Doubting Darwin

Signature or Forgery? Meyer and Falk on Signature in the Cell

2010-02-18T22:56:00.005-05:00

Over on the Biologos Foundation's blog, Science & the Sacred, there is a fascinating exchange between Darrel Falk, a theistic evolutionist and author of Coming to Peace with Science and Stephen Meyer, an intelligent design proponent, over Meyer's new book, Signature in the Cell.

The exchange is worth reading, as Falk and Meyer engage in the civil, yet substantive, dialogue that appears to be a lost art in this debate today.

Signature in the Cell review (Darrel Falk)
Signature in the Cell: A Follow-up (Darrel Falk)
Response to Darrel Falk's Review of Signature in the Cell (Stephen Meyer)
On Reading the Signature: A Response to Stephen Meyer (Darrel Falk)

Advances in Explaining Life's Origins?

2009-06-18T10:31:00.003-04:00

The New York Times ran an piece on Tuesday (June 16th) about new advances in explaining the origin of life. They discuss four such advances that scientists are just now beginning to discover, from the how cell-like structures may have naturally formed from fatty acids to the handedness of molecules. The article can be found here.

Dr. Stephen Meyer, Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute and the author of the forthcoming book Signature in the Cell, responded to the article by addressing the problem of the origin of biological information. Meyer's response can be found here.

Comprehensive Law Review on Darwinism and the Constitution

2009-06-16T10:49:00.004-04:00

Casey Luskin, an attorney with a science background, has written a comprehensive law review on the issue of Darwinism and the U.S. Constitution. He addresses the full gamut of court cases on the issue of evolution and law. Luskin's abstract is as follows:

The teaching of biological origins in public schools remains a contentious scientific, cultural, and legal debate. With the increase of public interest in this topic, it is essential for attorneys, legal scholars, and educational authorities to have an awareness of the full breadth of case law on this issue. Yet at present, a comprehensive collation and summary of the relevant cases is absent from the literature. Moreover, few have bothered to engage in a careful review of the case law to determine if evolution actually is beyond scrutiny in public schools. This article attempts to exhaustively survey the case law relevant to the teaching of biological origins, dividing the cases into three major categories: (1) Cases upholding the right to teach about evolution; (2) Cases rejecting the teaching of alternatives to evolution; and (3) Cases rejecting disclaimers regarding the teaching of evolution. The range of constitutionally permissible policies for teaching evolution can also be understood by studying policies that have not engendered lawsuits. Twenty-one cases will be reviewed, as well as various policies that have not faced legal challenges, revealing that while courts have firmly upheld the rights of educators to teach evolution and have rejected attempts to teach creationism, none of these cases stands for the proposition that a curriculum that teaches scientific critiques of evolution would necessarily place a school board in constitutional jeopardy. Indeed, case law and the public policy history of this issue suggest precisely the opposite: curricular policies in public schools need not unilaterally support evolution. Rather, as the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, “scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories [may] be taught” provided that such curricula are enacted with the “clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.” Educators that choose to improve science education by teaching both the scientific evidence supporting modern Darwinian theory, as well as the scientific evidence that challenges this view, can rest assured that they are on firm legal ground and that Darwin himself may even be smiling approvingly from whichever realm of the afterlife he resides today.

The review was published by Hamline University Law Review and is avaliable to the public here.

Stephen Meyer's New Book to be Released June 23rd

2009-06-15T10:01:00.004-04:00

Dr. Stephen Meyer's new book, Signature in the Cell, is set for release on June 23, 2009. The book discusses a fundamental component of the universe that is known in specific scientific fields but not often discussed in the public: information. Meyer, a philosopher and historian of science from Cambridge University, brings together the relevant data "into a powerful demonstration of the intelligence that stands outside nature and directs the path life has taken."

Here are what some others are saying about Meyer's book:

"A decisive case based upon breathtaking and cutting-edge science."
-Dr. Philip S. Skell
National Academy of Sciences
Evan Pugh Professor at Penn State University, emeritus

"Whether you believe intelligent design is true or false, Signature in the Cell is a must-read book."
-Dr. Scott Turner
Associate Professor, State University of New York of Environmental Science and Forestry

"He deals fairly and thoroughly with even the most controversial aspects and has made a compelling case for his conclusion. The book is a delightful read which will bring enlightenment and enjoyment to every open minded reader."
-Dr. John C. Walton
Professor of Reactive Chemistry, University of St. Andrews

"This timely and important book is a landmark in the intelligent design debate and one which draws together all relevant research and information. It is elegantly written in a style that is accessible and laced with interesting historical and personal anecdotes. ‘Signature in the Cell’ will pay rich dividends to everyone who turns its pages."
-Dr. Norman C. Nevin
Emeritus Professor of Medical Genetics, Queens University (Belfast)

For more on Meyer's groundbreaking book, please visit www.signatureinthecell.com.
To pre-order Meyer's book, go here.

Faith and Science

2009-06-12T15:11:00.003-04:00

Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project, has launched a new website to discuss the matters of faith and science. The site is called "BioLogos" and comes from "biological" and "logos," the Greek term for "word," which is often used to describe the Word of God. According to their website, the BioLogos Foundation "believes that faith and science both lead to truth about God and creation."

The Center for Science and Culture also launched a site discussing faith and science. The site is called "Faith and Evolution" and their purpose, as explained on the website, is as follows:

"According to noted biologist Richard Dawkins, Darwinian evolution makes it possible to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist. According to Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, evolution is perfectly compatible with his Christian faith. Who is right? And why does it matter? This website is designed to help you find out. Here you will find articles, debates, video and audio, discussion questions, and other free resources as you explore the issues surrounding faith and evolution."

BioLogos's website is: www.biologos.org
Faith and Evolution's website is: www.faithandevolution.org

Francis Collins tapped to lead NIH

2009-06-12T15:05:00.003-04:00

Geneticists Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project, has apparently been tapped to lead the National Institutes of Health and is in the final stages of screening. Collins stepped down as the head of the National Human Genome Research Institute, which is a member of the NIH, in May of 2008.

For the Scientific American article on Collins' selection, see here.

Vatican Evolution Congress to Exclude Intelligent Design and Creationism

2008-09-18T14:33:00.004-04:00

The Catholic News Service reports that an evolution-debate sponsored by the Vatican will not include supporters of intelligent design nor creationism. Marc LeClerc, a Jesuit Father and professor of philosophy at the Gregorian said that the organizers "wanted to create a conference that was strictly scientific."

This is interesting because Pope Benedict XVI became famous in the Catholic Church as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger for his support of intelligent design.

For more information, see the full article here.

IDURC Announces 2008 Casey Luskin Graduate Award

2008-07-24T14:14:00.001-04:00

Monday, July 14, 2008:

The Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center (IDURC) is proud to present the 2008 Casey Luskin Graduate Award, presented annually to a deserving college graduate for excellence in student advocacy of intelligent design.

The recipient of the 2008 Casey Luskin Graduate Award will remain anonymous for the protection of the recipient. The many students, professors, and scientists who have been denied degrees or tenure and removed from positions and jobs for no other reason than acceptance of—or even sympathy to—intelligent design theory is very telling of the importance of keeping these bright young minds out of the crosshairs of those opposed to open-minded investigation and critical thought.

The recipient of this year’s award is a graduate earning a degree in history. This student has demonstrated great courage in promoting intelligent design and academic freedom, working previously with the IDURC and also serving as an IDEA Club president. The recipient will receive a certificate of achievement, a $100 award, and an autographed copy of Dr. Michael J. Behe’s newest book, The Edge of Evolution: the Search for the Limits of Darwinism.

The Casey Luskin Graduate Award was established in 2005 and in 2007 its name was changed from the “IDURC Graduate Award” to the “Casey Luskin Graduate Award.” The award is named for Mr. Casey Luskin, a graduate of the University of California at San Diego, who was the first student truly to step out of his comfort zone as an undergrad and take a stand for intelligent design—a stand that would be seen across the nation. His founding of the Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center has been a great step forward for the intelligent design movement and, more importantly, for academic freedom everywhere. Today, Luskin continues his work with the ID movement as a lawyer and legal analyst for the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle, Washington. Students everywhere today are indebted to the work that Luskin has done.

Each July, the IDURC will present the Casey Luskin Graduate Award to an outstanding student who has just completed his or her undergraduate degree and has demonstrated exemplary dedication to both the rigorous investigation and the widespread promotion of intelligent design. This year’s recipient joins the recipients from past years, since the award was initiated in 2005, in demonstrating such excellence.

Much thanks needs to be given to the board of directors at the IDURC for their work in preparing this year’s award and for their efforts year round. A very heartfelt thank you also goes to Dr. Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University for his support of the work we do at the IDURC and for his autographing and inscribing The Edge of Evolution for this award.

As always, I must thank Mr. Dennis Wagner and Access Research Network for the donation of the $100 prize money and for their continuous and generous financial support of the IDURC.

Most sincerely,

Samuel S. Chen
Director,
Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center

Baylor University Fires President John M. Lilley

2008-07-24T12:36:00.003-04:00

After just two-and-a-half of this five-year contract, Baylor University President John M. Lilley will no longer be at the reins of the school.

The Baylor University Board of Regents decided this morning to fire President Lilley. The plan was a gradual phase out, with the new president being instated in January 2009. President Lilley has rejected that plan and so a search for a new president will begin immediately.

This news comes on the heels of Provost Randall O'Brien's departure from Baylor to become the 22nd president of Carson-Newman College in Tennessee.

John M. Lilley was the 13th president of Baylor University, being elected unanimously by the Board of Regents in 2005. He took over for current Mercer University president William Underwood, who was the interim between Lilley and current Houston Baptist University president Robert B. Sloan, Jr. Lilley was formerly the university president at University of Nevada at Reno and at Penn State University at Erie.

Lilley was brought to Baylor to help the university reach its goal of a $2 billion endowment by the year 2012. Lilley was instrumental in helping the university reach the half-way milestone last year. However, other positions that Lilley took—-including recent issues with the shutting down of Dr. Robert Marks’ Evolutionary Informatics Lab and the denial of tenure to 12 or 30 professors in 2008—-put him at odds with both the university’s Faculty Senate and Board of Regents.

Baylor University named Regent Harold Cunningham the Acting President until an Interim President could be appointed.

For more information on President John Lilley’s removal, go here.
For information on Provost Randall O’Brien’s leaving, go here.

Jindal Signs Louisiana Science Education Bill

2008-07-06T16:32:00.002-04:00

Earlier this year, the Louisiana State House of Representatives passed the Louisiana Science Education Bill by an overwhelming vote of 93-4. The State Senate recently followed up that action by passing unanimously 35-0. This past week, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed the bill into law.

What exactly is the Louisiana Science Education Act? This law allows for the following:

Upon the request of a local school board, Louisiana’s State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education is to

…allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

Teachers are permitted, if authorized by the school board, to "…use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner."

Teachers are required to first "…teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system."

Louisiana’s State Board of Education reserves the right to veto any supplemental materials they deem as inappropriate.

The inclusion of religion is not permitted under this law. Section 1D of the act states that it:

…shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

This law is long overdue. It appropriately does not mention intelligent design, creationism, the Bible, etc. but it merely calls for the freedom to think critically and dialogue on a very important, yet often misunderstood, issue. This act protects teachers from the harassment that often comes when the subject of evolution is broached. The act also provides legal clarity on the issue of teaching controversial issues such as, but not limited to, evolution.

Yet, as to be expected, there are opponents of this new law. The New York Times referred to it as "retrograde" and an "assault on Darwin." Others have vowed to watch the enactment of this law like the hawk. All this because the evolution lobby fears what academic freedom and critical thinking might do to our students.

Their opposition, however, apparently isn't supported by the people of Louisiana. With bipartisan support for this bill, only four state representatives voted against it. Furthermore, Jindal currently has a 77% approval rating in the state.

A round of applause, please, for Governor Jindal and the Louisiana State Legislature.

Ben Stein wins Johnson Award

2008-02-15T23:38:00.002-05:00

Ben Stein, the driving force behind the new film to be released in April Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, will be awarded the 2008 Phillip Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth, Biola University announced today. Here is the press release:

Ben Stein Wins Money from Intelligent Design Community

La Mirada, Calif. -- Ben Stein, known for his lead role in the film Ferris Bueller’s Day and his Comedy Central show Win Ben Stein’s Money, believes in liberty and truth. In recognition of this, Biola University’s masters in science and religion program will present him with the 2008 Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth on March 27, a month before the release of his major controversial motion picture, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

In his new movie Expelled, Stein wonders whether humans were designed by an intelligent being or whether we were simply the result of an ancient natural accident. In his search for an answer, he discovers an elitist scientific establishment that punishes the scientific proponents of Intelligent Design because they reject some of the claims of Darwin’s theory of evolution. “Big science in this area of biology has lost its way,” says Stein. “Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it’s anti-science.”

In light of Stein’s contribution to the pursuit of liberty and truth, particularly as it relates to the field of Intelligent Design, he is being honored with the 2008 Johnson Award. The award ceremony will feature premiere clips from the forthcoming movie, the personal appearance of scientists who were expelled from their jobs because they are sympathetic to Intelligent Design, and will include a brief address by Stein.

