize, organic matter is seen as "the stuff of which life is spontaneously generated by nature" (Ref 8, p.71). In effect evolutionists have today replaced 17th century incantations of life-generating garbage mounds with wild suppositions of how life might have originated naturally in the silts of our earth. As perhaps the most outspoken of the new crop of Spontaneous Generationists, zoologist Richard Dawkins had this to say on the matter:

"Before the coming of life on earth, some rudimentary evolution of molecules could have occurred by ordinary processes of physics and chemistry. There is no need to think of design or purpose or directedness. If a group of atoms in the presence of energy falls into a stable pattern it will tend to stay that way. The earliest form of natural selection was simply a selection of stable forms and a rejection of unstable ones. There is no mystery about this. It had to happen by definition" (Ref 9, p.13)

Dawkins has yet to clarify the factual details of a purely naturalistic prebiotic evolution.

Read the rest here

[Isn't this just the modern version of magic? You can't get information out of sludge without organization. Organization requires intelligent direction. Why is that such a hard thing to accept?]

4. Slouching Toward Columbine: Darwin's Tree of Death

Over at Beliefnet, David Klinghoffer has a provocative essay commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Columbine High School massacre in Colorado. Klinghoffer notes that Columbine killer Eric Harris was inspired in part by his fanatical devotion to Darwinian natural selection, a trait Harris unfortunately shared with many opponents of human dignity during the past century. Given the pervasive influence of Social Darwinism in our culture, Klinghoffer suggests that Darwin's Tree of Life might be more appropriately viewed as a Tree of Death:

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution with its Tree of Life is applauded by most sophisticated Americans and Europeans as a scientific idea pure and simple, without the aura of dread and terror that, properly, should surround it in our minds.

Why should we so regard it? Not necessarily because of any judgment about whether the idea is right or wrong as science, but rather because of the uncanny way evolution has had of supplying the rationale and creating the backdrop for the most twisted, monstrous social movements that have sprung up in Western culture in the past century and half.

For more, go here.

5. Also, while we are here:

Academic Freedom Action Alert: Your Help Needed!

Darwinists Are Trying to Expel Texas Board of Education Chairman

Chairman Targeted in Retaliation for Promoting Critical Thinking on Evolution

When elected officials take a stand for academic freedom, they become targets for the Darwin lobby. Because of his leadership and support for critical thinking on evolution, Texas State Board of Education Chair Don McLeroy has been targeted by Darwin's defenders in the Texas Senate who want to remove him from his position. Less than a month ago, the Texas Board adopted landmark science standards that will protect teachers who want to let students evaluate and critique the evidence for Darwinian evolution. Now Darwinists are trying to convince the state Senate to block McLeroy's reappointment as Board Chair. "Supporting those, like Don McLeroy, who take a stand for academic freedom to question evolution at personal cost is one of the most important and effective things citizens can do," said CSC Associate Director John West. "It sends a message to elected officials that expelling leaders like Dr. McLeroy because of their stance on Darwin's theory is simply not acceptable." Here's one thing you can do to help:E-mail the chairman of the Senate Nominating Committee, Mike Jackson, at MIKE.JACKSON@SENATE.STATE.TX.US and tell him you support Dr. McLeroy as Chair of the State Board of Education. Be sure to e-mail the other committee members as well at these addresses: KEVIN.ELTIFE@SENATE.STATE.TX.US, GLENN.HEGAR@SENATE.STATE.TX.US, JANE.NELSON@SENATE.STATE.TX.US, ROBERT.NICHOLS@SENATE.STATE.TX.US,, ELIOT.SHAPLEIGH@SENATE.STATE.TX.US, KIRK.WATSON@SENATE.STATE.TX.US .

(The evil Discos offer a sample letter, but I assume that if you are smart enough to be writing to a public official, you know how to behave yourself in print. They keep copies. - Denyse)

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

No end to the evil, I guess ...

I rarely just swatch stuff from other blogs, but I am just trying to get back to regular blogging after an absence (thanks to all who have enquired; my mother is making a good recovery,though at her age it takes time). So I am working my way through the In Box.

