[[Discovery Press Release:]] In Darwin Anniversary Year, New Zogby Poll Reveals Majority Support for Intelligent Design — Doubts about Darwin Continue to Mount Seattle – Just a few months before the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, a newly released Zogby poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly rejects Darwinian theory in favor of intelligent design. When asked if life developed “through an unguided process of random mutations and natural selection,” a standard definition of Darwinism, only 33 percent of respondents said they agreed with the statement. But 52 percent agreed that “the development of life was guided by intelligent design.” “In the Year of Darwin, these figures must represent a terrible disappointment to Darwinian advocates,” commented Read More ›

The suppression of Alan Carlin’s report arguing against anthropogenic global warming serves as a warning to anyone who would facilely contend that science is self-correcting. Science by itself is not self-correcting. It only becomes self-correcting when scientists and outsiders refuse to let dogmatists who pretend to scientific objectivity monopolize the discussion. Science is not about consensus. It is about informed dissent. Indeed, progress in science is only possible through informed consent. Those who suppressed Carlin’s report should read John Stuart Mill, who stressed the need for all sides in a debate to be fairly represented. This applies to the debate over design and Darwinism as well. SOURCE: GO HERE

It’s nice to see people like Pat Buchanan feeling more at ease about going after Darwin. In citing Eugene Windchy’s THE END OF DARWINISM, Buchanan writes: Darwin … lied in “The Origin of Species” about believing in a Creator. By 1859, he was a confirmed agnostic and so admitted in his posthumous autobiography, which was censored by his family. SOURCE: worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102589

A new method for computing evolutionary trees may revolutionize evolutionary biology. That’s good because evolutionary biology needs some revolutionizing. So far its fundamental predictions have consistently turned out to be false. Indeed, at evolutionary biology’s very core, the idea of an evolutionary tree is problematic given the data, and even some evolutionists are suggesting the “tree thinking” may not be useful. But the new research isn’t likely to help on that score. What the research does enable is the creation of erroneous results at a much faster pace. Continue reading here.

 Before I announce the winner, I should note that Harper One San Francisco has announced that 5 hardback copies of both Steve Meyer’s Signature of the Cell, ( 2009) and Beauregard and O’Leary’s The Spiritual Brain (2007 ) are available free to contest winners. Like, win and add them to your library for free.

Okay, now to Question 5:

Winner VJ Torley writes, Read More ›

A friend alerted me to this piece by Lawrence Krauss from the Wall Street Journal.

Krauss writes:

“J.B.S. Haldane, an evolutionary biologist and a founder of population genetics, understood that science is by necessity an atheistic discipline. As Haldane so aptly described it, one cannot proceed with the process of scientific discovery if one assumes a “god, angel, or devil” will interfere with one’s experiments. God is, of necessity, irrelevant in science.

Faced with the remarkable success of science to explain the workings of the physical world, many, indeed probably most, scientists understandably react as Haldane did. Namely, they extrapolate the atheism of science to a more general atheism.”

No surprise here. But he concludes with

“Finally, it is worth pointing out that these issues are not purely academic. The current crisis in Iran has laid bare the striking inconsistency between a world built on reason and a world built on religious dogma.”

Perhaps the most important contribution an honest assessment of the incompatibility between science and religious doctrine can provide is to make it starkly clear that in human affairs — as well as in the rest of the physical world — reason is the better guide.”

Reason is a better guide than what? Religion? Which religion? All religions? What empircal data does Read More ›

Nothing exposes the failure of a dogma more than the propaganda it hides behind. Pathetic ideas cannot stand the light of day. They run from open inquiry and call everyone a liar. Evolution is pathetic–not because it is a religiously motivated idea with little scientific support, but because of its deceitful cover up. It makes religious proclamations and then points the finger at others. It is scientifically absurd yet it claims to be a fact. And when probed, watch out. Continue reading here.

At the Canadian Science Writers’ Association convention in Sudbury, Ontario, our Sunday dinner speaker was American theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University, who presented sample clips from famous sci-fi films. And a whole lot more. Would you be astonished to learn that the films portray implausible or impossible physics? No? Filmmakers value audience numbers more than atomic numbers. His clips entertained, but did not surprise: However, his talk frequently targeted religion and politics: although he professed to respect theists, he offered snarky asides suggesting that fear of science is growing in Canada (because it might damage religion), adding, “In many ways I hope it does, but it wasn’t designed to do that.” Dr. Krauss also told the assembled Read More ›

This just in from Walter Bradley, President of the ASA: Dear Friends, I wanted to bring to your attention a unique opportunity this summer. The annual meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation will be held at Baylor University July 31-August 3. The ASA is the world’s largest organization of evangelical Christians who work in science and engineering, and it provides a forum to discuss faith-science questions. The program this year is particularly exciting with a mini-symposium on string theory and the alleged multi-universe and another symposium on origins where theistic evolution and intelligent design will be discussed. Timely issues raised by the human genome and its interpretation by some to imply a non-historical Adam and Eve will be discussed by Read More ›

The religion in evolution can be subtle and it can fool even sophisticated thinkers. Elliott Sober, for example, has recognized that religious premises are used by evolutionists. He says they don’t work because they rely on gratuitous assumptions. In his book Evidence and Evolution he writes the following: Continue reading here.

The summer of 2000 promised to be very exciting for ornithologists and paleontologists alike as they flew into Beijing for the fifth quadrennial meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution (Ref 1). The setting was most appropriate given the richness of fossils that have been unearthed in Chinese soil. The central theme of the meeting lay in trying to resolve the question of whether birds had really evolved from dinosaurs (Ref 1). However, rather than a harmonious discussion with the constructive disagreement that one might expect from any scientific ‘get-together’ aimed at resolving discrepancies in data, the meeting did nothing but expose an underlying discord (Ref 1). Read More ›

Would you believe that the blind, unguided process of evolution repeats itself? Would you believe that evolution somehow repeats striking patterns of change? Evolutionists do. Continue reading here.

Dr. Stephen Meyer discusses his new book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.

I was asked to define my littlest blog for a “deep” search engine group, Feedmil, and replied as follows:

Colliding Universes takes a critical look at cosmology, especially its many unexplained assumptions. Here’s one:

Earth is not special. There must be many planets that host life forms.

Now, what if we find 3000 exoplanets and none host life forms?

Does that suggest that Earth is special?

No, many cosmologists would say. We just haven’t looked hard enough. Find 3000 more.

It becomes obvious that their research is intended to confirm the “not special” view, and that – for both practical and philosophical reasons – it cannot be disconfirmed.

The practical reason is that they can always argue, “They’re out there somewhere.” The philosophical reason is that they are determined to believe what they want to believe.

That’s fine, but don’t call it science.

Incidentally, even if, after a search of 6000, two other planets were found that had life forms, we would know that there are three special planets, ours being one.

But don’t expect the pop science media to interpret it that way.

Also just up at Colliding Universes, my blog on competing theories of our universe: Read More ›