I found Dr. Wells to be an excellent speaker who presented well organized information in a systematic and logical way using well designed PowerPoint text slides and illustrations. Having just read his book, I benefited most from his numerous examples of how virtually all of the mythical icons of evolution are still being presented as fact in the most popular of the currently used high school and college biology textbooks. Wells confidently predicts that most of these myths, including the fraudulent scam of industrial melanism in peppered moths and the falsified drawings of embryonic homologies by Ernst Haeckel will continue as icons of evolution for generations to come. His prediction is a safe one because if the discredited icons of evolution were removed from the biology textbooks, there would be no remaining understandable evidence for evolution.

As much as I enjoyed and benefited from the presentation of Dr. Wells, there are a few points where I must disagree with him. He seems to argue that biology textbooks are unique among the sciences in being overtly anti-Christian in many of their claims and pronouncements. He certainly gave some glaring examples of this from current popular biology textbooks, but I have read similar comments in earth science text books. Criticisms of ill supported evolutionary icons in geology were missing in Wells presentation. There was no criticism of the presumed great ages of fossils or the presumed vector of progress in the geological column. No criticism of the “big bang” or of the claim that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. There was no suggestion that fossils must be formed quickly if they are to be formed at all. No mention of the growing evidence that strata may be deposited quickly and not even necessarily from the bottom up. I suspect the reason for his silence on these issues is that Wells, like many others in the Intelligent Design Movement,” including Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe and William Dembski, are old earth progressive creationists. These men distance themselves from biblical creationists, presumably hoping thereby to gain some credibility from the scientific/evolutionary community. Sadly, they appear to be just as much maligned by the evolutionary community as those who would hold God’s word above scientific speculation on even the age of the earth.

At the end of Dr. Wells excellent presentation, I found myself asking the same question I was once asked after an anti-evolution presentation of my own – “So What?” Is the whole point merely that science is being taught incorrectly? Many who profess to be Christians will ask, “does it really make any difference how God created as long as we give him the credit.” Is the element of design the only thing we need to hold up against an evolutionary world view? Most importantly, what about the matter of death? Is death natural or even a biological necessity? Did the Designer in fact design us and all animals to suffer all manner of pain, diseases and violence and finally to die? The fossil record after all is full of dead animals and people. If we look to the fossil record as evidence of God’s progressive creative work over millions of years we are inevitably led to accept death as natural. The Bible tells us, however, that God is not the author of death but rather death came into the world through man’s sin and that death is an enemy that must be destroyed by our Savior. “Jesus must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet and that last enemy that will be destroyed is death” (1 Corinthians 15:26). What have we gained if we have merely discredited the icons of evolution and in so doing have left intact the most insidious icon of all – that death is not the wage of sin as the Bible claims but is biologically “natural”? Surely this would be the very undermining of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The post Report of Dr. Jonathan Wells Talk at the 2002 Educational Policy Conference by David Menton (published posthumously) appeared first on Creation and Science Chronicle.

The Return of the God Hypothesis by Stephen C. Meyers

HarperOne
ISBN: 9780062071507 (hardcover)
Pages: 560
Price: $30

Summary:
n 2004, Stephen C. Meyer, one of the preeminent scientists studying the origins of life, ignited a firestorm of media and scientific controversy when a biology journal at the Smithsonian Institution published his peer-reviewed article advancing the theory of Intelligent Design. Then, in his two bestselling books, Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, he helped unravel a mystery that Charles Darwin did not address: how did life begin? and offered further scientific proof to bolster his arguments on the history of life and our origins, concluding that life was designed.

In those previous books, Meyer purposely refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now, in The Return of the God Hypothesis, he brings his ideas full circle, providing a reasoned and evidence-based answer to the ultimate mystery of the universe, drawn from recent scientific discoveries in physics, cosmology, and biology.

Meyer uses three scientific points to refute popular arguments put forward by the “New Atheists” against the existence of God:

In analyzing the evidence from these three fields, Meyer reveals how the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind—but the existence of a theistic creator.

The post The Return of the God Hypothesis by Stephen C. Meyer appeared first on Creation and Science Chronicle.