More from the evil Discos, with my comment below:

"Evolution: No Controversy? ? No Funding"

Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor has his response to The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology's boycott of Louisiana after the passage of the Louisiana Science Education Act:

Most Americans are creationists, in the sense that they believe that God played an important role in creating human beings and they don?t accept a strictly Darwinian explanation for life. And they think that they ought to be able to ask questions about evolution in their own public schools. They don?t share your passion for ideological purity in science classes. They have a quaint notion that science depends on the freedom to ask questions, and their insistence on academic freedom is catching on. They don't want religion taught in the science classroom, but they know that students are not learning about all of the science surrounding evolution. Seventy-eight percent of Americans support academic freedom in the teaching of evolution in schools, and that number is rising fast ? it?s up 9% in the past 3 years. People clearly resent your demand for censorship. After all, it?s their children in their schools, and they aren?t happy with a bunch of supercilious Darwinists telling them that they can?t even question Darwinism in their own classrooms. So if you?re going to boycott all the creationists who despise you, you?ll eventually have to hold all of your conventions in Madison or Ann Arbor. Keep up the arrogance and eventually you won?t have to boycott people at all. People will boycott you.

Well, no kidding. Basically, if they have had 150 years to make their point and haven't persuaded most people, maybe there is something wrong with the point they are trying to make.

Generally speaking, in science, if you can prove something, you don't need to hassle people about believing it. Most Americans believe that you can put a man on the moon because the Americans actually did it.

And if you cure somebody's cancer, trust me, he'll be happy to believe it.

It's different when people are expected to accept a belief system about the past history of life forms that is supported by little more than this kind of childishness.

Too bad for those guys, they won'tbe eating beignets, listening to the jazz.

Podcasts in the intelligent design community

Warning: The evil Discovery Institute is behind this.

1. Darwin Doubting in the UK: Columnist, Doctor and Author James LeFanu

Anika Smith

Click here to listen.

This episode of ID the Future features part one of Casey Luskin's interview with James LeFanu, author of Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves. Dr. LeFanu shares his perspective as someone who straddles two worlds, encountering science on a micro level in his practice as a medical doctor, and reflecting on the broader aspects of science and medicine as an author and columnist for the UK's Daily Telegraph. Dr. LeFanu explains why he doubts the too-simplistic Darwinian account, where the "facade of knowing" is daily challenged by the inescapable complexity of life.

To learn more about Dr. LeFanu, visit his website here or read a recent review of his book at Evolution News & Views.

2. Rediscovering the Mystery of Ourselves: Part Two With Science Writer James LeFanu

Click here to listen.

This episode of ID the Future features part two of Casey Luskin's interview with James LeFanu, author of Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves. According to Dr. LeFanu, one of the problems with Darwin’s theory and where it stands today is that it presupposes that the argument is closed, draining interest and fascination from the question of our origins.

Dr. LeFanu discusses the problems with the Darwinian explanation for the evolution of the eye and how the development of genetics has brought our attention to the deep inscrutability of the nature of genetic structures and the origin of life. Can natural selection acting on random mutations account for these features? Listen in as Dr. LeFanu explains how science is on the cusp of this intriguing moment, rediscovering the mystery of ourselves.

Listen to part one of the interview here.

To learn more about Dr. LeFanu, visit his website here or read a recent review of his book at Evolution News & Views.

Note: This next one goes better with background information sponsored by the villains at Uncommon Descent. Basically Darwinists in Spain have discovered that there is a contrversy, and the pop media went wild. The thing about pop media is that they lack curiosity. If last year's top Darwinism vs. ID story about the Altenberg 16 didn't apprise them, nothing will.

Now back to the evil Discos:

3. Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity, Part One

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID the Future Casey Luskin interviews Rich Akin from Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity, who shares why he founded the organization for Darwin-doubting doctors and the misinformation about his organization on Wikipedia. Listen in as Dr. Akin explains more about PSSI International.

If you are a physician or surgeon who dissents from Darwinism, please consider joining PSSI International here.

4. PSSI International Adventures With Darwinists in Spain, Part Two

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID the Future Casey Luskin continues his interview with Rich Akin, the founder and CEO of Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI) International. Dr. Akin shares stories from his adventures in Spain, where PSSI International stirred up trouble with Darwinists and caused a tempest that is still raging today.

For background information on Dr. Akin's stories, click here.

What happens if Darwinism is subjected to natural selection in the Louisiana bayou?