Biola University, a Christian university in Southern California, established the Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth in 2004 to honor legal scholar and Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson, who was the award’s first recipient. The award recognizes Johnson’s pivotal role in advancing our understanding of design in the universe by opening up informed dissent to Darwinian and materialistic theories of evolution. British philosopher Antony Flew, once considered the most prominent defender of atheism in the English-speaking world, became the second recipient of this award in 2006 for his Socratic approach of “following the evidence where it leads” and abandoning atheism on account of design arguments.

Ben Stein is a lawyer, economist, former presidential speechwriter, author and social commentator. He has acted and made guest appearances in numerous movies, TV series, and TV commercials. His part as the boring teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off was recently ranked as one of the fifty most famous scenes in American film.

Further details about the ceremony will soon be available at www.biola.edu/scienceandreligion.

####

Biola University, founded in 1908, will celebrate 100 years of biblically centered Christian education on February 24. Located in La Mirada, Calif., on the border of LA and Orange Counties, Biola is recognized by U.S. News & World Report as a “National University,” which they consider the “major leagues” of higher education. Biola offers 145 academic programs through its seven schools, ranging from the B.A. to the Ph.D. For more information, visit www.biola.edu.

God, Science, and the Presidential Campaign

2008-01-02T19:08:00.000-05:00

Dr. John G. West, Associate Professor of Political Science and the Chairperson of the Department of Political Science and Geography at Seattle Pacific University, recently wrote an article discussing science and faith and the current presidential campaign. The article is well written and worth reading.

West points out that the exclusion of religious people from science debates and discussions has led to more focus on faith and less focus on science in the presidential election. This is partially true. This exclusion has certainly helped fuel the focus on faith, but the intense focus on faith in any campaign can be better attributed to religion being a greater uniting factor of people than science is. People find more common ground in religious faith than they do in science. Of course, the exclusion of such people of faith from discussions involving science further fuels the focus on religion.

In conclusion, West writes:

Scientists have their blind spots just as much as any religious believer. If they genuinely want more discussion over science and public policy, they could start by inviting religious believers to join the conversation.

He is absolutely correct. Now we just wait and see if religious believers will be invited to join the conversation.

West's article can be found here.

POLL: Allow Skeptics of Evolution in the Lab and Classroom

2007-12-20T13:58:00.000-05:00

A new poll from One News Now shows that American believe skepticism in evolutionary theory is not a reason to remove a scientist from a lab or a teacher from the classroom. Triggered by the article on Nathaniel Abraham, a creationist biologist who was fired from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, One News Now asked America whether skepticism in evolution should disqualify an individual from scientific research or teaching a biology class. The answer was an overwhelming no. Over 95% of voters said that those who question Darwin should not be banned from scientific research or teaching biology. Less that 4% said they should. See the results for yourself here.

Judging PBS

2007-12-20T13:55:00.000-05:00

A new site was launched today responding to the PBS documentary Judgment Day, which was a very biased and somewhat inaccurate depiction of Darwinian evolution and the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in Pennsylvania in 2005. It site is most definitely worth visiting and can be found at:

www.judgingpbs.com

Creationist Biologist Fired for Views

2007-12-08T12:10:00.000-05:00

Nathaniel Abraham is now a professor at Liberty University in Virginia, where he teaches biology. He was once a research scientist for the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. Abraham was hired at the WHOI for his expertise on the zebrafish and for his experience in oceanography. He was fired because he wasn't a scientist...according to the "rules" of science today.

Abraham is a Bible-believing, creationist, Christian. While he agreed to conduct his research at the WHOI with evolutionary concepts, he would not personally accept Darwinian evolution as scientific fact. That, as we all know, is the greatest sin one can commit today. Like many other scientists, professors, administrators, students, etc. before him, Abraham was expelled with the rest.

Abraham is now suing for $500,000 of compensation. Whether or not his suit goes through is yet to be seen. Abraham's story was first published by the Boston Globe and can be found here.

THE DESIGN OF LIFE RELEASED!

2007-12-05T19:04:00.000-05:00

The much-anticipated book The Design of Life by Drs. William A. Dembski and Jonathan Wells has been released!! The book should be an excellent read and is worth buying. It can be found here:

www.thedesignoflife.net

Here's what people are saying about it:

"When future intellectual historians list the books that toppled Darwin's theory, The Design of Life will be at the top."
-Dr. Michael J. Behe (author, Darwin's Black Box and The Edge of Evolution)

"I disagree strongly with the position taken by William Dembski. But I do think that he argues strongly and that those of us who do not accept his conclusions should read his book and form our own opinions and counter-arguments. He should not be ignored."
– Michael Ruse (in response to Dembski's No Free Lunch)

"[Jonathan] Wells is one of the leading lights of the emerging movement which is attempting scientifically to study evidence of intelligent design in the physical and biological realms."
– Arthur Jones

Louisana Governor Supports Intelligent Design

2007-10-27T01:00:00.001-04:00

The New York Times reports that the newly elected Governor of Louisana is a supporter of intelligent design. Bobby Jindal (R-La) is the first Indian-American governor in the United States. He brings a very impressive resume to the table, having been a Rhodes Scholar and educated at both Oxford and Brown Universities and only being 36 years of age.

Born in Baton Rouge, Lousiana to Hindu parents, Jindal converted to Roman Catholicism during his years at Brown University. After losing the previous gubernatorial election in 2003 to Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, Jindal ran successfully for Congress from the New Orleans suburbs in 2004. He sought the governor's seat again in 2007 and was successful.

Jindal, as aformentioned, is a proponent of intelligent design and has said that it may be appropriate for school science classes. Critics will, no doubt, neglect Jindal's education at Brown and Oxford and all his other accomplishments in light of this one fact. Perhaps it is time for change, however, and perhaps Jindal is the right person for Louisana at this time.

Kenyan Monkeys Make "Lewd" Signs

2007-10-27T00:32:00.000-04:00

A recent article (found here) discusses how monkeys in Kenya are "monkeying" around and making lewd gestures towards women. What's interesting is what the spokesperson for Kenya's Wildlife Service, Gichuki Kabukuru, said concerning this matter:

"That is quite true. I will not be able to give you a scientific explanation but it has been observed in the past," he said. "Even in our camps, when men are out on patrol and the monkeys see women and children, they will become very naughty and make lewd signs at them."

Supposedly, something can be "quite true" while no one can give a scientific explanation for it. Why aren't scientists shouting about this? Shouldn't they be all over these Kenyans for saying this? Why are we allowing these Kenyans to draw such conclusions a mere observations? This is a travesty.

Or...maybe we always rely on observations and inferences and it's something deeper than science that makes scientists protest intelligent design. Just a thought.

St. Petersburg Times on Thomas Woodward

2007-10-23T19:50:00.000-04:00

The St. Petersburg Times ran an article about Dr. Thomas Woodward of Trinity College and author of Doubts About Darwin and Darwin Strikes Back. Dr. Woodward is considered the historian of the intelligent design movement and his work has been most valuable for those in the ongoing debate between intelligent design and evolution and for the public.

The article can be found here.

NOVA to Carry Documentary on Kitzmiller Proceedings

2007-10-12T12:50:00.000-04:00

NOVA, the popular science show on PBS, will be featuring a two-hour documentary on the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial held in Pennsylvania in 2005. The film, entitled "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial," will be featured on November 13, 2007 at 8 PM EST on PBS.

Though the film tries to be objective, given the title of the documentary and this quote from NOVA Senior Executive Producer Paula S. Apsell, I find that highly unlikely. Apsell says:

Judgment Day captures on film a landmark court case with a powerful scientific message at its core. Evolution is one of the most essential and least understood of all scientific theories, the foundation of biological science. We felt it was important for NOVA to do this program to heighten the public understanding of what constitutes science and what does not, and therefore, what is acceptable for inclusion in the science curriculum in our public schools.

For more information, see the article "Is Intelligent Design Science or Religion?"

In Memory of Dr. D. James Kennedy

2007-09-05T17:01:00.000-04:00

Dr. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida passed away this morning from complications from a heart attack he suffered on December 28, 2006. He was 76 years old.

Dr. Kennedy will forever be remembered as one of the most renowned ministers in America. In addition to serving as the senior pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Kennedy also founded Coral Ridge Ministries, Evangelism Explosion International, the Center for Reclaiming America, the Creation Studies Institute, the Center for Christian Statesmanship, Knox Theological Seminary, and Westminster Academy. In addition, Kennedy was a founding member of the Alliance Defense Fund and the Moral Majority.

Each week, nearly 3 million listeners tuned in to hear Dr. Kennedy's preaching either through television, radio or the internet. He had written more than 65 books as well and was the most listened to Presbyterian minister today. In addition, Kennedy dedicated each August to discussing Darwinism on his television program The Coral Ridge Hour.

On a personal note, Dr. Kennedy had been a great source of support and encouragement to me during my high school years when I worked on the "Evolution: Truth or Myth?" lecture with Dr. Michael J. Behe. Dr. Kennedy lent me support and his friendship was cherished. I, as well as many others, are forever indebted to him and his service to America and to the world.

Dr. Dennis James Kennedy: Thank you and may you rest in peace.

For the Associated Press story on this, go here.

Michael Behe on the Colbert Report

2007-08-18T13:33:00.000-04:00

Dr. Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University and author of the best-selling Darwin's Black Box appeared on the Colbert Report on Comedy Central on Thursday, August 2, 2007.

Stephen Colbert hosted Behe in the portion of his show when he interviews the author of a recent book. He was discussing Behe's newest book, The Edge of Evolution.

This was not be the first time someone in the intelligent design and evolution debate has been on Comedy Central. Dr. Kenneth Miller of Brown University was on the Colbert Report in 2005 and Dr. Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, was on the show this past spring. In addition, Dr. William A. Dembski, author of numerous books on the topic, was on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart in 2006 as well.

To watch Behe's appearance on the Colbert Report, go here.

David Bolinsky on the Cell

2007-08-17T22:09:00.000-04:00

Medical animator David Bolinsky presents a stunning animation that show the bustling life inside a cell. Built by his company, XVIVO, to teach Harvard medical students, the clip features sweeping cinematic values and even a little drama. It communicates not only the facts of life, but life's truth and beauty.

This clip is avaliable from TED from a talk Bolinksy gave in March 2007. It can be found here.

Behe's Amazon Blog

2007-07-09T19:53:00.000-04:00

Dr. Michael J. Behe, author of the best-selling book Darwin's Black Box and the recently released The Edge of Evolution, has an author's blog at Amazon.com. He is responding to critics of his latest book and the blog is worth reading.

Check out his blog here.

IDURC Announces 2007 Casey Luskin Graduate Award

2007-07-02T19:34:00.000-04:00

The Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center (IDURC) is proud to present the 2007 Casey Luskin Graduate Award, presented annually to a deserving college graduate for excellence in student advocacy of intelligent design.

The recipient of the 2007 Casey Luskin Graduate Award will remain anonymous for the protection of the recipient. The many students, professors, and scientists who have been denied degrees or tenure, and removed from positions and jobs for no other reason than acceptance of—or even sympathy to—intelligent design theory is very telling of the importance of keeping these bright young minds out of the crosshairs of those opposed to open-minded investigation and critical thought.

The recipient of this year’s award is a graduate earning degrees in chemistry and chemical biology and mathematics. This student has demonstrated excellence and courage in research and promotion of intelligent design. The recipient will receive a certificate of achievement, a $100 award, and an autographed copy of Dr. Michael J. Behe’s newest book, The Edge of Evolution: the Search for the Limits of Darwinism.

In addition, the IDURC is proud to name Mr. Casey Luskin, a graduate of the University of California at San Diego, an honorary recipient of the Casey Luskin Graduate Award. Luskin, for whom the award is named, was the first student truly to step out of his comfort zone as an undergrad and take a stand for intelligent design—a stand that would be seen across the nation. His founding of the Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center has been a great step forward for the intelligent design movement and, more importantly, for academic freedom everywhere. Today, Luskin continues his work with the ID movement as a lawyer and legal analyst for the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle, Washington. Students everywhere today are indebted to the work that Luskin has done.

We are proud to name the IDURC’s graduate award after Mr. Casey Luskin and delighted to name him an honorary recipient. Casey will receive a certificate of achievement and be listed as a recipient of the award which now bears his name.

As always, I must thank Mr. Dennis Wagner and Access Research Network for the donation of the $100 prize money and for their continuous and generous financial support of the IDURC.

Most sincerely,

Samuel S. Chen
Director,
Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center

Iowa State President Gregory Geoffroy: Tenure Machine?

2007-06-23T15:48:00.000-04:00

In light of the recent debacle at Iowa State University over the denial of tenure to acclaimed astronomer Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, a number of very interesting facts concerning the one who denied Gonzalez tenure—Iowa State President Gregory Geoffroy—have been revealed.

