Baylor University, which in the past has figured large in the debate over ID (see here), continues to struggle with its Christian identity. Check out the following blog entry by Hunter Baker, and especially comment #5: http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/2124.

Why Are They So Angry? Granville Sewell There are a lot of articles out there on the web intended to refute my writings on Intelligent Design, but if there is one that isn’t full of anger and personal insults, I haven’t located it yet. Other ID proponents have experienced similar reactions to their writings, and must have also wondered, why are they so angry? I think we all know that the source of this anger is not, as our critics claim, a fear that drawing the obvious conclusions from the scientific evidence for design in Nature threatens the foundations of science. It is clear to me that we will never reach many of these people by simply uncovering more evidence, Read More ›

In this UD thread, Mentok brought up something that, it seems to me, is quintessentially behind the ID versus materialism controversy: Is there, ultimately, any purpose or meaning behind anything, especially our lives?

With thanks to William Lane Craig, the author of Ecclesiastes, and Carl Sagan, I offer the following:

Read More ›

Check this out: The Strange Case of Dr. Darwinist and Mr. Creationist What a hoot! This guy is as dumb as the guy who robs a liquor store and leaves his ID behind. Inspector Clouseau would be proud to have such a proficient protégé. With clumsy enemies like this, who needs friends?

There’s a hilarious typo in the illustration accompanying the article on the recent Salk Institute evangelical atheism conference that appeared on the front page of the Science Times today. The fact that this got by the author and the editors at the NYT speaks volumes about the broader cultural illiteracy of the science-worshipping, liberal literary establishment. The conference itself was remarkable — I include the opening paragraphs of the Times story and a link below. ====================================================== November 21, 2006 A Free-for-All on Science and Religion By GEORGE JOHNSON Maybe the pivotal moment came when Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, warned that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief,” or when a Nobelist Read More ›

It’s funny how Paul Myers, Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, et al say that evolution isn’t about religion yet you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting one of their rants on religion. But that’s not the point of this article.

I have a problem with these people in that they arbitrarily limit what science can potentially explain. The so called supernatural remains supernatural only as long as there’s no metric by which to measure it. Once a metric is discovered the supernatural becomes the natural.

Paul quotes someone on the virgin birth of Christ saying that it defies everything science has revealed in regard to mammalian reproduction. This is utter dreck. Even (especially!) Myers should know that meiosis is a two stage process wherein the first stage results in the production of two perfectly viable diploid cells. The second stage of meiosis then splits these two cells into four haploid gametes. Interrupting the process at the completion of the first stage results in parthenogenesis. Indeed, there are number of organisms in nature that have lost the second stage of meiosis and now reproduce parthenogenetically. See here for more detail. Moreover, it has also been scientifically established that an XX genome can produce phenotypical male offspring. Morever, while all observed XX males in humans are sterile, pathenogenetic populations can still reproduce sexually if sexual reproduction still exists in the species (Da Vinci Code fans will be happy to know this). While it was widely believed that mammals had completely lost the ability for parthenogenetic reproduction, in 2004 researchers in Tokyo managed to create viable parthenogenetic mice. So Paul, science now reveals that the virgin birth of a human male is quite possible. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. What I want to know now is whether ignorance or dishonesty explains why you’d quote someone who claims the virgin birth of Christ defies everything we know about mammalian reproduction. Neither explanation becomes you of course and it gives me immeasurable delight to put you in the proverbial position of choosing between a rock and a hard place. 😆 Read More ›

I suspect that the “junk DNA” hypothesis was originally made on explicitly Darwinian grounds. Can someone provide chapter and verse? Clearly, in the absence of the Darwinian interpretation, the default assumption would have been that repetitive nucleotide sequences must have some unknown function. Source: University of Iowa Date: November 21, 2006 From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061113180029.htm Scientists Explore Function Of ‘Junk DNA’ University of Iowa scientists have made a discovery that broadens understanding of a rapidly developing area of biology known as functional genomics and sheds more light on the mysterious, so-called “junk DNA” that makes up the majority of the human genome. The team, led by Beverly Davidson, Ph.D., a Roy J. Carver Biomedical Research Chair in Internal Medicine and UI professor Read More ›

First Richard Dawkins calls Michael Ruse the Neville Chamberlain of the evolution-ID debate. Now PZ Myers attacks Eugenie Scott for being too soft on us. It reminds me of the old joke about fascists in South America after World War II sitting around a table and musing: “Yep, we’re going to do it again, but this time no more Mr. Nice Guy.” What’s next PZ? Internment camps of ID proponents — or do you prefer interment camps? Eugenie Scott in Kansas Key line: “Take off the comfy cardigan, Dr Scott. Scientists have a role to play in our culture, and it’s not as the pleasant, soothing flim-flam artists, mumbling consolation and excuses in return for a donation on the offering Read More ›