In "Louisiana Confounds the Science Thought Police" at National Review Online, John West of the Discovery Institute* comments on the new Louisiana "it's okay to question what they tell you" law:

Students need to know about the current scientific consensus on a given issue, but they also need to be able to evaluate critically the evidence on which that consensus rests. They need to learn about competing interpretations of the evidence offered by scientists, as well as anomalies that aren’t well explained by existing theories.

Yet in many schools today, instruction about controversial scientific issues is closer to propaganda than education. Teaching about global warming is about as nuanced as Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Discussions about human sexuality recycle the junk science of biologist Alfred Kinsey and other ideologically driven researchers. And lessons about evolution present a caricature of modern evolutionary theory that papers over problems and fails to distinguish between fact and speculation. In these areas, the “scientific” view is increasingly offered to students as a neat package of dogmatic assertions that just happens to parallel the political and cultural agenda of the Left.

Real science, however, is a lot more messy — and interesting — than a set of ideological talking points.

Ah yes, brings back memories ...

One of the ways I first became interested in the intelligent design controversy yeas ago was encountering a long-departed science teachers' Web site. A teacher opined that the Monarch and Viceroy butterflies' similarity may not really be due to Darwinian evolution, but it nonetheless made a good illustration of Darwinian evolution.

Huh? Yes, but only if Darwinian evolution isn't true. On the other hand, that's not what the teacher was trying to say ... He was trying to say that Darwinian evolution is so true that the material that illustrates it need not be factual.

In which case ... I sensed a story developing.

I went on to study the Monarch and Viceroy similarity myself and discovered that they probably do not resemble each other due to Darwinian evolution.

A couple of years later, I completed a book about the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?

(Note: The images are from the Government of Canada's excellent guide to the butterflies of Canada. The left is a Monarch and the right is a Viceroy. Actually, we do not know why they resemble each other, despite not being closely related.

(*Yes, yes, those evil Discos who hide their vast wealth in shipping containers in the basement of a shabby Seattle office building, and tilt the world toward theocracy while keeping "bad boy" Berlinski as one of their key proteges. Now go get more of the "truth" about their global conspiracy from "truther" Barbara Forrest.)

Does the study of evolution have practical benefits for science or medicine?

Here's a podcast by Casey Luskin, one of the evil Discos, on whether the study of evolution has any practical benefits for science:

Does evolution have any practical benefits for science? In this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin reveals that the answer, surprisingly, is no. Listen as Luskin discusses past biological discoveries, reviews recent surveys of biologists, and quotes several scientists, including noted Professor of Biology and intelligent design critic Jerry Coyne. All three sources agree: the theory of evolution has yielded few practical benefits for scientific discovery.

Actually, that's not really very surprising.

The study of evolution is the study of - to use the vernacular - what used to was and ain't no more. It is necessarily heavy on speculation and interpretation. That's okay, as long as it doesn't become a cult.

Fast forward to Darwinism, which - unfortunately - has become a cult, big time.

Plus, I have been meaning to post this for months - Catriona J MacCallum (PLOS Biology, April 2007 Volume 5 Issue 4 e112) argues for the alleged importance of evolution in medicine. She complains,

One reason that evolution doesn’t figure prominently in the medical community is that although it makes sense to have evolution taught as part of medicine, that doesn’t make it essential. ... , medicine is primarily focused on problem-solving and proximate causation, and ultimate explanations can seem irrelevant to clinical practice. Crudely put, does a mechanic need to understand the origins, history, and technological advances that have gone into the modern motor vehicle in order to fix it?

Crudely put, medicine is about saving lives and limbs today in the real world.

MacCallum thinks that evolution can help us understand epidemics, and this may be so if we mean the evolution of bacteria in a test tube. Not that bacteria evolve much, if you go by Edge of Evolution, except that they tend to junk intricate machinery under stress.

Apart from that, consider the example of heart attacks: What if the lemur-like creature from which humans are said to descend never had heart attacks? What if it usually did, under stress? How does such information help the medical interne whose patient presents with cardiac arrest? Whatever the interne decides to do must work in half a minute, not half a billion years.

Yes, evolution is very interesting - like any other type of ancient history - but no, it is not essential. I think it should definitely be studied, along with the cave paintings, ancient Egypt and theories about the origin of life and the universe and all that. But the burden of pretending that evolution is useful in a concrete way is tiresome and surely avoidable.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Another Toronto journalist takes swat at Darwinists (or Darwinoids)

One of the most interesting journalists in Toronto is a friend of mine, David Warren, who - as if he did not have enough troubles - has gotten sick of bloviating Darwinists and decided to take them on. At least I am not alone. Far from it.