In a public statement on the issue, Geoffroy stated:

I know extremely well how to assess the qualifications of a candidate seeking tenure. Over the past two decades -- as dean of Penn State's College of Science, provost at the University of Maryland and as president of Iowa State -- I have reviewed and passed judgment on close to 1,000 faculty promotion and tenure cases. And while I have not worked in Dr. Gonzalez's field of astronomy, I have a significant understanding of the field and far greater experience than most university presidents.

One thousand faculty promotion and tenure cases? And only over the past two decades? Let’s look at the math. President Geoffroy has been reviewing tenure cases for two decades, which is 20 years. In these 20 years he has supposedly reviewed 1,000 cases. This means he reviews on average 50 cases a year. At that rate, he reviews one case a week, taking only two weeks off every year for summer vacation, winter vacation, Thanksgiving, spring break, national holidays, personal days, and sick days. This is not to mention the other duties he had at Penn State, the University of Maryland, and now has at Iowa State. Quite impressive, if you ask me. It seems that President Geoffroy is a tenure machine.

Given Geoffroy’s expertise in this area, let’s look at his assessment of Gonzalez’s tenure. Geoffroy writes:

I specifically considered refereed publications, his level of success in attracting research funding and grants, the amount of telescope observing time he had been granted, the number of graduate students he had supervised, and most importantly, the overall evidence of future career promise in the field of astronomy.

As has been mentioned on this blog before, Gonzalez has a very impressive referred publication record. While ISU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy (which Geoffroy calls “one of our strongest academic programs”) requires “the publication of approximately fifteen paper of good quality in refereed journals,” Gonzalez has nearly 70 such papers, exceeding his department’s requirements by over 350%.

And concerning the “most important” factor—the future promise of Gonzalez in the field of astronomy—the facts are overwhelming. Gonzalez is the author of Observational Astronomy, a textbook published by Cambridge University Press and used in Iowa State University astronomy classes. His work had been cited nearly 1,500 times by the year 2005 and, besides the nearly 70 peer-reviewed papers, he has served as a referee for a number of the world’s leading astronomy journals, such as Astronomical Journal, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Astrophysical Journal, Icarus, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Nature, Naturwissenschaften, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Origins of Life and Evolution Biospheres, and Science.

In addition, Gonzalez has produced research which has led to the discovery of two planets and he is currently building technology to discover extrasolar planets. He has also served on the NASA Astrobiology Institute Review Panel (2003) and on the National Science Foundation Advanced Technologies and Instruments review panel (2005).

All of this was accomplished before the age of 45. To ISU, however, only one thing mattered: Gonzalez book The Privileged Planet, in which he advocates that our universe is the product of intelligent design. This was made more than clear by the quotes of a number of faculty in the department where Gonzalez has his appointment. Other faculty at ISU (including one in the Department of Physics and Astronomy and one whose spouse teaches in the department) have signed onto “Project Steve,” an anti-ID list of people named “Steve” produced by the National Center for ~~Selling Evolution~~ Science Education. As if all this wasn’t enough evidence of the antagonism against Gonzalez, John Hauptman, a physics professor at ISU who voted to deny Gonzalez tenure, wrote concerning Gonzalez’s case:

a physics department is not obligated to support notions that do not even begin to meet scientific standards.

This is all very telling considering the fact that ISU grants tenure to 91% of its applicants. And so is Iowa State President Gregory Geoffroy against academic freedom? It doesn’t seem like it. Geoffroy hired as his vice-president and provost at ISU Elizabeth Hoffman, the former president of the University of Colorado. Why did Hoffman leave Colorado? Because her time there was marred with scandal among both students and professors. Most notably, Hoffman defended the academic freedom of Ward Churchill, the professor of ethinc studies at the University of Colorado who referred to many of those who died in the World Trade Centers on 9/11/2001 as “technocrats” and “little Eichmanns.” After Hoffman’s defense of Churchill, Geoffroy found her to be qualified in being the vice-president and provost of ISU.

In sum, the “tenure machine” Geoffroy seems to be nothing more than a tyrannical president and an embarrassment to Iowa State University, the Big XII, and academia everywhere.

The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins

2007-06-20T16:34:00.000-04:00

This just appeared on First Things. It is an excellent assessment of Richard Dawkins and his newest book, The God Delusion, written by Dr. Francis J. Beckwith of Baylor University.

It can be found here and I have also posted the article, in its entirity, below:

The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins

By Francis J. Beckwith
Wednesday, June 20, 2007, 6:47 AM

In his 2006 book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins laments the career path of Kurt Wise, who has, since 2006, held the positions of professor of science and theology and director of the Center for Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. Prior to that, Wise had taught for many years at Bryan College, a small evangelical college in Dayton, Tennessee, named after William Jennings Bryan, three-time Democratic presidential candidate and associate counsel in the 1925 Scopes “Monkey Trial.”

According to Dawkins, Wise was at one time a promising young scholar who had earned a degree in geology (from the University of Chicago) and advanced degrees in geology and paleontology from Harvard University, where he studied under the highly acclaimed Stephen Jay Gould. Wise is also a young-earth creationist, which means that he accepts a literal interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis and maintains that the earth is less than ten thousand years old. It is not a position I hold, and for that reason I am sympathetic to Dawkins’ bewilderment at why Wise has embraced what appears to many Christians to be a false choice between one controversial interpretation of Scripture (young-earth creationism) and abandoning Christianity altogether.

At one point in his career, Wise began to understand that his reading of Scripture was inconsistent with the dominant scientific understanding of the age of the earth and the cosmos. Instead of abandoning what I believe is a false choice, he continued to embrace it, but this lead to a crisis of faith. Wise writes: “Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.” So Wise abandoned the possibility of securing a professorship at a prestigious research university or institute.

Dawkins is disturbed by Wise’s judgment and its repercussions on his obvious promise as a scholar, researcher, and teacher. Writes Dawkins: “I find that terribly sad . . . the Kurt Wise story is just plain pathetic—pathetic and contemptible. The wound, to his career and his life’s happiness, was self-inflicted, so unnecessary, so easy to escape. . . . I am hostile to religion because of what it did to Kurt Wise. And if it did that to a Harvard educated geologist, just think what it can do to others less gifted and less well armed.”

Of course, some Christians may be just as troubled as Dawkins. So one need not be an atheist to raise legitimate questions about Professor’s Wise’s intellectual and spiritual journey. But, given Dawkins’ atheism, there is something odd about his lament, for it seems to require that Dawkins accept something about the nature of human beings and the natural moral law that his atheism seems to reject.

Let me explain what I mean. Dawkins harshly criticizes Wise for embracing a religious belief that results in Wise’s not treating himself and his talents, intelligence, and abilities in a way appropriate for their full flourishing. That is, given the opportunity to hone and nurture certain gifts—for example, intellectual skill—no one, including Wise, should waste them as a result of accepting a false belief. The person who violates, or helps violate, this norm, according to Dawkins, should be condemned, and we should all bemoan this tragic moral neglect on the part of our fellow(s). But the issuing of that judgment on Wise by Dawkins makes sense only in light of Wise’s particular talents and the sort of being Wise is by nature, a being who Dawkins seems to believe possesses certain intrinsic capacities and purposes, the premature disruption of which would be an injustice.

So the human being who wastes his talents is one who does not respect his natural gifts or the basic capacities whose maturation and proper employment make possible the flourishing of many goods. In other words, the notion of “proper function,” as Alvin Plantinga puts it, coupled with the observation that certain perfections grounded in basic capacities have been impermissibly obstructed from maturing, is assumed in the very judgment Dawkins makes about Wise and the way by which Wise should treat himself.

But Dawkins, in fact, does not actually believe that living beings, including human beings, have intrinsic purposes or are designed so that one may conclude that violating one’s proper function amounts to a violation of one’s moral duty to oneself. Dawkins has maintained for decades that the natural world only appears to be designed. He writes in The God Delusion: “Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that—an illusion.”

But this means that his lament for Wise is misguided, for Dawkins is lamenting what only appears to be Wise’s dereliction of his duty to nurture and employ his gifts in ways that result in his happiness and an acquisition of knowledge that contributes to the common good. Yet because there are no designed natures and no intrinsic purposes, and thus no natural duties that we are obligated to obey, the intuitions that inform Dawkins’ judgment of Wise are as illusory as the design he explicitly rejects. But that is precisely one of the grounds by which Dawkins suggests that theists are irrational and ought to abandon their belief in God.

So if the theist is irrational for believing in God based on what turns out to be pseudo-design, Dawkins is irrational in his judgment of Wise and other creationists whom he targets for reprimand and correction. For Dawkins’ judgment rests on a premise that—although uncompromisingly maintained throughout his career—only appears to be true.

Francis J. Beckwith is an associate professor of Philosophy & Church-State Studies at Baylor University. His most recent book is Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice. Cambridge University Press, 2007).

Gonzalez's Tenure Appeal Denied

2007-06-06T18:41:00.000-04:00

Iowa State University's President Gregory Geoffroy informed Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, who was seeking tenure and a promotion in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, on Friday, June 1, 2007 that his appeal for tenure had been denied.

Gonzalez had been denied tenure despite having a very-impressive list of achievements. It didn't matter that Gonzalez had discovered two new planets and is currently building technology to discover extra-solar planets. It didn't matter that Gonzalez had written Observational Astronomy, a college-level textbook published by Cambridge University Press and used in Iowa State University classes. It didn't matter that Iowa State requires about 15 published peer-reviewed articles for their professors to receive tenure and that Gonzalez had published nearly 70 such peer-reviewed articles published. None of the other achievements or qualifications of Gonzalez made any difference to the tenure review committee at ISU.

The only thing that mattered to ISU was that Gonzalez accepted intelligent design theory. This became evident when 120 ISU professors signed a letter criticizing intelligent design as not scientific, when various professor in Gonzalez’s department were linked to a powerful anti-intelligent design organization (the National Center for Science Education), and finally, when Dr. John Hauptman (who is the the same departed as Gonzalez at ISU) published an op-ed in the Des Moines Register claiming that Gonzalez was rightly denied tenure because he didn’t understand what was and wasn’t science.

What Iowa State University did here was eliminate a brilliant scientist because of his view on a very controversial issue. They—a public university funded by taxpayer money—participated in what the U.S. Supreme Court has referred to as “viewpoint discrimination. As a fellow member of the BIG XII Conference (Baylor University), I am thoroughly disappointed with Iowa State.

Released: The Edge of Evolution

2007-06-01T12:51:00.000-04:00

Dr. Michael J. Behe, biochemist at Lehigh University and author of the best-selling Darwin's Black Box (Free Press, 1996) has authored a new book. The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism was released today. This book should be an excellent read.

To order your own copy of The Edge of Evolution, go here.
To order your own copy of Darwin's Black Box, go here.
For a review on The Edge of Evolution, go here.

Senator Brownback on Evolution

2007-05-31T16:32:00.000-04:00

In the first Republican presidential debate, Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) was one of three candidates who said that they did not accept Darwinian evolution. He elaborates on his views in an op-ed piece published today in the New York Times. The piece is very well written and can be found here. I am also posting it below:

What I Think About Evolution
By SAM BROWNBACK

Published: May 31, 2007

Washington

IN our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic to expect that every complicated issue will be addressed with the nuance or subtlety it deserves. So I suppose I should not have been surprised earlier this month when, during the first Republican presidential debate, the candidates on stage were asked to raise their hands if they did not “believe” in evolution. As one of those who raised his hand, I think it would be helpful to discuss the issue in a bit more detail and with the seriousness it demands.

The premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour days. But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason.

The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.

People of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given us. At the same time, reason itself cannot answer every question. Faith seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less. Faith supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love. Faith and science should go together, not be driven apart.

The question of evolution goes to the heart of this issue. If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.

There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today. Many questions raised by evolutionary theory — like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations — go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology.

The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.

Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a species. Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him. It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.

Biologists will have their debates about man’s origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table. For this reason, I oppose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion. An attempt by either to seek a monopoly on these questions would be wrong-headed. As science continues to explore the details of man’s origin, faith can do its part as well. The fundamental question for me is how these theories affect our understanding of the human person.

The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man’s essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.

While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.

Without hesitation, I am happy to raise my hand to that.

Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas.

Chronicle of Higher Education on Gonzalez Tenure Case

2007-05-31T16:28:00.000-04:00

The Chronicle of Higher Education has commented on the tenure case at Iowa State University involving Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez. The article is very well written and appropriated titled "Intelligent Design vs. Tenure." The article can be found here.

Marcus Ross in the Virginia Pilot

2007-05-30T14:41:00.000-04:00

Dr. Marcus Ross of Liberty University, both a proponent of intelligent design and a young-Earth creationist, was recently featured in the Virginia Pilot. The article is decent, though it bears a lame title. It can be found here.

Creation Museum Opens

2007-05-30T14:10:00.000-04:00

A young-Earth creationist museum opened on Monday, May 28, 2007 in Petersburg, Kentucky. The $27 million Creation Museum depicts dinosaurs eating with children playing nearby--supporting the young-Earth creationist view that dinosaurs and man lived together.