Writers linked with the creationist and ‘Intelligent Design’ movements in North America vigorously oppose the teaching of evolution in schools, arguing that ‘Darwinism’ is intrinsically atheistic. (pp. 33-34)

Luskin then goes on to say:

That statement is seriously inaccurate. It might be true of “creationists” in the 1970s and 1980s. However, the ID movement has been very clear in on-the-record statements, including many public policy recommendations, that it does NOT in the least oppose teaching evolution. Discovery Institute is by far the most active ID group that gets involved with evolution-education policy, and we not only oppose mandating ID in public schools, but we think evolution should be taught and that more evolution should be taught.

Should we presume Luskin placed quotes around “creationists” because many of the early ID proponents were part of the creationist movement in the 70s and 80s? For instance, Access Research Network came out of the creationist community. ARN began as the Creation Society of Santa Barbara. It later changed it’s name to Students for Origins Research which eventually became Access Research Network.

Although it would take some time to locate in our VHS collection of old ID videos, there is a talk by Phillip Johnson in which he mentions his “…friends at ICR (Institute for Creation Research)…” We could dig further and find other strong and undeniable connections between the early ID movement and creationist movement of the 70s and 80s. But then again, Casey would continue to deny the historical record.

By the way, we suspect Casey would be hard put to find but a few creationists from that 20 year time period that actually opposed teaching evolution in public schools. The Institute for Creation Research, the Creation Research Society, the Bible-Science Association (now Creation Moments), the Creation Science Foundation (now Answers in Genesis), the Creation Science Movement, and many other groups have never advocated banning evolution. These were all organizations (and many more) that were in existence during the period Casey claims creationists wanted to ban evolution in public schools.

Please do some research before you blather on about creationists. Doesn’t the Discovery Institute use fact checkers for their blog postings???

Hint: Casey, you’ve confused the 70s & 80s with the 20s & 30s and the difference between opposing evolution versus banning evolution!

cp

P.S. We can conclude that Alister McGrath also doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

The post Casey Luskin Disparages Creationists…Once Again! appeared first on Creation and Science Chronicle.

In the current issue (Nov/Dec 2009) of Touchstone, Denyse has a review of Michael Flannery’s book, Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution. She opens the second paragraph with this comment:

Darwin argued that natural selection acting on random mutations produces the intricate machinery of life.

Poor Denyse.

Once again she reveals a glaring gap in her knowledge about not just Charles Darwin, but evolution itself! Darwin did NOT argue that natural selection acted on random mutations. It was in Hugo de Vries 1901-1903 two volume Die Mutationstheorie (The Mutation Theory) that a theory of mutations was first articulated — some 20 years after Darwin died! Darwin knew nothing about genetics and mutations. Even checking Wikipedia’s articles on Mutationism or Hugo de Vries would have caught this major mistake.

*SIGH* Doesn’t anyone at Touchstone fact check submissions by authors???

cp

The post Denyse O’Leary and Giving Intelligent Design a Bad Name appeared first on Creation and Science Chronicle.

Canadian Christian documentary producer wanted to generate anger with polarizing attack on Darwinism

It’s hard to reconcile such a presentable, intelligent and Christian man with such an incendiary movie. Walt Ruloff, a 44-year-old Canadian high-tech mogul, was explaining why he came up with the idea to finance Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

He told the stories over lunch in a sun-filled restaurant on Bowen Island, where his family lives in a mansion once incorrectly reported to be the home of Hollywood actor Harrison Ford.

Ruloff readily admitted Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed provoked rage in many quarters when it was released across the continent this year. And he knows it will continue to rile some now that it’s come out in DVD.

read more…

The post Canadian Christian Financed Expelled appeared first on Creation and Science Chronicle.

All over the world, Big Science is on the march, making sure that Neo-Darwinian Materialist Theory is protected, and that any challenges and challengers are dealt with…properly.

It’s pretty cute and a rather good 60 second sound bite. Today I’ve finally figured out where Ben got the idea for “Big Science”. You see, Stein is also known as a financial expert and frequent guest on cable TV money shows. But less well know is Ben Stein’s advocacy for BIG Government. In his blog posting on Larry King’s CNN website, Stein makes a rather shrill call for a BIG government, taxpayer-supported bailout of failing BIG companies.