Writing to friends, Warren notes, "I have been remiss. I have allowed several months to do by without taking another kick at the Darwinoids. I endeavour to correct this oversight in my column for Sunday," whereupon he directs us to his recent column for The Spectator:

I get such apoplectic letters, whenever I write about "evolutionism," that I really can't resist writing about it again. This is not, of course, because I have any desire to tease such correspondents. Perish the thought. Rather, when a writer finds he has hit such a nerve, he can also know that he is approaching a great truth.

In this case, we must ask ourselves why so many people get so excited about an area of science that should not concern them. For most of these correspondents know precious little science, and haven't the stamina to engage in detailed argument. They are simply shocked and appalled that anyone would dream of challenging what they believe to be the consensus of "qualified experts," whom they assume are a closed camp of hard-bitten materialists, with no time for religious or poetical flights.

The answer to this question is clear enough. People without a stake in a controversy pay little or no attention to it. They will hardly be vexed by assertions of one party or another, when the result of the controversy cannot touch their lives. It is rather when a person does have a stake, that he begins to care.

It follows that my most apoplectic correspondents have a stake in evolutionary controversies. They imagine themselves to have an impersonal interest in defending science against "religious superstition," and the dangers to society that the latter might present. They in fact have strong and uncompromising religious beliefs of their own, which they are loath to have questioned.

Much of the "star chamber" atmosphere, that has accompanied the public invigilation of microbiologists such as Michael J. Behe, and other very qualified scientists working on questions of design in organisms and natural systems, can only be explained in this way. The establishment wants such research to be stopped, because it challenges the received religious order, of atheist materialism. Any attempt, or suspected attempt, to acknowledge God in scientific proceedings, must be exposed and punished to the limit of the law; or by other ruthless means where the law does not suffice.

Not to be missed.

An author friend asked Warren recently,

Suppose Lemaitre had offered his Big Bang idea in our current intellectual climate, rather than in 1931. Would he be denounced as a crypto-creationist, trying to dress up the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo in scientific garb? After all, a universe that has always existed does not need a God to create it; that is why the eternality of the world has been a cardinal tenet of those who do not need the hypothesis of God. Once the eternality of the world is no longer accepted, then we are right back to Leibniz' question, "Why is there something rather than nothing," and this question has dangerous theological implications.

and he replied,

For sure, Lemaître would have died an ignominious intellectual death in our time. But then, he never tried to call attention to himself, & even now, everyone has heard about Einstein & Hubble, & no one about the man who went "behind & beyond" them.

When I asked Warren if he realized that he would be vilified, as neurosurgeon Mike Egnor has been vilified, he merely replied,

Well, as someone says on your blog (maybe it was you), the way the news on ID gets out, is by all these Darwinoid idiots drawing attention to it. Pravda used to make the same mistake. Nobody realized there'd been a riot in Gorki, until Pravda denied anything had happened.

Yes, that was me, David. I said that the Darwinists have done far more to promote the intelligent design guys' theories than the evil Discos could ever have done. In fact, I remember listening to a Toronto Darwinist announcing to a media person that the Discovery Institute was very well funded. When I pointed out to him that Discovery's Center for Science and Culture (the ID think tank) is actually quite small - and that it relies largely on converting the negative energy generated by people like himself into positive energy - it was obvious that he didn't believe me.

How about that! There he was, actually demonstrating the phenomenon, and he still did not believe me. David, I am afraid there's no help for people like that.

Oh, and, Warren also writes,

Meanwhile, entirely unrelated, my time is taken up answering in detail the most ridiculous allegations against me, against Prof Michael Behe, & against God, by correspondents to the Tottawa Zit [Ottawa Citizen].

Let me give you JUST one example of the sort of sh*t I'm dealing with.

There was a show trial in Dover, Pennsylvania, two years ago, in which a local school board was prosecuted by the Darwinoids for having permitted the teaching of "Intelligent Design." This was publicized by the gliberal media as, "Another Scopes trial in America!" The defence called Michael Behe, so the plaintiffs brought very high-powered attorneys, to lure him into traps. One of them, a certain Eric Rothschild, made tendentious points on the definition of "science." Prof Behe wouldn't play, & noted only, & rather dryly, that if the official definition of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences were used, almost every major advance in modern science would have to be ruled illegal. Rothschild then paraphrased Behe's position as, "So you believe astrology is valid science." Needless to say, Behe does not.