While I don't have a problem with a museum that rejects Darwinian evolution or even a museum that supports young-Earth creation, I do have a problem with the Creation Museum. The museum was founded by Answers in Genesis, a creationist group that is headed by Ken Ham and is both anti-evolution and anti-intelligent design. It was not enough for Mr. Ham to show his view that the earth is barely 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day--a literal 24 hour day. Ham decided to go forward and bash all those who support the idea that the earth is indeed old.

The museum depicts a giant wrecking ball labeled "millions of years" smashing into the ground at the foundation of a church. The cracks reach a home in which videos show moral corruptness. A young lad is seen sitting at his computer viewing, we are told, pornography. All this is the result of believing that the Earth is old.

By doing this, Ham has turned his focus from defeating the scientific materialism of evolution to attacking intelligent design. Intelligent design does not hold that the Earth is merely 6,000 years old. Some ID proponents are also young-Earth creationists (for example, Dr. Marcus Ross of Liberty University) but many are not (for example, Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University and Dr. William Dembski of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary).

When Ham turns and begins to bash old-Earth creationists and ID proponents, as he has before and as he does in his museum, he has made a grave mistake of forgetting his mission and attacking potential allies, instead.

I would have been interested in visiting the Creation Museum and I think it is good to have museums that are not entrenched in Darwinian evolution. However, after seeing Ham's vicious attack against intelligent design propnents and even creationists who do not accept a young Earth, I am greatly opposed to his museum.

For the New York Times article on the Creation Museum, go here.

Dawkins in Time 100

2007-05-26T16:55:00.000-04:00

Every year Time magazine come out with their 100 most influential people of the year. Thinking it would spice up this year's, they asked Dr. Michael J. Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box and the forthcoming The Edge of Evolution, to write the blurb about Dr. Richard Dawkins, author of the recent The God Delusion, among other books.

Though the piece has been edited, it is still a good piece:

Of Richard Dawkins' nine books, none caused as much controversy or sold as well as last year's The God Delusion. The central idea—popular among readers and deeply unsettling among proponents of intelligent design like myself—is that religion is a so-called virus of the mind, a simple artifact of cultural evolution, no more or less meaningful than eye color or height.
It is a measure of the artful way Dawkins, 66, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford, tells a tale and the rigor he brings to his thinking that even those of us who profoundly disagree with what he has to say can tip our hats to the way he has invigorated the larger debate.
Dawkins had a mild Anglican youth but at 16 discovered Charles Darwin and believed he'd found a pearl of great price. I believe his new book follows much less from his data than from his premises, and yet I admire his determination. Concerning the big questions, the Bible advises us to be hot or cold but not lukewarm. Whatever the merit of his ideas, Richard Dawkins is not lukewarm.

The article and an accompanying drawing (not drawn by Behe) can be found here.

[Off Topic:] R.I.P. President Herbert H. Reynolds

2007-05-25T23:14:00.000-04:00

I just received an email from Baylor University President John M. Lilley informing the Baylor family of the passing of our President Emeritus, Herbert H. Reynolds.

Dr. Reynolds served as an AFROTC instructor before becoming president of Baylor for 14 years (1981-1995). He then served as chancellor until the year 2000. He and his wife poured their lives into the university and brough about many positive changes--including academic and student life initiatives and the George W. Truett Theological Seminary. Reynolds was succeeded by President Robert B. Sloan, Jr.

Though I disagre with many of Reynolds' policies and ideas, he was a president of Baylor University and I pay my respects to him. I thank him for his service to Baylor, both as an instructor and as president, and for his love for the school and the Baylor community. I also send my condolences and well wishes to his family--who also poured much into Baylor.

Thank you Dr. Reynolds for all you have done for Baylor University.

More on the Iowa State Tenure Situation

2007-05-25T10:18:00.000-04:00

Dr. William A. Dembski made a very insightful post at his blog Uncommon Descent concerning the recent denial of tenure to Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez by Iowa State University. In his post, Dembski points out that Dr. Hector Avalos, a tenured religion professor at ISU, conducted a witch hunt of Gonzalez in 2005 (see here) but it seems that, if anyone, Avalos is the one who doesn't deserve tenure and is the real witch.

Read Dembski's full post here. It is intriguing and worth reading.

Stanley Miller Dies at Age 77

2007-05-24T22:19:00.000-04:00

Dr. Stanley Miller, the famed partner in the Miller-Urey experiment of 1953, died on Sunday, May 20, 2007 at a hospital near his National City, California home. Miller was 77 years old.

As a graduate student, Miller partnered with his doctoral advisor, Dr. Harold Urey, and was responsible for the famed Miller-Urey experiment of 1953. The experiment supposedly simulated the early earth's atmosphere and produced organic compounds by sending electricity through the atmosphere. Many, many problems, however, existed concerning the experiment and it has been discredited greatly in recent years.

Miller spent the majority of this scientific career at the University of California at San Diego (which is also where the Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness Center was first founded).

For the New York Times article on Miller, see here.

Acclaimed Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez Denied Tenure

2007-05-24T11:12:00.000-04:00

Iowa State University (www.iastate.edu) announced a few weeks ago that they have denied tenure to Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, an assistant professor of astronomy at ISU. Gonzalez, who has been at ISU since 2001, was applying for tenure and a promotion to associate professor.

Similar to when Dr. Francis J. Beckwith was denied tenure at Baylor University, it seems that Gonzalez was more than qualified. For example, ISU's faculty handbook states that tenure is a tough process and hard to obtain. The faculty member applying for tenure must be highly qualified--for example, he or she should have published about 15 articles in peer-reviewed journals. Gonzalez, however, has nearly 70 such peer-reviewed articles--over 350% the requirements of ISU. Not only is Gonzalez well published in refereed journals, he serves as the referee for many of these journals.

In addition, Gonzalez is the author of Observational Astronomy, a college-level textbook published by Cambridge University Press and used in classes at Iowa State. Gonzalez's research has also led to the discovery of two new planets and he is currently building techonology to discover extrasolar planets. He has also served on advisory boards for both NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

So why did Iowa State deny Dr. Gonzalez tenure? Because he accepts intelligent design theory. As World Magazine reported, professors at ISU admitted that Gonzalez's acceptance of intelligent design was a factor in his denial of tenure. This comes though Gonzalez does not teach ID in his classes. The reason for this is his book on ID called The Privileged Planet. This, in political science, is called "viewpoint discrimination" and because Iowa State University is a public school--they can be found guilty according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is greatly upseting, that though Gonzalez had exceeded ISU's own standards for tenure and is considered a leader in astronomical research, he has been denied tenure because of his view on a very controversial issue. As a student, I would think that academia--especially at a public university--would be more open and free than this.

If you would like to write to ISU president Dr. Gregory Geoffroy and express your disappointment with his decision, please write to geoffroy@iastate.edu.

For the World Magazine articlce on Gonzalez, see here.
For the Nature article on Gonzalez, see here.

[Off Topic:] Baylor University Pays Tribute to Virginia Tech

2007-04-26T15:34:00.000-04:00

As we continue to remember the those affected by the Virginia Tech tragedy, Baylor University has paid tribute to the victims, the friends and family, and the entire Virginia Tech community.

Flags flew half-staff until this past Monday and a moment of silence was held on the day set aside for rememberance. At the end of this moment, the hymn "Amazing Grace" was played from the carillon followed by 32 chimes. A moment of silence was given during the Brothers Under Christ (BYX) Island Party with Switchfoot--and the end of which "Amazing Grace" and the 32 chimes were again played. A Baylor University flag has also been signed by students and faculty and sent to Virginia Tech.

Finally, and most beautifully, the Baylor University's Pat Neff Hall was illuminated in the colors of Virginia Tech University. (See picture above). Pat Neff Hall, which is topped off with a 23-kart gold dome, is illuminated each night. On nights that Baylor wins in athletics the tower is illuminated with a green light.

Baylor University is more than an institute of higher learning--we are a community and a family. On this occasion--the Baylor family reaches out to the Virginia Tech family. Each Baylor Bear is bleeding maroon and orange. We are all Hokies.

Medical Professor Takes Heat for Questionning Darwin

2007-04-26T15:22:00.000-04:00

John Marshall, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Missouri-Columbia made a case for the scientific acceptance of intelligent design and argued that scientists were trying to kick intelligent design "off the playing field of science."

Many colleagues of Marshall are upset and have been criticizing him for his comments but some are supportive. As chemist and colleague Tim Spurgeon said, "I think that if we simply say that we're going to only look at what's in the box of only what can be natural, and yet there's this big white elephant in the room that no one's willing to touch … I think we're fooling ourselves."

For the entire article, click here.

Institute for the Study of Nature: Summer Institute and Conference

2007-04-18T18:56:00.000-04:00

Mark Ryland, the president of the Institute for the Study of Nature, recently sent an email concerning ISNature's Summer Institute and Summer Conference. This is something worth considering for those interested in the question of nature and what it is. Here is his letter:

Dear friends and colleagues:

I wanted to let you know that the Institute for the Study of Nature ( www.isnature.org) is holding a Summer Institute the week of June 11th, as well as a small conference at the end of that week (Friday and Saturday, June 15-16). The Summer Institute is designed for about 25 graduate (or advanced undergraduate) science students (or students in related fields, or young scientists) who would like to learn more about non-reductionist approaches to modern science, and in particular to neo-Aristotelian natural philosophy and its relation to modern science. You can find all the details on our website here:

http://www.isnature.org/Events/2007/Summer/InstConf2007.htm

I'm writing you because you may (a) know students who would be interested, and could pass along this announcement, and/or (b) may be such a person yourself, and/or (c) may be a scholar interested in giving a paper at the weekend Conference, and/or (d) may be a scholar other intererested party who would like to attend the weekend Conference (all are welcome).

Please look this over and either write back to me and Henry Teichert, Program Director of the ISN (on the cc line), or pass it along, as appropriate.

Thank you very much!

-- Mark

Mark Ryland

President

Institute for the Study of Nature

ryland@isnature.org

[Off Topic:] Today we are all Hokies

2007-04-18T18:43:00.000-04:00

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY

MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2007

TODAY, WE ARE ALL HOKIES

“We are Virginia Tech.

We are sad today and we will be sad for quite awhile. WE are not moving on, we are embracing our mourning.

We are Virginia Tech.

We are strong enough to know when to cry and sad enough to know we must laugh again.

We are Virginia Tech.

We do not understand this tragedy. We know we did not deserve it but neither does a child in Africa dying of AIDS, but neither do the invisible children walking the night to avoid being captured by a rogue army. Neither does the baby elephant watching his community be devastated for ivory; neither does the Appalachian infant killed in the middle of the night in his crib in the home his father built with his own hands being run over by a boulder because the land was destabilized. No one deserves a tragedy.

We are Virginia Tech.

The Hokier Nation embraces our own with open heart and hands to those who offer their hearts and minds. We are strong and brave and innocent and unafraid. We are better than we think, not quite what we want to be. We are alive to the imagination and the possibility we will continue to invent the future through our blood and tears, through all this sadness.

We are the Hokies.

We will prevail, we will prevail.

We are Virginia Tech."

--Nikki Giovanni

http://www.vt.edu/

[Off Topic:] R.I.P. Johnny "B.C." Hart

2007-04-09T00:29:00.000-04:00

Johnny Hart, the creator and author of the popular comic strip "B.C.," died on Saturday from a stroke. He was apparently at his drawing board doing what he loved to do the most when he died.

I find it ironic that it is right around this season of Easter that Hart died, as he was an unapologetic Christian and often wove his faith into his work. Appropriately, the above B.C. comic strip is a tribute to Johnny Hart.

"The Way I See It" Seattle Becoming ID City?

2007-03-29T13:55:00.000-04:00

First it was Discovery Institute, then it was Bill Gates and Microsoft, and now it's Starbucks. Has Seattle become the intelligent design capital of the world? I don't think so, but for now, here's "the way I see it:"

Starbucks Coffee recently released their newest cup in their line of "The Way I see It" cups. They are coffee cups with quotes from various people on various topics. The newest cup reads:

The Way I See It #224

Darwinism's impact on traidtional social values has not been as benign as its advocates would like us to believe. Despite the efforts of its modern defenders to distance themselves from its baleful social consequences, Darwinism's connection with eugenics, abortion and racisim is a matter of historical record. And the record is not pretty.

Dr. Jonathan Wells
Biologist and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design

When it was discovered that Bill Gates supported Discover Institute there were cries from the evolutionary camps to boycott Microsoft (even though Gates' support mainly came to the Arcadia Project, not the Center for Science and Culture). Are the same evolutionary camps now going to call for the boycott of Starbucks? Be my guest...that means more coffee for me.

On another note, congratulations to my friend Jon Wells and a thank you to him for his constant insight.

Marcus Ross on the Frank Pastore Show

2007-03-08T12:13:00.000-05:00

Dr. Marcus Ross will be on the Frank Pastore Show tonight on KKLA at 6:00 PM Pacific Time (9 PM Eastern, 8 PM Central, 7 PM Mountain). He will be discussing what happens to a culture when only one view of origins science is permitted in schools.