Obviously this new think-tank is not about science as such but about pushing a materialistic, Darwin-undergirded conception of science. Question: Did Kurtz ever get the memo from the NCSE that evolution is religiously neutral? Mission statement: A Global Federation committed to science, reason, free inquiry, secularism, and planetary ethics Source: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=221 By Center for Inquiry PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Nathan Bupp Phone: (716) 636-4869 x 218 E-mail: nbupp@centerforinquiry.net Washington, D.C. (November 14, 2006)—The Center for Inquiry/Transnational, a think tank devoted to promoting reason and science in all areas of human interest, announced today that it is opening a new Office of Public Policy in Washington, D.C. This initiative will mark an unprecedented drive to bring a rigorous defense Read More ›

Over the past few months,  The Post-Darwinist has been host to quite the little controversy over whether Hitler was a social Darwinist or a creationist. If you want to pursue that in detail, try

“Does Darwinism devalue human life?” (July 2, 2006)

What did Hitler believe abut evolution? (September 2006)

“Hitler as a Darwinist: Prof accused of academic dishonesty” (September 15, 2006)

Recent posts (October 9, 2006) (Scroll down to Coral Ridge for the Anti-Defamation League flap.)

Now, I was brought up to believe that Hitler was one sick puppy. Indeed, I have Jewish friends who will not use his name, calling him only “that man.” So I don’t know how much it matters in principle what he thought about origins. But having listened to both sides, I think that he was, for all practical purposes, a social Darwinist who doubted the creative power of natural selection alone.

Anyway, Professor Richard Weikart , an expert on Nazi ideology, has often been the target of Darwinists who need to believe that Hitler was exclusively a creationist, which Weikart can hardly confirm for them. Prof. Weikart writes me to say: Read More ›

Professor Larry Moran demanded pro-ID and pro-Creation students at universities be flunked. See Larry Moran — Will the real idiot please stand up?

Would Moran destroy the careers of aspiring scientists who make positive contributions to society — all this in the name of Moran’s dogmatism? It turns out one of the PhD alumni in biology from Moran’s school (University of Toronto), a respected scientist and pro-ID creationist recently had his letter published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature. This is news in itself that creationists and ID proponents are getting airtime now in scientific journals:
Read More ›

You wrote: “‘flunk all the IDiots and make room for smart students’ … is clear-cut viewpoint discrimination.” It’s more than that. The Darwinists know as well as anyone else how little good evidence exists for their current position* – which is much more far-reaching than Darwin’s original position, as their current position posits that the mind, the will, the cosmos, origin of life, you name it, is supposedly governed by Darwinian mechanisms. They are way overstretched, and my gut tells me that they do not expect to be rescued any time soon. How to make students swallow it all without protest? The simplest and surest way is to get rid of those who are not going to swallow it. It Read More ›

Richard T. Hughes (whose accomplishments other than being an ATBC poster child remain unknown) writes on religiosity and intelligence in response to Dembski:

Already been done, Bill:

http://www.answers.com/topic/religiosity-and-intelligence

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

Numerous studies and meta-studies show that theistic belief is negatively correlated with IQ. I am fascinated by the causation aspect. Thick because they’re fundies? Fundies ’cause they’re thick. Shallow end of the gene pool? Does anyone have a hypothesis?

Hey Dick (I trust you don’t mind if I call you that as long as I capitalize it), did you know that shoe size correlates with level of education? The larger your shoe size the more education you’ve likely had. Is that because big feet cause big brains? Or because big brains cause big feet? Duh.

Anyhow, the primary point I wanted to make wasn’t that mixing idiots and loose correlations result in loose idiotic conclusions. That was a tertiary point. Read More ›

Larry Moran has been getting some play on this blog, so I’ll throw in my two cents. I met Larry in 2002, when he attended a lecture I gave at U of Toronto and confidently explained to me and the audience how indirect Darwinian pathways explain the evolution of the flagellum from the type three secretory system. To this day it amazes me that people find so bogus an argument a slam dunk for evolutionary theory. Try explaining to an engineer that the origin of the laptop computer is the product of trial and error tinkering from a cathode ray tube. If anything, this analogy fails to capture the full measure of self-delusion that evolutionary theory has become. Below is Read More ›

Received from a dear childhood friend and fellow Marine. Farewell