This was reported, in e.g. the New Scientist, as, "Behe forced to admit that astrology is valid science according to his definition."

And now, in letter after letter to the Zit, the Darwinoids have simplified this to, "Behe also believes in astrology."

Note: If you are looking for the story about the major film about the ID guys, starring Ben Stein, go here.

Podcast in the intelligent design controversy: Origin of life: Continuing failure of theories

At http://www.idthefuture.com/, sponsored by the Discovery Institute*:

The New Spontaneous Generationists

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID the Future, Anika Smith interviews writer Robert Deyes on The New Spontaneous Generationists, who argue that "matter and energy somehow self-originated into complex forms without outside intelligence." While we may have moved beyond expecting rats to materialize from garbage heaps and maggots from decaying meat, materialists today are trying to simulate the origin of first life without intelligent agency -- and they're failing. Listen in to learn why, and read Deyes' article at ARN's ID Report for more.

(*whom I have often called the "evil Discos" , ironically, precisely because of the libels I have heard against them. I have met them and know no good reason for the libels.

And I could not quote on this blog the libels that have been uttered against me.

This is a "family" blog. Kids do not need to know how such totally messed up
guys regard traditional grannies. The kids have a future, even if those guys do not.)

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy

(Education bureaucracy warning: These podcasts are from the evil Discos. You may not be permitted to view them. For that matter, you may be looked on with disfavour for viewing this blog. Either resolve to keep your independent viewing and listening habits to yourself, or just conform to all the bumph. It's up to you; I do not presume to advise you.)

1. Texas Board Hears From Scientists Who Favor Teaching Strengths and Weaknesses of Evolution

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID the Future, John West reports on the Texas State Board of Education hearings where scientists, teachers and students gathered to testify before the Board. One side focused on touting their own religious beliefs and criticizing the religious beliefs of others, while the other side focused on science, education, and academic freedom. Listen to the testimony of scientists down in Texas and learn what the debate over how to teach evolution is really all about.

For continuing updates on the Texas science standards, visit Evolution News & Views.

(I expect those scientists are a small minority. A huge edifice has been built on the belief that Darwinian evolution explains life on Earth, and many thousands of profs make their living fronting it. Didn't NASA define life itself as "capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution"? So many people's chestnuts are in this fire that it takes some courage to decide that living with piles of horseship is not the answer - mucking out the stalls is the obvious answer, but just see what happens when you suggest it.)

2. Questioning Darwinian Dogma Conversation with Biologist Luman Wing, Part 1

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin interviews Luman Wing, a signer of the Dissent from Darwinism statement who has spent many years working in biotechnology. Dr. Wing recounts his observations as an undergraduate studying under Dr. Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University at the time that Dr. Kenyon underwent his intellectual de-conversion from Darwinism, and rescinded his textbook promoting the natural chemical origin of life.

(It was a brave act, and costly for Dean Kenyon. The fact is, there is currently no good theory of the origin of life and none on the horizon. I deal with origin of life (OOL) issues at my Colliding Universes blog, because the quality of evidence is so poor that OOL is on a level with multiverse theory.)

3. Cesare Lombroso and the Rise of Darwinian Criminal Justice

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID the Future, John West shares from his book, Darwin Day in merica, about Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso and the New School of Criminal Anthropology. Lombroso and his disciples contended that criminal behavior could be explained largely as a throwback to earlier stages of Darwinian evolution. Listen in as West illustrates the consequences of applying Darwin's theory to criminal justice. *

*I've had some contact with that myself. The cop psychoanalyzes the perp's behaviour and defends the perp - instead of just enforcing the law. Nice work if you can get it, but not much use to the law-abiding citizen who just wants to live safely.

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy

The panda's thumb is a sesamoid bone - that is a bone that develops in a tendon subjected to much pressure - assumed by many sources to be evidence for Darwinian evolution.

Anyway, this anecdote from the evil Discos:

Is the Panda's Thumb Really Proof of Evolution?

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID The Future we’re highlighting a short clip of senior fellow Dr. Paul Nelson describing his meeting with the late, famous defender of Darwinism, Stephen J. Gould, and whether or not the Panda's Thumb is obviously proof of evolution.