The program will be on 99.5 FM in the Los Angeles, California area and can be audio-streamed at www.kkla.com.

The Missing Link Desig--FOUND.

2007-03-06T14:43:00.000-05:00

Just change "Engineering" to "Natural Mutations That Come About for No Purpose" and we have evolution proven!!

ID and the Arts

2007-02-24T20:19:00.000-05:00

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.

The Father of the ID Movement on the Current Situation

2007-02-20T00:47:00.000-05:00

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."

So Help Us Darwin

2007-02-17T16:52:00.000-05:00

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!

2007-02-17T11:29:00.000-05:00

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.

Kansas Science Standards Reserved

2007-02-14T00:41:00.000-05:00

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.

"He Does Good Science, Great Science."

2007-02-12T13:21:00.000-05:00

"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.

The Dawkins Delusion

2007-02-04T00:19:00.000-05:00

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.)

"Flat Earth" Myth

2007-01-22T13:17:00.000-05:00

I recently discovered that some Baylor biology professors were having their students read papers and articles where evolutionists put forth the analogy between the flat earth theory and intelligent design. The idea is that flat earth theory is not scientific--even though Christians once believed it for theological reasons, just like intelligent design is not scientific--even though Christians believe it for theological reasons. (Wait...I thought evolutionists didn't like analogies!)

Bill Dembski blogged about this at Uncommon Descent a while back and I posted on this at Overwhelming Evidence previously as well. But because this issue keeps coming back, I will post on it again. Here is the truth about the "Flat Earth" story:

THE FLAT EARTH MYTH

“The earth isn’t flat - end of story.” So says Case Western Reserve University physicist Lawrence Krauss, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer. “We don’t have to have classes or be sensitive to the issues of those who believe that, because they’re wrong.”

Defenders of Darwinian evolution sometimes compare their critics to believers in a flat earth. According to the standard story, Christians used to believe for theological reasons that the earth is flat. When modern science demonstrated that the earth is actually a sphere, most Christians acknowledged their mistake, but a few continue to persist in their outmoded belief. Since modern science has likewise demonstrated the truth of Darwinian evolution (so the story goes), its critics are like people who still believe in a flat earth.

But the story is false. It began as fiction, and it was elevated to a historical claim by late-19th century Darwinists who used it as a weapon to ridicule Christians.

The spherical shape of the earth was known to the ancient Greeks, who even made some decent estimates of its circumference. Christian theologians likewise knew that the earth was a sphere. The only two who are known to have advocated a flat earth were a 4th-century heretic, Lactantius, and an obscure 6th-century writer, Cosmas Indicopleustes. [These were really second stringers. The leading theological lights of that period were Origen, Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers, and Augustine — none of these thought the earth was flat.]

A major promulgator of the flat earth myth was the 19th-century American writer Washington Irving. In his fictional History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828), Irving wrote that flat-earth churchmen had opposed Columbus on the grounds that he would fall off the edge of the earth if he tried to sail across the Atlantic. In actuality, Columbus had been opposed by people who not only knew the earth was a sphere, but also had a pretty good idea of how big it was - but who knew nothing of the Americas and thus thought a voyage to the Far East would take too long and cost too much.

The flat earth remained clearly in the realm of fiction until after Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859. Two of Darwin’s followers then elevated it to a historical claim in books defending Darwinism and attacking Christianity: John Draper’s The History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874), and Andrew Dickson White’s A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896).

So defenders of Darwinism who ridicule their critics for being like believers in a flat earth are being misled by a myth that Darwinists themselves helped to create.

************

For an objective and very readable account of the flat earth myth, see Jeffrey Burton Russell (Professor of History, University of California at Santa Barbara), Inventing the Flat Earth (New York: Praeger, 1991).

[Off Topic] My Apology

2007-01-20T11:29:00.000-05:00

Dear friends,

In 2004, as predictions for the 2008 presidential election were being made and the name "Hillary Rodham Clinton" was being thrown around, I predicted that she would not run for president. As 2005 and then 2006 rolled by, I made the same prediction for the up and rising star of the Democrat Party: Senator Barack Obama.

For Senator Obama, the landscape of America was not enough to support him into the White House. By 2008, he would have been a senator for a mere 4 years (less than Senator John Edwards served when he ran in 2004). In addition, I didn't feel that the South was ready to elect a minority president. This was not to say that America wouldn't or shouldn't elect a minority as president (I, myself, am a minority), but rather, the South wasn't ready to do so (something that could be counted as a fault).

For Senator Clinton, the landscape in America was also not fitting for her presidential bid. Many voters still recall (not fondly) the days when it appeared as if she ran her husband's presidency. In addition, the South also didn't seem ready to elect a woman president. For that matter, women didn't seem ready to elect a woman president.

Running for president does not mean one will win and my analysis of the landscape of America may still hold true. However, I felt that Senators Obama and Clinton (and I still feel this way) were brilliant and understood the nation's voters well. I felt that for their own political good, they would choose not to run for office.

Given, the 2006 mid-term elections were good for the Democrats (winning both houses of Congress) and can often give a "high" to the party that wins. I didn't think, however, that those elections would change their mind about running for president. From the beginning, I promised to be the first to apologize and admit my error if Clinton and Obama decided to run for president.

Today, I am apologizing for my error in calling the candidates of this next presidential election. A few days ago, Senator Obama opened his exploratory committee and today, Senator Clinton declared her candidacy for president. This, no doubt, came as a surprise to me, but true to my word, I am issuing my admittance of error.

I have made many solid predictions of this sort in the past and I hope I will continue to do so. This simply wasn't one of them.

Thank you and God bless you all.

Sincerely,
Samuel Chen

"Incompetent Design"- All Hail the Church of Darwin!

2007-01-17T09:49:00.000-05:00

Last April, while attending an intelligent design conference, a friend gave me a copy of this song, "Incompetent Design," which is sung to the "Battle Hymn of the Republic." Geologist Donald Wise (not to be confused with Kurt Wise) led some 300 professionals at the 2005 meeting of the Geological Society of America (GSA) in singing the song during his presentation.

A rendition of the song "Incompetent Design" (though not being sung at the GSA) can be found here.
An interview with Donald Wise about the song and the 2005 GSA conference can be found here.
The abstract Wise presented at the 2005 GSA conference can be found below:

INTELLIGENT (INCOMPETENT ?) DESIGN VERSUS EVOLUTION: NEW TACTICS FOR SCIENCE

WISE, Donald U., Geosciences, Univ of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, dwise@geo.umass.edu

Recognition is long overdue by the scientific community that creationism/ intelligent design is a well-organized, very effective political movement attempting to strike at the very heart of Science itself. Traditional methods of polite debate need to be replaced with rough and tumble political rules. (1) Don't waste time defending your position. (2) Focus on a few weak points of the opposition. (3) KISS (Keep it simple, stupid). (4) Stick to irrefutable facts with obvious relation to evolution and close relationship to individual voters. (Yes, voters are our real audience.) (5) Relentlessly repeat a few critical soundbites.

The courts have defined Creationism as religion so Science's past battles were commonly seen as attacks on sacred cows. Now ID has freed Science from these constraints by arguing very narrowly that intelligence exists in nature's designs but makes no mention of theological implications. Thus, Science need only show lack of intelligence in nature's designs, the human frame being a prime example.

One's frame is certainly close enough to the individual voter and contains obvious design defects easily explained by evolution but embarrassing for IDers. (1) Our pelvis slopes forward for knuckle dragging like all the great apes. Only by an extremely sharp bend of our spine can we stand erect: an evolutionary artifact or a design weakness obvious to any first-year engineering student? (2) Our mouths have too many teeth: either the result of an evolutionarily flattened mammalian muzzle or a design plan that couldn't count accurately above twenty? (3) Our facial bones are squashed by an expanded brain case to produce a sinus drainage system that would embarrass the local plumber: evolution or just plain stupid design?

Branding ID as Incompetent Design involves both humor and grit but avoids direct insult to the opposition, a mistake to be avoided in any political campaign. All the tools of political campaigns should be used: slogans, songs, bumper stickers ("Human skeletal errors: Incompetent Design or Evolution ?"), IDers will attempt to take us off-message with debates on origins of life, thermodynamics, etc., but instead we must continue to pound simple themes of obvious design failures. Science can win this battle only if we recognize this is not a Sunday school debating match but a deadly serious political contest.

From: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 37, No. 7, p. 195

It is ironic, given the song and the tune to which it is sung, that both Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on February 12th. And it is more ironic that a newspaper column some time ago argued that Darwin should be celebrated more than Lincoln because Lincoln only freed a few slaves but Darwin has freed our minds. I'm not sure that even my southern friends would agree with that.

[Off Topic] Forget the ID Game...These are Funnier

2007-01-15T11:32:00.000-05:00

This may just beat out the ID game mentioned in my last post (on the level of hilariousness). A good friend introduced me to the game "Mega Church" (on the left) where, as she said, I could beome the next Joel Osteen. In a bookstore the other day, I came across Mr. Osteen's response--his own game, based upon his best-selling book, Your Best Life Now. All this is just too amusing.

For "Mega Church," go here and for "Your Best Life Now" go here.

ID--the Board Game

2007-01-15T11:20:00.000-05:00

Somebody get me this for my birthday or Christmas, this is just too funny. Go here for more information. (And yes, I was joking about the birthday/Christmas part).

Plantinga Reviews Dawkins

2007-01-13T17:32:00.000-05:00

The great Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga has recently released his review of Richard Dawkin's newest book, The God Delusion. Here is an exert from Plantinga's review:

Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he’s a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside) many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou (‘thou’ being believers in God) tone of the book can be annoying. I shall put irritation aside, however and do my best to take Dawkins’ main argument seriously.

Dawkins' book makes you wonder about all the times we've heard that science should be completely set apart from other disciplines. If we really took this advice and drew such lines dividing the disciplines, then why is Dawkins (a scientist) writing a philosophy book? That aside, the book made many poor arguments and, despite its best-selling status, is only worth reading to understand Dawkins' thought process.

As for Alvin Plantinga, he is highly regarded as one of the top philosophers history has even seen. His areas of focus are epistemology and philosophy of religion and it has been said of him that he is the greatest philosopher of religion since Gottfried Leibniz and possibly even since Thomas Aquinas.

Why Does Richard Dawkins Care About Souls?

2007-01-12T20:14:00.000-05:00

A short while ago, the self-declared "Rational Response Squad" began a new campaign called the "Blasphemy Challenge." The Bible states that the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:29) and while what this really means is debated among Christian circles today, the "Rational Response Squad" has the answer for us (of course they do, they are rational, after all!). The Blasphemy Challenge is asking people to videotape themselves denying the existence of the Holy Spirit and upload the tapes to YouTube. Participants receive a free copy of the video The God Who Wasn't There.

While this is disturbing in its own right, it becomes more interesting with an apparent endorsement from prominent evolutionist Dr. Richard Dawkins. Dawkins, who posted news about the challenge on his website, is the author of many books, including his latest, The God Delusion. He is an outspoken atheist and evolutionist and join others such as Daniel Dennett and E.O. Wilson is arguing evolution as evidence against the existence of God.

This raises a few questions. First, if Dawkins, Dennett, and Wilson are correct, then what does that say about Eugenie Scott, Robert Pennock, Kenneth Miller, and all those evolutionists who have been arguing the co-existence of religion (especially Christianity) and evolution and also that evolution has no investment in religion? Second, as an academic, what is Dawkins' investment in the souls of humans and why is he so active in promoting their condemnation?

The Blasphemy Challenge's support from Richard Dawkins now seemingly establishes the tie (potentially strong tie) between evolution and religion.

Cobb County Case Dropped

2007-01-06T15:02:00.000-05:00

The case that was developing in Cobb County, Georgia over a sticker placed in biology textbooks (reminding students that evolution was not a fact and asking students to keep an open mind and critically analyze all information) has now ended.

The sticker in question was originally ruled unconstitutional by a district court, but that ruling was later thrown out by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the case was sent back to the lower court. (See my previous post here). However, the Cobb County School Board recently decided to drop the case. They did maintain, however, that the disclaimers were constitutional.

Revisiting Dover: How Brilliant Was Judge Jones' Decision?

2006-12-12T11:05:00.000-05:00

As a Pennsylvanian, I had great interest in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in Pennsylvania, which was ruled upon by Judge John E. Jones III about one year ago. Judge Jones’ decision was greatly praised throughout the nation.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called it “historic” and “truly a victory for the constitution.” The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) referred to Jones’ opinion as “comprehensive and detailed” and called it a “must read.” The National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) said “Judge Jones clearly understands that evolution is strong, powerfully documented science….” You can read the praise given by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and other groups here, all praising Jones for his outstanding and masterful ruling.

The media also praised Judge Jones. The New York Times called Jones’ decision “striking” and praised him for his “integrity and intellect.” The York Daily Record said that Jones’ decision was “exactly right.”

All that praise is enough for any student with an interest in government to marvel at such an outstanding judge with hopes of one day being like him—making such an important ruling and receiving the praise and respect of a nation for saving science education. But then the story takes a turn. It appears that Judge Jones’ brilliant, “comprehensive and detailed” opinion is not his own. The ideas that he so brilliantly put forth are not his either.