Until now, I rather respected Ben Stein. It seems Stein is another wealth distributing useless idiot running around with his hair on fire saying we need IMMEDIATE action to save the BIG 3 car companies, the investment companies, the banks, and whoever else gave money to our politicians. Judge for yourself with this quote from Stein:

There is no other entity besides the government that can restore this situation to a full employment equilibrium position. State governments are suffering and so are municipalities. Corporations are obviously suffering. Only the federal government can literally print money to restore the situation.

No, this is not a quote from his Comedy Central quiz show, Win Ben Stein’s Money. It’s also not April 1st.

I’m extremely disappointed. While I think Expelled is a great documentary, my enthusiasm for promoting him and the DVD is all but gone.

At least Ben Stein doesn’t believe in social Darwinism…

cp

The post Time To Expell the Big Government Ben Stein appeared first on Creation and Science Chronicle.

3 evolution critics on advisory panel
by Terrence Stutz
The Dallas Morning News, p. 3.
October 16, 2008

Social conservatives on the State Board of Education have appointed three evolution critics to a six-member committee that will review proposed curriculum standards for science courses in Texas schools.

Two of the appointees are authors of a book that questions many of the tenets of Charles Darwin’s theory of how humans and other life forms evolved. One of them, Stephen Meyer, is also vice president of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based group that promotes an explanation of the origin of life similar to creationism. The other author is Ralph Seelke, a biology professor at the University of Wisconsin-Superior.

Also on the panel is Baylor University chemistry professor Charles Garner, who, like the other two, signed the Discovery Institute’s “Dissent from Darwinism” statement that sharply questions key aspects of the theory of evolution.

read more…

The post Intelligent Design Proponents Appointed to Texas Board of Education appeared first on Creation and Science Chronicle.

*SIGH* Perhaps O’Leary should just be quiet and stop talking about things she knows nothing about.

Theory needs a paramedic, not more cheerleaders
by Denyse O’Leary
Calgary Herald (Canada), August 16, 2008
p. A26

Re: “What is it about evolution theory that Albertans don’t get?” Rob Breakenridge, Opinion, Aug. 12.

Rob Breakenridge has cobbled together key talking points of the American Darwin lobby. The resulting column is an excellent illustration of why one should not write about big topics without basic research.

The 2005 Judge Jones decision in Pennsylvania, to which Breakenridge devotes much of his column, has not crimped the worldwide growth of interest in intelligent design. That is no surprise. A judge is not a scientist, and Jones cannot plug gaping holes in Darwin’s theory of evolution. Evolution is — contrary to its (largely) publicly funded zealots — in deep trouble, for a number of reasons.

The history of life has not been the long, slow “survival of the fittest” transition that classical evolution theory requires. Life got started on Earth soon after the planet cooled. All the basic divisions of animal life took shape rather suddenly in the Cambrian seas, about 550 million years ago. Later, there was, for example, the Big Bang of flowers and the Big Bang of birds, where many life forms appeared quite suddenly. Modern human consciousness is one of these leaps, judging from the superb cave paintings from recent millenniums. The creationists whom Breakenridge derides may be wrong on their dates, but not on much else.

read more…

The post Denyse O’Leary’s Compromise With Evolution appeared first on Creation and Science Chronicle.

All of this sweetens a high-level debate for the general audience.

Unlike Moore, Stein doesn’t resort to (many) cheap shots. He gives the opposition — stoutly represented by “The God Delusion” author Richard Dawkins — ample opportunity to make its case. In getting Dawkins to concede that there might be some intelligent source to life, Stein scores big.

read more…

The post And the Campaign Against “Expelled” Picks Up Steam! appeared first on Creation and Science Chronicle.

When I was taught Darwin’s theory in college more than four decades ago, it was represented as unassailable. But I also was taught in those days to respect academic freedom, which is a good standard to apply in any field. In the 1990s, before intelligent design was added to the ideas studied at Discovery Institute, I learned about an assault on the academic freedom of Dean Kenyon, a biologist and author at San Francisco State University who had come to view Darwin’s theory as flawed. At first, the effort to restrain him from teaching seemed like just another skirmish over political correctness.

read more…

The post Discovery Institute’s Bruce Chapman Defends “Expelled” Film appeared first on Creation and Science Chronicle.