The whole thing reminds me of polydactyl cats.

Cartoonist wanted: Texas science standards fight

From the evil Discos:

[Education warning: If you work for a typical school board, you should not be reading this blog! Do not read it at work!]

Big Win in Texas as State Now Leads Nation in Requiring Critical Analysis of Evolution in High School Science Classes

Robert Crowther

In a huge victory for those who favor teaching the scientific evidence for and against evolution, Texas today moved to the head of the class by requiring students to “critique” and examine “all sides of scientific evidence” and specifically requiring students to “analyze and evaluate” the evidence for major evolutionary concepts such as common ancestry, natural selection, and mutations.

“Texas has sent a clear message that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned,” said Dr. John West, Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute. “Contrary to the claims of the evolution lobby, absolutely nothing the Board did promotes ‘creationism’ or religion in the classroom. Groups that assert otherwise are lying, plain and simple. Under the new standards, students will be expected to analyze and evaluate the scientific evidence for evolution, not religion. Period.”

The new requirements were contained in revised science standards approved today by the Texas State Board of Education. The science standards include language requiring students to “analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations…including examining all sides of scientific evidence… so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.” Equally important, the high school biology standards now require students to “analyze and evaluate” the scientific evidence for key parts of evolutionary theory, including common ancestry, natural selection, and mutations.

Discovery Institute has long endorsed the idea that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, including its unresolved issues.

SOURCE

Okay, so the State of Texas will now be sued by Darwin pressure groups.

The only question I have is, how many dollars of US public funds will they be given to do that? How much will Texas taxpayers be on the hook for?

I think these Texans are fighting a noble battle, but may it be - in these times - a lost cause?

Many third and fourth-rate intellectuals - having seen the complete failure of their ideas in any setting where evidence matters - have sought to make them law, case law, or government policy. And they largely succeed. You'd have to be a Texas longhorn or a wolf of the northern forest to evade their reach.

And it is going to get far worse before it gets better.

Also, a friend writes to ask,

Does anyone know a cartoonist/artist?

We would like a drawing of E. Scott [= key Darwin lobbyist] getting the boot out of Texas. Possible caption "Don't Mess With Texas".

I have never seen her so angry.

I replied,

I will advertise on my blog, care of me.

It is high time these censorious nobodies started getting the boot.

We are eye deep with them here in Canada. (I will later be reviewing Ezra Levant's book, Shakedown. )

They think they have the right to interfere with anything, anywhere, when no one is actually in danger. It's just a question of some people thinking differently from them. Can't allow that, can we?

Do you think Obama will give them a big grant to pursue their activities? Under his stimulus program?

Well, if so, another fine instance of Americans' tax dollars at work.

Oh, you know what? We just have to get these people out of public life and back to the obscurity they so justly merit.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy. It is not what you probably think:

Junk DNA: Sorting through the trash

From the evil Discos:

When "Junk DNA" Isn't Junk: Farewell to a Darwinist Standard Response
Richard Sternberg, research scientist at the Biologic Institute supported by the Center for Science and Culture, is now blogging at Evolution News & Views, weighing in on the latest research showing that so-called “Junk DNA,” which Darwinists have discounted as “rubbish,” are actually “anything but that.”

Sternberg writes:

In the Darwinist repertoire, a standard response to evidence of design in the genome is to point to the existence of “junk DNA.” What is it doing there, if purposeful design really is detectable in the history of life’s development? Of course this assumes that the “junk” really is junk. That assumption has been cast increasingly into doubt. New research just out in the journal Nature Genetics finds evidence that genetic elements previously thought of as rubbish are anything but that. The research describes tiny strands of RNA, previously thought to be junk, that now turn out to play a role in gene expression. Another finding by Dr. Geoff Faulkner shows that “retrotransposons,” a further variety of “junk” as the dogma previously taught, play a similar role.

Click here to read more

See also these stories abut supposed "junk" DNA.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Recent podcasts in the intelligent design controversy

Brought to you by the evil Discos:

1. Dr. Jonathan Wells on The Language of God

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID the Future Logan Gage interviews Dr. Jonathan Wells on his recent review of Francis Collins' The Language of God, addressing questions of common ancestry, mistaken definitions of intelligent design, and Collins' use of so-called "junk"-DNA to advance a "Darwin-of-the-gaps" argument.