A report released this morning shows that 90.9% of Jones’ opinion on whether intelligent design is a science is copied verbatim from the ACLU’s “Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law,” submitted to the judge a month before his ruling. No wonder the ACLU praised Jones so marvelously. It wasn’t because they saw Jones’ ideas so brilliantly presented. Rather, they saw their own ideas so meticulously copied.

As a student, I’m required to submit nearly all my papers to a website called Turnitin.com. Turnitin.com helps professors check for plagiarism in papers by reporting how much of a particular paper was derived from other sources (books, other papers, websites, etc.). Professors typically allow up to 10%—nicer professors, 15% —of verbatim copying, because Turnitin.com doesn’t account for properly cited quotations. Typically, a paper of which 20% or 25% and above is not original receives a failing grade, either for plagiarism or for simply not using one’s own ideas. We are always told that a paper should be our ideas and analysis of a certain topic, with proper guidance by others (the sources). A paper should not be someone else’s ideas and analysis guided by us.

In more than 6,000 words, only 546 were Jones’ own. Quite frankly, Judge Jones would have failed out of Baylor University with that opinion. Jones said in ~~his~~ the ACLU’s decision that “the students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserve better….” I agree, Judge Jones isn’t much of a judge as shown in this decision. He would, however, make a great office assistant copying papers for someone.

Dover Trial Heads for Silver Screen

2006-11-27T09:12:00.000-05:00

The York Daily Record reported this morning that Paramount Pictures has hired Ron Nyswaner to author a screenplay for a movie production on the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial that took place in Pennsylvania last year. The movie will be produced by Lynda Obst of Obst Productions in Hollywood. The two had followed the Dover trial independently before eventually meeting.

The question that will probably be raised is whether this film will become a modern-day version of "Inherit the Wind"--the highly glamorized and historically inaccurate film about the Scopes Monkey Trial. (It is interesting to note that Judge Jones told a reporter during the Dover trial that he was going to watch "Inherit the Wind" for historical context, completely disregarding that the film is regarded as propaganda by most historians--even evolutionists). If Nyswaner is true to his word, then this film should not be Inherit the Wind II. Nyswaner told reporters that he will use transcripts, interviews, and news coverage as background for the script.

It will be interesting to see how accurate Nyswaner and Obst get their film to be.

Biochemistry Professor: Flunk all ID-Friendly Students

2006-11-20T11:57:00.000-05:00

I posted about a week ago concerning a lecture being given by Robert Pennock of Michigan State University at the University of California at San Diego where all UCSD freshmen were required to attend. (See that post here). This was, no doubt, big news and appeared on blogs everywhere--over at Evolution News and Views, Uncommon Descent, and Overwhelming Evidence, among others. Well, the evolutionists have finally responded. Dr. Laurence A. Moran, a Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto, posted the following on his blog:

Casey Luskin over at the Discovery Institute reported that University of California, San Diego Forces All Freshmen To Attend Anti-ID Lecture. Apparently, the university has become alarmed at the stupidity of its freshman class and has offered remedial instruction for those who believe in Intelligent Design Creationism.

Salvador Cordova has picked up on this at Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent in an article titled "Darwinian indoctrination required at UCSD? Or will the other side be heard someday?". He notes that 40% of the freshman class reject Darwinism.

I agree with the Dembski sycophants that UCSD should not have required their uneducated students to attend remedial classes. Instead, they should never have admitted them in the first place. Having made that mistake, it's hopeless to expect that a single lecture—even one by a distinguished scholar like Robert Pennock—will have any effect. The University should just flunk the lot of them and make room for smart students who have a chance of benefiting from a high quality education.

Concerning the requirement that all freshmen attend Pennock's lecture, I had written "And such is academic freedom in the eyes of evolutionist." I guess I was wrong.

Darwin Strikes Back...and Out

2006-11-16T17:48:00.000-05:00

My good friend Thomas Woodward has just published his sequel to his best-selling book, Doubts About Darwin. In Darwin Strikes Back, Woodward details the struggle that has emereged as the two sides of the evolution and intelligent design debate. He discusses the key players on each side and what contributions each have made to the debate. Here is what others have said about his book:

"Darwin Strikes Back tells the thrilling story of how the Darwinian establishment has summoned all its power to crush the frightening challenge of the Intelligent Design Movement, and how the rebels are not only surviving but gaining new strength as we respond to the onslaught. Highly recommended."
-Phillip E. Johnson, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley

"Taking the reader behind the headlines, Thomas Woodward--the premier historian of the Intelligent Design Movement--analyzes crucial developments of the past decade.
-Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University

In this world where the media misrepresents so much in the intelligent design and evolution debate, it is important to clarify and give people a better understanding of the issue. Both Doubts About Darwin and Darwin Strikes Back are well-written, excellent accounts of the dialogue between intelligent design and evolution. Both books are highly recommended for anyone who wants to understand where the debate started and where it is today.

The Story Behind Neanderthal

2006-11-16T17:25:00.000-05:00

MSNBC reported this week that scientists had decoded Neanderthal genes, claiming that this close ancestor to humans began divering from humans in the evolutionary process about 700,000 years ago and made a complete split 300,000 years ago. This new research "could help shed light on the evolution of our own species...."

If scientists truly want the Neanderthals to "shed light on the evolution of our species," they should probably ready Buried Alive, the excellent book written by forensic orthodontist Jack Cuozzo. Cuozzo was hired to perform forensic orthodontistry on the Neanderthals and writes his stunning results in his book.

Evolution: Ban Critiques, Force Acceptance

2006-11-15T13:18:00.000-05:00

The quest for academic freedom has reached a new pinnacle:

Take the "Evolution: Truth or Myth?" lecture which featured Michael Behe in 2004 at my alma mater. (Read an account of the story here). Here was a lecture held at a public school (a high school), after school hours, not funded by taxpayer money, and completely optional concerning attendance. This--according to pro-evolution facutly members in the school--was simply unacceptable. (The National Center for ~~Selling Evolution~~ Science Education also supported the school as demonstrated by a sequence of emails that passed between the school science department and Glenn Branch of the NCSE).

Fast forward two and a half years to November 2006 and a lecture is being held at the University of California at San Diego. The topic is "The Ground Rules of Science: Why the Judge Ruled Intelligent Design Creationism Out of Court" and the lecture features Michigan State University Philosopher of Science Robert Pennock. This lecture is being held at a public school (a state university), but unlike the aforementioned lecture given by Behe, this one is funded by taxpayer money, and manadatory for all freshmen.

And such is academic freedom in the eyes of evolutionists.

Voice for Students, Academic Freedom, Ousted from U.S. Senate

2006-11-10T15:51:00.000-05:00

Never in my years working in the intelligent design movement have I met anyone more committed to providing students an honest education and more dedicated to restoring academic freedom to schools across America than United States Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA). Not only has Senator Santorum been a help to me personally, but he has spent the last twelve years in the U.S. Senate pushing for education reform.

In 2001, he added the Santorum Amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act. This amendment calls for critical analysis of all data surrounding evolution--both data supporting and opposing the theory. It allows students to discuss the controvery and full range of scientific theories concerning the origin and development of life. It was an amendment that gave students in public school science classes their rights of speech, thought, and academia.

Unfortunately, the citizens of my home state of Pennsylvania decided students should not be allowed to think freely and expand their horizons. On November 7, 2006, State Treasurer Bob Casey, Jr. ousted Senator Santorum from office by a 59 to 41 precent margin. To be fair, Mr. Casey is a good man and comes from a family dedicated to raising education standards. (Pennsylvania had one of America's top public educatin programs under Casey's father, Governor Bob Casey, Sr.). Mr. Casey has done many great things for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania serving as the former auidtor general and currect state treasurer.

That being said, however, there is no knowing whether Mr. Casey will support academic freedom as Senator Santorum did. He viciously attacked Santorum during the campaign for having "extreme" views--such as those in the Santorum Amendment. As a student, I find it quite offensive that allowing students to think and analyze material freely constitutes as an "extreme" view.

Indeed, Pennsylvanians and Americans lost a great senator Tuesday night. But more than that, students and all those who support academic freedom lost a great voice in Washington, D.C. I thank Senator Santorum for all that he has done and will continue to do for the students and teachers of this nation and I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

However, even without Senator Santorum, the fight will go on.

Overwhelming Evidence Podcast

2006-10-27T19:09:00.000-04:00

I was recently interviewed by Discovery Institute on ID the Future. The interview was about Overwhelming Evidence and student involvement with intelligent design. The podcast has been released and can be found here.

Continue to spread the news of OverwhelmingEvidence.com to your family and friends. Students are crucial to academia and the idea the schools and universities are shutting down discussion is great disturbing.

Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture Celebrates Ten Year Anniversary

2006-10-26T23:56:00.000-04:00

This past weekend, the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute celebrated their tenth anniversary. Though invited to attend the celebration, I had other responsibilities at Baylor that weekend and could not be in Seattle. From what I heard, the weekend went well, with Dr. Michael J. Behe (whose book, Darwin's Black Box, also recently celebrated its 10 year anniversary) as the guest speaker. I thank and commend the Discovery Institute and the Center for Science and Culture for their excellent work and for helping students, as myself, combat academic intolerance and restrictions of freedom in education nationwide. I look forward to what the next ten years may bring.

Baylor's Troubles: President John M. Lilley

2006-10-16T19:50:00.000-04:00

I have posted about my university, Baylor, from time to time. It seems, however, that at the core of the problems Baylor faces today is the newly inaugurated President John M. Lilley.

Shortly after arriving at Baylor, Lilley decides to deny tenure to the highly regarded Dr. Francis J. Beckwith. It was only under immense pressure from students, alumni, faculty, parents, and others that this decision was reversed.

Lilley then decided to deny funding to the Forensic Science program at Baylor. Though this is a long and still-developing controversy, it appears that the faculty gave President Lilley a proposal that had two options. The first was to allocate the proper funds to make the Forensic Science program an accredited major. The second stated that if such funds were denied, there would be no other option but to close the Forensic Science major. President Lilley decided not to allocate the funds.

Shortly thereafter, Lilley decided that the interlocking "BU" symbol, which has represented Baylor University for generations and is federally trademarked for Baylor University, needed to go. He argued that the "BU" symbol would cause confusion with Boston University. This too, is a currently-developing controversy.

Lilley then proposed that the College of Arts and Sciences at Baylor University be split. This is something Lilley tried at the University of Nevada at Reno with no success. The university faculty at UNR overwhelmingly opposed Lilley's plan (which was proposed within less than a year of arriving at UNR). The last update from a reliable source was that Lilley had temporarily dropped plans to split the College of Arts and Sciences but may pick them up again in the future.

Not only did the facutly at Baylor greatly oppose Lilley's proposal, it appears that most respected schools (with a few exceptions) in America have a unified College of Arts of Sciences. Here are just a few examples:

Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (Columbia University)
College of Arts and Sciences (Cornell University)
Graduate Arts and Sciences Program (Dartmouth College)
Arts and Sciences and Trinity College (Duke University)
Georgetown College (Georgetown University)
Faculty of Arts and Sciences (Harvard University)

College of Arts and Sciences (University of Pennsylvania)

School of Humanities and Sciences (Stanford University)
The College (Washington and Lee University)
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (Yale University)

It seems that President Lilley's priorities are out of order and that he is making the wrong decisions. Unless Lilley begins to reconsider what he was hired by Baylor to do and the direction that he was asked to take the university, Baylor is on a path in the opposite direction of their Baylor 2012 vision. I hope President Lilley will reconsider what he is doing before any more damage is done.

Baylor Makes Another Poor Decision

2006-10-07T01:36:00.000-04:00

Just two weeks after reversing a decision and granting Dr. Francis J. Beckwith tenure, Baylor University has made a poor decision similar in impact to the denial of tenure to Dr. Beckwith.

On Friday, October 6, 2006, Baylor University announced that they will be closing the forensic science department following the graduation of the class of 2010. No student entering Baylor beginning with the class of 2011 is allowed to begin in the forensics program.

Baylor University is one of the only institutes of higher learning in the State of Texas to have a forensics department and one of the top ranked universities for forensic science.

The decision today works against the Baylor 2012 vision. Hopefully, like the Beckwith-tenure case, this decision will also be overturned.

Unveiling Overwhelmingevidence.com

2006-09-30T11:28:00.000-04:00

As a student that graduated from a public high school, I can testify that for too long now, students have been lied to concerning the "overwhelming evidence" about evolutionary theory. "Science teacher" organizations such as the NSCE, the NABT, the NSTA along with other organizations such as the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State are determined to keep the facts about evolution away from students. As a student, that greatly irritates me.

Now, students will have a place to go to ask questions, receive answers, and discuss this "evidence" behind Darwinian evolution. Today marks the grand opening of yet another student organization/network. OverwhelmingEvidence.com is here to help today's students regain their freedom of speech, academia, and thought--all the freedoms that groups such as the ACLU and judges such as Judge Jones are determined to take away.

