Saturday, February 24, 2007

ID and the Arts

The organization for which I work, the Access Research Network, has released a new website called "ID Arts." Here is an exert from the website:

Our worldview impacts all areas of life including the arts. The arts also reflect philosophical and cultural trends in human societies. If philosophical and scientific concepts of intelligent design (ID) are valid, we believe they will both inspire, and be reflected in, our art, music, literature and film. Much of the focus of the ID movement to date has been on left-brain activities (logical, sequential, rational, analytical, objective, focused on parts). We believe there is also a right-brain approach to the issues (more intuitive, focused on the creative process, standing back looking at the whole and not just the parts) that may speak to an even wider audience through the arts. Some people, who might never crack a science book, will grasp ID concepts through image, lyric, or prose.

Francis Schaeffer summarizes the connection between our thought life and creativity as follows:

“There is a flow to history and culture. This flow is rooted and has its wellspring in the thoughts of people. People are unique in the inner life of the mind—what they are in their thought world determines how they act. This is true of their value systems and it is true of their creativity ….The results of their thought world flow through their fingers or from their tongues into the external world. This is true of Michelangelo’s chisel, and it is true of a dictator’s sword.”

How Should We Then Live? Francis Schaeffer

We’ve been talking with artists, musicians, authors, poets, and filmmakers about these ideas and we’ve discovered several who are already producing creative works that fit into the ID Arts category. This website features the work of some of these artists and we hope will inspire others. Our desire is that the ID Arts initiative will open up a whole new dialogue in our culture about whether we live in a world of chance or a world of design.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

The Father of the ID Movement on the Current Situation

Dr. Phillip Johnson, often considered the father of the ID movement and also the author of numerous books on the intelligent design and evolution controversy, including the famed Darwin on Trial, recently wrote a piece for the Think (The Royal Institute of Philosophy) on the current state of intelligent design. This article is definitely worth reading and is entitled "Intelligent Design in Biology: The Current Situation and Future Prospects."

Saturday, February 17, 2007

So Help Us Darwin

William F. Buckley had a good article today in the National Review Online and it can be found here. In his article, Buckley gives an accurate description of the evolutionary position:

It is, essentially, that not only is naturalism established as verified science, but any interposition into the picture—of inquisitiveness, let alone conviction that there might have been design in the evolution of our world—is excluded.
The article with worth reading its entirety.

Just Say No!

The proponents of Darwinian evolution have consistently informed us that those who question Darwin's claims are not scientists. Some of them used to be scientists (example: Michael Behe and Jonthan Wells) because they accepted Darwinian evolution and some of them even authored popular textbooks in support of evolutionary theory (Dean Kenyon). But now, none of them are scientists anymore. They lost all their credentials when they questioned Darwin's claims because, as we all know, Charles Darwin is the father of science and nothing in science could ever make sense without his solid theory. If you reject Darwin, well, you might as well be a monkey.

In 2006, another great scientist fell from the ranks. Dr. Richard Sternberg of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C. was considered to be a great scientist. In 2004, however, he decided to publish a paper entitled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." The problem here was that the author of the paper was Dr. Stephen C. Meyer. Nevermind that Meyer has a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from Cambridge University and also holds degrees in geology. What matters is that Meyer is the Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington. This means that nothing Meyer ever says, writes, or does will be true because he is one of those who question Darwin.

As for Sternberg? He lost his job at the Smithsonian Institute in what turned out to be a multi-party scandal. He should have seen this coming, however, because everyone knows that publishing a paper for the dark side is an unforgivable offense.

The United States Congress didn't think so, however. Late in December 2006, the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform issued a report entitled "Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian" condemning what happened to Sternberg. But of course, that was passed under a Republican-controlled Congress and therefore only reinforces the idea that intelligent design is supported by the same nut-jobs who put us in Iraq.

Moral of the story? Just say no to intelligent design. If anyone approaches you and asks you what you think about evolution, tell them you have to walk your goldfish and get out of that situation. The evil forces are out there and they want you to be able to think. But what they don't tell you is that when you think on your own--you won't be spoonfed that delightful Darwinian dogma anymore (which is now in multiple flavors!).

For the entire story on what has become known as the "Sternberg Affair," please go here.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Kansas Science Standards Reserved

The revolving door in Kansas has turned again. After ousting members of the state school board who supported teaching critical analysis of Darwin's theory of evolution (in the 2006 elections), the new board reversed the science standards earlier today. For the complete article, go here.

Monday, February 12, 2007

"He Does Good Science, Great Science."

"He does good science, great science."

Given the claims of evolutionists today that those who doubt Darwin's claims cannot produce science--let alone "good science, great science," it is safe to assume that the above quote describes an evolutionist--perhaps one on the edge of a major breakthrough in evolutionary thought.

That quote, however, is from Dr. Jon C. Boothroyd, a professor of geological sciences at the University of Rhode Island. The quote is describing the research of Dr. Marcus Ross, a professor at Liberty University who just received his Ph.D. geosciences at Rhode Island. Ross, for those who don't know, is a well-known intelligent design proponent and also a young earth creationist. The full article in today's New York Times can be found here.

I'm happy to hear of Ross's success--both because he is a friend and a great scholar. Others, however, aren't too thrilled (because higher education in the hands of non-Darwinists is just too dangerous). Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Selling Evolution Science Education (NCSE) claims that people like Ross will "miseducate the public." Dr. Michael Dini of Texas Tech University refuses to write letters of recommendation for graduate programs for any student who doesn't subscribe to Darwinian evolution. These people would like nothing more than for people like Ross to fail miserably.

But such is not the case and a very warm and heartfelt congratulations is in order for Dr. Marcus Ross.

Sunday, February 04, 2007

The Dawkins Delusion

Richard Dawkins says that God doesn't exist, but does Richard Dawkins exist?

Dr. Terry Tommyrot on The Dawkins Delusion.
David Anderson on Does Richard Dawkins Exist? A Parable.

(Many readers of my blog have a seemingly difficult time deciphering between when I'm serious and when I'm in a satirical mood. This is a satire, but it does raise a good point.)