[Collins is a curious figure, in my view - a well meaning non-denominational (?) Christian who seems to think that Christians who insist that the universe and life forms show evidence of design are creating conflict in society. Well, ... a conflict with whom, exactly? Who is supporting the other side? The new atheists, basically. A far cry from the old atheists, who just didn't believe in God, the new atheists want power. It'll be a bad time for anyone who questins their views. Of course, there are a few useful idiots on the Christian side, including one entire organization of Christians in science, but we would expect that. It doesn't change anything; it just makes the problem worse.]

2. Exposing Darwinist Ronald Wetherington’s Bluffs About Human Evolution

Click here to listen.

This episode of ID the Future explores the many holes in SMU professor Ronald Wetherington's testimony before the Texas State Board of Education. Listen in as Casey Luskin explains why Wetherington -- and anyone else who claims that there are "no gaps" in the fossil record or "no lack of transitional fossils" in human evolution -- overstates his case.

For more rebutting Ronald Wetherington's testimony, click here.

[It's not so much that there are no gaps (there are plenty of those), but the Darwinist explanation doesn't make sense of the evidence, and never has and never will.]

3. Calling Darwinist David Hillis' Bluffs Before the Texas State Board of Education

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID the Future Casey Luskin exposes the many bluffs and blunders of Darwinist David Hillis, who testified before the Texas State Board of Education with the outlandish claim that there's "overwhelming agreement" on the Tree of Life -- the same day that New Scientist published "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life." Listen is as IDTF calls Hillis' bluff.

Click here to read more

[Remember, these guys have been screwing dollars out of the taxpayer for years to fund a basically dead idea. They will say whatever they need to, to keep the spout open.]

4. Predictions from an Intelligent Design Perspective Conversation with Biologist Luman Wing, Part 3

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID the Future, biologist Luman Wing explains to Casey Luskin about the predictions of an intelligent design perspective in biology. Wing discusses junk-DNA, the irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade, and the implications of ID and Darwinism on personalized medicine.

Dr. Luman Wing is a signer of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. [I just hope he keeps his job.]

Blog service note

From Thursday August 9 through Sunday August 12, I will not be blogging. I will be Seattle-bound, generally hanging around and gulping seafood at someone else's expense, but otherwise giving a one-hour talk on Saturday morning around 9:45 a.m. to the Discovery Society (yes, yes, the evil Discos on The Spiritual Brain.

At some point between now and then I must actually learn to use PowerPoint and write the talk. So if I don't blog much till next week, that's why. I will approve reasonable comments when I get back. I will also post notes from the talk, over at Mindful Hack.

Theistic evolution: New site challenges tenured Christian profs' homage to atheism

Alarmed, perhaps, by the fact that establishment organizations in the United States are putting big bucks into "theistic evolution" (= God dunit, but it looks just the way it would if God didn't exists, so you must believe on the basis of unsubstantiated faith, not evidence), the evil Discos (the Discovery Institute) have started a Web site to try to explain what is at stake here.

New Website Explores the Intersection of Evolution and Religion

At the launch of FaithandEvolution.org, CSC associate director John
West explains that since its inception in 1996, the Center for Science and
Culture has devoted most of its resources to supporting research, publication,
and education about the scientific aspects of the debate over Darwinian
evolution and intelligent design.

“Nothing is going to change that,” he says, adding that much of FaithandEvolution.Org is focused on presenting scientific information in a clear and understandable manner.

“But we’ve always been clear that science has larger worldview implications, and so we want to encourage open and informed discussion of the implications of Darwin’s theory as well. This has become especially important in recent years as both the ‘new atheists’ and the ‘new theistic evolutionists’ have tried to monopolize the faith and evolution conversation. FaithandEvolution.Org is an effort to inject some balance back into the discussion.”

Read more about the new website faithandevolution.org here.

I wish them well. If I never hea from another tenured "Christian" prof explaining to me that the universe shows no evidence of design and that God means us to get on by "faith" (= delusions, like his) alone, I will ruddy be very glad.

I don't claim to get special messages from God but I am pretty sure he never meant anything like that.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy

If you would rather listen than read (or must do so):

From ID the Future (yes, yes, the evil Discos)

Academic Freedom Update: Where Are We in 2009?