Join the revolution, go to www.overwhelmingevidence.com today!

Florida ID Conference Begins Today

2006-09-29T16:20:00.000-04:00

I blogged about this conference being held in Tampa (and St. Petersburg), Florida earlier but the importance of this conference was seemingly overlooked in light of the news that Dr. Francis J. Beckwith was granted tenure by Baylor University. I think this conference is important and since the audio and video streaming of it is free around the world, I found it necessary to blog about it again today, since the conference begins today.

Here is the information for the two-day conference:

WHAT: "Darwin or Design? Resolving the Conflict" Conference
WHERE: University of South Florida Sun Dome (Tampa, Florida)
WHEN: Friday, September 29, 2006 from 7:00 to 10:00 PM
SPEAKERS: Dr. Michael J. Behe, Ph.D.
Dr. Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Ph.D.
Dr. Ralph Seelke, Ph.D.
HOST: Dr. Thomas Woodward, Ph.D.
ALSO APPEARING: Dr. William A. Dembski, Ph.D., Ph.D.
COST: $5 per person, ALL HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE STUDENTS ADMITTED FREE (with appropriate ID).
OTHER NOTES: Each high school or college student in attendance will receive a FREE copy of the DVD Unlocking the Mystery of Life.

The next day, a dialogue with faculty, physicians, and students will be held in St. Petersburg, Florida. Here are the details:

WHAT: Dialogue with faculty, physicians, and students
WHERE: Radisson Hotel (Directions)
WHEN: Saturday, September 30, 2006 from 10 AM to 12:30 PM
SPEAKERS: Dr. Michael J. Behe, Ph.D.
Dr. Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Ph.D.
Dr. Ralph Seelke, Ph.D.
Dr. Thomas Woodward, Ph.D.
COST: FREE, but LIMITED TO 400 ATTENDEES

If you are in the Tampa/St. Petersburg area this weekend, this is a conference worth attending, especially if you are a student.

If you are NOT in the area, however, the conference will be broadcast around the world! Here are the details:

LIVE AUDIO STREAMING:
Friday, September 29, 2006
7:00 to 10:00 PM
www.860wgul.com

VIDEO STREAMING:
Sunday, October 1, 2006 and Monday, October 2, 2006
(48 hours after each event)
Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI)

For more information, please visit:
http://www.pssiinternational.com/save_the_date.htm

Spread the word and tune in (or attend if you're in the area) to this conference. It will be worth your time!

***NOTE: The information for this conference was taken from the Evolution Questions Network***

OVERRULED: BECKWITH TENURED!

2006-09-22T23:23:00.000-04:00

Earlier this evening, Baylor University President John Lilley reversed the decision from last spring to deny Dr. Francis J. Beckwith tenure. Despite a second vote to deny him tenure by the tenure committee (though much closer this time than in the spring), President Lilley has overruled the tenure committee and granted Beckwith his much-deserved tenure.

The powers attempting to undermine Baylor as a Christian institute of higher education have been stopped. The efforts to deny freedom of speech, academia, and even thought have met their demise in this decision. I commend and thank President Lilley for making the right decision. This vital decision has kept a top scholar at Baylor and has kept Baylor on its 2012 vision.

Major ID Conference

2006-09-22T16:04:00.000-04:00

Dr. Thomas Woodward, author of Doubts About Darwin, is hosting a major ID conference next weekend in Tampa, Florida. Drs. Michael J. Behe, Ralph Seelke, and Jonathan Wells are the guest speakers and Dr. William A. Dembski will be doing an interview for the conference. The conference will have live audio streaming and video streaming to come two days after each presentation is made at the conference.

For those who wish to attend in person, please visit:
http://www.pssiinternational.com/save_the_date.htm

For those who cannot attend in person, please visit:
LIVE AUDIO STREAMING: www.860wgul.com
VIDEO STREAMING will come about two days after the event and will be posted on this site at that time.

For more information on this conference, please visit:
http://www.pssiinternational.com/save_the_date.htm

Tenure Committee Denies Beckwith a Second Time

2006-09-18T17:18:00.000-04:00

Last spring, Baylor University denied tenure to the highly qualified Dr. Francis J. Beckwith. This past week, the tenure committee voted on the appeal of Dr. Beckwith's tenure. Though the vote this time was closer than in the spring (the vote this time was reported anonymously as being 6-5 with one absention), the committee again chose to deny Beckwith tenure.

The decision on Dr. Beckwith's tenure now rests with new Baylor University President, John Lilley. An official decision is expected soon.

For more information:

"Baylor Boot" (World Magazine)
The Chronicle of Higher Education

Pope Blasts Darwinism

2006-09-13T15:54:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, Tuesday, September 12, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI called evolution "unreasonable." In an address to 300,000 in Germany, Pope Benedict XVI addressed the concept of Darwinian evolution in terms that reverses the Catholic Church's over 50-year acceptance of the theory.

Pope Benedict XVI, who voiced opposition to evolutionary theory while he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, remains consistent with his previous views, which he last voiced on World Youth Day in April 2006. At that meeting, he told his young audience that "science supports a reliable, intelligent structure of matter, the design of Creation."

For the entire article, go here.

Silliness Pervades Textbooks

2006-09-04T14:39:00.000-04:00

A close friend of mine, whose name shall remain anonymous for safety purposes, recently posted on a blog the following:

Do you want to read one of the silliest things to ever come out of a textbook?

...An existing adaptation may come under strong selective pressure for some new purpose, as did insect wings. These did not arise so that insects might fly, but rather as structures that were used to "row," and later skim, across the surface of the water. Later, the larger ones by chance proved useful for purposes of flight.

Insect wings happened to let insects fly... by chance? By lots of little evolutions over time? Insects just happened to have the right changes in the right places so that they could propel themselves through the air? I don't think so. I think natural selection is plausible in some ways, but not in this case.

Basically, evolution simply isn't logical. If professors and textbook authors can't see that, at least students can and, often times, do. Two thumbs up to my friend. Well done.

Another ID Book on the Market

2006-09-02T14:09:00.000-04:00

Drs. Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt, both fellows at Discovery Institute, have published a new book, A Meaningful World, discussing design and "how the arts and sciences reveal the genius of nature."

"A Meaningful World is simply the best book I've seen on the purposeful design of nature. In sparkling prose Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt teach us how to recognize genius, first in Shakespeare's plays and then in nature. From principles of geometry to details of the periodic table, the authors portray the depth, elegance, clarity and pure cleverness of a universe designed to nurture the intelligent life that one day would discover that design. A Meaningful World recovers lost purpose not only for science, but for all scholarly disciplines."
-Dr. Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. (Author, Darwin's Black Box)

More information on the book can be found here.

Theistic Evolution: A Higher View of God?

2006-09-02T11:14:00.000-04:00

As Pope Benedict XVI begins his weekend conference on the issue of evolution, creation, and, some believe, intelligent design, the evolution lobby has been seemingly up in arms and pleading with he pontiff to abandon his views which he published as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

Among these evolutionists is Kenneth Miller, a professor at Brown University. Besides being an outspoken advocate against intelligent design, Miller claims that Christians who reject evolution have a lower view of God than he does. His argument is that he believes God can use whatever means He desires to bring life to earth. Christians who reject evolution, believe that God isn't omnipotent and can only use one way to bring life to earth, namely, creation.

There are two main problems with this view, commonly called theistic evolution. The first is with the "evolution" part of the term. Intelligent design advocates don't oppose evolution because God couldn't have done it that way. They oppose evolution because God didn't do it that way. The argument is not, "God is limited on what He can do and He was only allowed to use design." The argument is, "God is able to use whatever means He wishes (including evolution), but the evidence is that He chose to use design."

For example, to get from Dallas, Texas to Chicago, Illinois, you can fly or you can drive. If you choose to fly, it doesn't mean that you were limited in your options and couldn't drive. You simply didn't drive. The the same manner, it's not that God couldn't have used evolution, it's that the evidence has been showing that He didn't use evolution.

The second main problem with theistic evolution is with the "theistic" part of the term. For Christians who hold to evolution, as does Kenneth Miller, a serious problem arises as to when the fall of man occurred.

Genesis Chapter 3 records the fall of man, when Adam and Eve took and ate the fruit from the the forbidden tree. Unlike with Genesis Chapter 1, Christians are typically unified on the idea that at this point (Genesis 3) sin has entered the world, which is why God must expel Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.

Evolution, survival of the fittest, and natural selection, are based on the idea that something is wrong, usually fatally wrong, and if evolution does not take place, the species will die. In order to survive, the species begins to evolve, to adapt to the environment, and to become better fitted for survival.

The problem lies in that if sin and death didn't enter the world until after humans were evolved, then how were species at risk of dying? Why were only the fittest surviving? The Bible makes explicity obvious that before sin entered the world, there was no death to living things. There would be, therefore, no need to evolve. The survival of these species would not be at any risk. Survival of the fittest would not be applicable at that time, since all species were surviving. Evolution would be pointless, since there was no need to evolve, seeing that all species were surviving. Natural selection would be non-existent because evolution was not occuring.

Theistic evolution assumes an already fallen and sinful world. There exists only two ways, then, for a Christian to reconcile the fall of man with evolution.

1. Accept that evolution is not a random and natural process. Instead, when the species would evolve, how they would evolve, what they would evolve into, and so forth would all be directly designed and guided by God. This, however, is considered intelligent design. Assuming no natural processes and no randomness, the very definition of evolution is shot.

2. Accept that man existed first, sinned, and then the evolution process began. The problem with this view is that evolution argues a process that took life from the simple, low-ordered species to the complex, high-ordered species. Going backwards would again shoot down the very definition of evolution.

So, the problem with "theistic evolution" is both with the "evolution" and with the "theistic." Knowing this, who really has the higher view of God?

Connection Between September 11th and Intelligent Design?

2006-08-31T09:43:00.000-04:00

President George W. Bush had it wrong the entire time. There was no connection whatsoever linking the events of September 11, 2001 and the war in Iraq. The link was between 9/11 and intelligent design, not Iraq. Of course, how could anyone miss such obvious an observation?

In an interesting article on OpedNews.com, a list of twenty things we now know five years of September 11, 2001 is provided. In the article, the author discusses Bush's deliberate rejection of the facts, which leads him to accept intelligent design.

Upon this, and some of the other items mentioned, I have two questions. First, who is really intentionally rejecting the facts? (See here).

Second, the article makes many connections to how these 20 items show failure in Iraq, but he makes little, if any, connection to the events of 9/11, which was the original premise.

C-SPAN to Discuss ID Book

2006-08-23T11:38:00.001-04:00

Dr. John West and Casey Luskin, two of the authors of the book Traipsing into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision have been getting quite some press for their book, which was co-authored with Drs. David DeWolf and Jonathan Witt.

This time, the press comes from C-SPAN. On Saturday, August 26, 2006 at 7pm EST, C-SPAN's Book TV will be airing a special on Traipsing into Evolution. The program will be re-run on Sunday, August 27, 2006 at 6:30 EST.

A description of the event can be read here.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design

2006-08-22T08:49:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, Monday, August 21, 2006, Dr. Jonathan Wells, the author of Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? (Regnery 2000) released another book. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design is part of a series of politically incorrect guides by Regnery Publishing, Inc.

Pope Benedict Replaces Vatican Observatory Director

2006-08-22T00:07:00.000-04:00

Pope Benedict XVI replaced Rev. George Coyne, the director of the Vatican's observatory, on Saturday, August 19, 2006. Coyne, a Jesuit and vocal opponent of intelligent design, has held the post since 1978.

The Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, from Argentina, will be the new director of the observatory. See the full story here.

Pope Benedict XVI to Discuss Evolution

2006-08-10T21:05:00.000-04:00

Pope Benedict XVI, who became well known for his views on evolution while he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, is conducting a weekend seminar entitled "Creation and Evolution" from September 2-3 at the Castel Gandolfo, the pontiff's summer home.

This seminar is the latest in the annual "Shulerkreis" or "student circle," a meeting the pope holds with his former Ph.D. students. Pope Benedict has been holding these seminars every year since the 1970s when he was a theology professor at the University of Regensburg in Germany.

Celebrating Ten Years of Darwin's Black Box

2006-08-09T10:42:00.000-04:00

August 2006 marks the ten year anniversary of Dr. Michael J. Behe's best-selling book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. In celebration of the 10 years of this book, a 10th aniversary edition of the book has been released with a new afterward written by Behe.

Darwin's Black Box was named by National Review and World magazines as one of the 100 most important books of the 20th Century. In addition it has received much praise from both friends and foes. Here is just a sampling of that praise:

"Michael Behe has done a top-notch job of explaining and illuminating one of the most vexing problems in biology: the origin of the complexity that permeates all of life on this planet.... This book should be on the essential reading list of all those who are interested in the question of where we came from, as it presents the most thorough and clever presentation of the design argument that I have seen."
-Robert Shapiro, author of Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth

"[A] valuable critique of an all-too-often unchallenged orthodoxy."
-James Shapiro, National Review

"No one can propose to defend Darwin without meeting the challenges set out in this superbly written and compelling book."
-David Berlinski, author of A Tour of Calculus

Thank you to Dr. Behe for his exceptional book. It is a challenge against Darwinian evolution that cannot go unnoticed. Thank you and best of luck to Dr. Behe in the future.

Robert B. Sloan to be President of Houston Baptist University

2006-08-04T12:46:00.000-04:00

Dr. Robert B. Sloan, Jr., the controversial president at Baylor University, and former professor at both Baylor and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, was voted on as the new president of Houston Baptist University in Houston, Texas.

Sloan was elected president of Baylor University in 1995 and developed the Baylor 2012 Vision, which has put Baylor on track to be a top research university. Sloan resigned his position as President of Baylor University shortly after he hired Dr. William A. Dembski to direct the Michael Polyani Center (MPC), the first intelligent design research center at a university. Though a long story, the MPC was eventually dissolved, despite being supported by a panel made up of representatives from various colleges and universities. Dembski was then released by Baylor.

Sloan resigned the presidency in 2005 to become the chancellor of the university. Dr. William Underwood was the interim president through the end of 2005 and is now the president of Mercer University in Georgia. Dr. John Mark Lilley was elected president of Baylor University and began his tenure on 2006.

On a personal note, I am saddened by Sloan's leaving Baylor University, as he was to be my professor during the Fall 2006 semester. I am, however, excited for Houston Baptist University. Baylor University grew incredibly during Sloan's tenure and Houston Baptist has much to look forward to. Dr. Robert B. Sloan, Jr. is a great man of character and will be an excellent president at Houston Baptist University. Best of luck to Dr. Sloan. Sic 'em Bears.

Jerry Coyne and ID

2006-08-02T15:03:00.000-04:00

Evolutionist Jerry Coyne recently wrote a review of Ann Coulter’s new book Godless. In his review (in the New Republic Online), he says:

“[O]ne has to ask whether Coulter (who, by the way, attacks me in her book) really understands the Darwinism she rejects. The answer is a resounding No. According to the book’s acknowledgments, Coulter was tutored in the “complex ideas” of evolution by David Berlinski, a science writer; Michael Behe, a third-rate biologist at Lehigh University (whose own department’s website disowns his bizarre ideas); and William Dembski, a fairly bright theologian who went off the intellectual rails and now peddles creationism at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. These are the “giants” of the ID movement, which shows how retarded it really is. Learning biology from this lot is like learning elocution from George W. Bush….”

Who are the people that Coyne describes in his review? Who are these “‘giants’ of the ID movement” that “shows how retarded it really is?” Well, here is what history has told us thus far:

Dr. David Berlinski obtained his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was a Postdoctoral Fellow in Mathematics and Molecular Biology at Columbia University. He has been a professor of philosophy, mathematics, and English at schools such at Standford University and Rutgers University in the past. He has authored numerous books including, most famously, A Tour of Calculus (Pantheon) and The Advent of the Algorithm (Harcourt Brace). Berlinski has lectured and debated at some of the most prestigious institutes in the world.

Dr. William A. Dembski has seven degrees in five fields of study (psychology, philosophy, theology, statistics, and mathematics). His degrees include a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago and a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Chicago. In addition, Dembski completed four postdocs and eight fellowships, once again in a variety of subjects. Dembski has lectured and debated at some of the most prestigious institutes in the world.

Dr. Michael J. Behe obtained his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania and is currently Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University. He is the author of the best-selling book Darwin’s Black Box, which was named by National Review and World magazines as one of the 100 most important books of the 20^th Century. Behe has lectured and debated at some of the most prestigious institutes in the world.

Certainly you could refer to Berlinski as a “science writer,” Dembski as a “theologian” who “peddles creationism,” and Behe as a “third-rate scientist,” but you would only do that to add your own spin to the facts.

Wait, I take that back. Dembski isn’t a creationist and I didn’t know that Lehigh University (a top-50 research university in America) was into hiring third-rate scientists. On that note, I didn’t know that the University of Pennsylvania (a top—oh wait—an Ivy League school) was into turning out third-rate scientists…and giving them Ph.D.s! Speaking about Ivy League schools, I wasn’t aware that Princeton University was into training “science writers” and giving them Ph.D.s! Coyne better be careful, his own institution (University of Chicago) might also be in the practice of hiring and turning out “science writers” and “third-rate scientists.” After all, Dembski received multiple degrees from that school.

I think Coyne might have over-reacted just a tad to the part about Ann Coutler “attacking” him. But again, fact-distorting and insult-hurling have always been favorites for Coyne and the evolution community.

Traipsing Into Evolution

2006-07-20T15:32:00.000-04:00

The Washington DC Examiner published a full page article interviewing Dr. John West, Ph.D. and Casey Luskin, two of the authors of Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision. In the interview, West made an excellent point when he said:

"Judge Jones’ rejection of intelligent design sprang from his willingness to go beyond the facts of the case and attempt to decide an important scientific debate by judicial decree. Unfortunately, in his zeal to decide the validity of intelligent design for everyone else, Judge Jones ended up attacking a straw man. As we document in our book, his opinion is filled with distortions and basic errors of fact. For example, he asserts that intelligent design scientists don’t published peer-reviewed scholarship, which is patently false."

The article can be read in its entirety here. The book, Traipsing Into Evolution is an excellent evaluation of the Dover trial and can be purchased at Amazon.com or by calling 1-800-643-4102.

Stand Up for Science, Stand Up for Kansas!

2006-07-11T14:36:00.000-04:00

Last year, the Kansas State Board of Education courageously adopted science standards requiring Kansas students to learn not only about the evidence that supports Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also about the scientific evidence which challenges it. Four other states -- New Mexico, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and South Carolina -- have similar requirements in place. The new science standards simply allowed for students to think, analyze, and speak freely concerning evolution.

Unfortunately, some groups have decided that students are not allowed to think, analyze, and speak freely. These groups are trying to censor Kansas teachers from presenting any evidence critical of evolution. They are even urging school districts to disregard the new science standards. This is why Discovery Institute launched the "Stand Up for Science, Stand Up for Kansas" campaign. If you agree that students should learn about evolution’s weaknesses as well as its strengths, please join with like-minded citizens and stand up in support of the Kansas state science standards. Go to www.standupforscience.com to sign the petition to support the standards in Kansas!

Research ID Opens

2006-06-23T22:57:00.000-04:00

Today was the opening day for the Research ID. Please visit the website at www.researchid.org. Here is a letter from the founder of Research ID:

The intelligent design community needs dynamic and interactive websites where professionals and students can gain valuable information about ID, and at the same time contribute their own knowledge and information to the site. Today is the grand opening of just such a synergistic website called ResearchID.org. To fulfill this need for vibrant interaction, ResearchID.org is a knowledgebase compiling and synthesizing research on intelligent design.

The research in the knowledgebase covers fields ranging from computer science and bioinformatics, to physics and cosmology. ResearchID.org is investigating topics such as using ID as a heuristic for developing new scientific research. They have also begun working on the Catalog of Fundamental Facts, which was suggested by David Berlinski and William Dembski. There is plenty of biographical information, a glossary of ID jargon, and more.

ResearchID.org is more than just a static database of information. Anyone can register (free) and contribute, so it is also a springboard for new research schemes, a clearing house for information, and a dynamic community where you’re encouraged to bring your ideas to fruition. Peruse the information, or better yet, join the team by participating. This is a crucial time for intelligent design research, and you can be a part of the vanguard right now!

Lawyer in Dover Trial Dies of Brain Tumor

2006-06-01T14:09:00.000-04:00

Joseph M. Farber, an attorney with Pepper Hamilton, LLC, died in his home on Monday, May 22, 2006. The cause of death was a brain tumor.

Farber, 34, was a member of Pepper Hamilton's "commercial litigation practice group and was a specialist on securities and antitrust matters." He is most known, however, for being on the team of lawyers that sued the Dover Area School District in the widely known case, Kitzmiller v. Dover. Pepper Hamilton, based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, joined the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State in the lawsuit.

While I strongly disagree with Farber's views on intelligent design and while I felt the plaintiffs' made a poor case in Dover, I am saddened to hear of Farber's death. I wish his wife, Carol; his sons Nathaniel and Samuel; his parents, David and Gloria; and his brother; the best of luck in the days to come. My condolences go to the family and all who knew Joseph Farber.

Darwinist Disagrees with Current View of Evolution

2006-05-31T20:40:00.000-04:00

Dr. Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Ph.D., a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh recently said that, while he is still an evolutionist, evolutionary theory as it is commonly viewed and taught is incorrect. Dr. Schwartz, the author of the book The Red Ape has two issues with modern evolutionary theory, two issues that most evolutionists hold to as key elements in the foundation of the theory.

The first is gradualism. Schwartz argues that the fossil record does not back up the view of gradualism, something argued before by the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, a paleontologist from Harvard University, as well as others in similar fields. Schwartz also claims that gradual evolution defies logic. He believes that Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" version of evolution, which does away with the gradual aspect of evolution, is far more accurate than gradual evolution.

Schwartz, however, does not accept "punctuated equilibrium" for he says that it still embraces adaptation, which is his second problem with modern evolutionary theory. Schwartz does not believe that creatures evolved according to their surrounding environment, but rather, that the creatures were simply produced by random evolution and can survive in a variety of different environments.

Whether Schwartz's views are accepted by the evolution community or not, he poses two difficult questions for evolutions who accept gradual changes and adaptation. The article about Schwartz and his studies can be found at:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06149/694046-85.stm

Federal Court Throws Out Ruling in Cobb County Trial

2006-05-26T22:15:00.000-04:00

On Thursday, May 25, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of keeping an open mind. The federal court, made up of three justices (one appointed by former President Bush, one by former President Clinton, and one by current President Bush) voted unanimously to send back the case discussing the constitutionality of disclaimers in science texts to the trial court. The earlier decision in the case Selman v. Cobb County School District ordered that disclaimers be removed from biology textbooks in the Cobb County School District in Georgia.

The disclaimer at the center of the controversy read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." The complaint, voiced during the trial, from evolutionists, such at Dr. Kenneth Miller, Ph.D., a professor at Brown University and co-author of the biology textbook Biology, was with the phrase "this material should be approached with an open mind...."

This decision stops short of declaring the disclaimer constitutional, but it demands that more evidentiary hearings be held before a ruling be rendered. While disclaimers are not the best way to approach the ID and evolution issue in schools, to demand a disclaimer removed that makes no mention of intelligent design and asks students to keep an open mind is unreasonable. The court made the right decision in throwing out the lower court's decision.

Debating Darwin: Stephen Meyer vs. Peter Ward

2006-05-05T18:24:00.000-04:00

Dr. Stephen Meyer, Ph.D. and Dr. Peter Ward, Ph.D. recently debated on "Intelligent Design vs. Evolution" in Seattle. The debate can be heard here.

The two previously debated on the Dori Monson Show and that transcript is avaliable here.

Another Take on Judge Jones in Time Magazine

2006-05-05T18:00:00.000-04:00

Casey Luskin wrote a piece on Judge Jones' appearance in Time Magazine. He discusses the ten questions he would ask Judge Jones if he had the opportunity. It is entitled "Judge Jones Extendes his Time in the Spotlight" and can be found here:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/05/my_dream_interview_with_judge.html

Judge Jones: Influential in this "Time?"

2006-05-04T21:46:00.000-04:00

Judge John E. Jones, III, the judge who ruled in the recent Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, has appeared on the cover of Time Magazine in their recent issue featuring the 100 most influential people. What did Judge Jones do that was so influential? He attempted to privatize all liquor stores in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as the Chairperson of the Liquor Control Board. He failed on that attempt, however. What else did he do that was so influential? He banned "Bad Frog Beer" on the grounds that its label was obscene.

But he won this honor as Judge John Jones. What did he do as a judge that was so influential? Oh yes, that's right, he banned the mention of intelligent design from science classes, he revoked freedom of academia and freedom of thought from students, and he demonstrated his great lack of knowledge concerning intelligent design, evolution, and the U.S. Constitution. So how, exactly, is Judge Jones influential?

Perhaps he is influential because very few, if any, federal judges before him has displayed so much ignorance. Or perhaps he has influenced others to make unreasonable decisions to destroy the education of students. Maybe Time was thinking along the lines of other historical figures that have won "Man of the Year"-- people like Adolpf Hitler (1938), Joesph Stalin (1939, 1942), Nikita Krushchev (1957), and Ayatullah Khomeini (1979).

Either way, congratulations to Judge Jones on joining a long line of famous, or infamous, leaders. Hopefully the dictatorship he aims to set up in education falls like the dicatorships set up in governments by Hitler and Stalin.

Charles Darwin University

2006-04-29T12:48:00.000-04:00

Charles Darwin University has two campuses and is located in Australia. It would be interesting to see them offer a class on intelligent design.

http://www.cdu.edu.au/

Updated Version of Lariat Article

2006-04-21T22:57:00.000-04:00

Here is the corrected version of the Baylor Lariat article "Baylor not immune to scholarly feud over origin of life."

http://www.baylor.edu/Lariat/news.php?action=story&story=40316