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID the Future, CSC's Casey Luskin gives listeners an update on what?s going on with academic freedom legislation around America. Academic freedom bills submitted in five states already this year, including Oklahoma, Iowa, New Mexico, Missouri and Alabama. Listen in to today?s podcast as Luskin explains how Darwinist opposition to the bills is showing why academic freedom legislation is necessary to protect teachers from a climate of intimidation.
Learn more and sign the Academic Freedom Petition at , and stay tuned to ID the Future and Evolution News & Views for continuing updates.

Also:

www.idthefuture.com

Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID the Future, CSC's Robert Crowther highlights one of the foundational books of the theory of intelligent design. No Free Lunch, the sequel to mathematician and CSC senior fellow William Dembski?s Cambridge University Press book The Design Inference, explores key questions about the origin of specified complexity. No Free Lunch demonstrates that design theory shows great promise of providing insight in the field of evolutionary computation.

I would have thought this latter an old story myself. No Free Lunch appeared in 2002. It's a good read though, if you like statistical reasoning.

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:

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy

Brought to you by the evil Discos (who, incidentally, pay their own bills). = Unlike their Darwinist opposition, they are not supported on your tax dime to invent fanciful theories about the deep past.

I'm sure glad it's your dime, not mine.

1. Systems Biology and Intelligent Design- Conversation with Biologist Luman Wing, Part 2

Click here to listen.

In this ID the Future podcast, Casey Luskin interviews Dr. Luman Wing, a signer of the Dissent From Darwinism list. Dr. Wing discusses his support for systems biology and the reasons he thinks this approach to biology lends support to the theory of intelligent design.

2. Dr. Charles Garner on Chirality and Origin of Life Research

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID the Future Casey Luskin interviews Baylor University chemistry professor Dr. Charles Garner in Austin, TX, where they both were for the Board of Education hearings last week. Listen in as Dr. Garner explains his research in chemistry, particularly the chirality of molecules and the importance of homochirality to origin of life research.

Homochirality basically means that all the protein molecules point the same way* - left. Pretty amazing, when you consider that they could all point either right or left.

*except glycine, which is achiral (= it doesn't count.)

Also, I wish I had put up this item from the Biologic Institute uon April 1.

If you read it, and are having a cow - stop having the cow, okay?

Remember, I said I wished I had put it up on April 1. Look up April 1 on the Internet, and get the picture, okay? There may be religions or societies where there are no jokes, but those people don't run things in North America. M'kay?

News from the evil Discos: Temporary setback for tax mooches

Discovery Institute mentioned a while back (and, for various reasons, I did not get around to noting it), that

Documents to be released relate to the Science Center’s cancellation of a screening of the science documentary Darwin’s Dilemma in its IMAX theater by the non-partisan American Freedom Alliance (AFA) last October. The AFA has filed its own free speech and breach of contract suit against the Science Center, which is still pending. Darwin’s Dilemma investigates the intelligent design of organisms during the “Cambrian Explosion” more than 500 million years ago.

The Science Center claimed that it had turned over all the documents requested by Discovery Institute, but when Institute staff learned that this was not true the Institute filed suit to compel full disclosure. In response, the CSC made the incredible claim that its key decision-makers, clearly identified as CSC staff on the museum’s website, were really employed not by the museum but by a private foundation and so were immune from the public records request.

This is precisely what I mean by tax mooch-ism, where public employees or beneficiaries of the tax regime feel free from the normal standards of thought, speech, and action that govern the rest of us.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy

From the evil Discos:

Swine Flu and the Edge of Evolution

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin takes a look at the swine flu virus and what it tells us about evolution and how the limits of evolution help us combat dangerous viruses.

(In my view, the main limit of evolution is extinction. As individuals die, so also do species. That explains why your descendants will not evolve into tapeworms.)

also:

Intelligent Design 101: State of the Debate

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin announces the release of Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts Explain the Key Issues, an anthology that tackles intelligent design from scientific, philosophical, and legal perspectives. Luskin shares from an insightful new essay by Phillip Johnson about the state of the debate over intelligent design and evolution.

(If all "evolution" meant was "change over time," I doubt any reasonable person would doubt it. Any older person can see how the animals and plants in a neighbourhood changed when trees matured - and then change again when they die. And how some offspring die and others live.

The key problem is the claim that Darwin's proposed mechanism - natural selection acting on random mutation - is the source of the massive information needed for intricate machinery in living cells. That is a fantastic notion, worthy of a cult.)

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy: