Shut up, they explained. But we didn’t. And so …

Coyne, et al, as I have witnessed, must spend inordinate amounts of time writing, editing, reading, and massaging their websites. Agree or not with it, it must be quite a task to keep up with the content you place and the responding content. Since these professors are paid to work at universities undertaking 'science-based' activities along with their administrative duties, are these web-based activities being done whilst on-the-job or is it only an after-hours' affair? If the former, are they thus being paid by the government to push their own agenda. Is this a questions for tax-payers? ...AussieID

January 21, 2014

January

01

Jan

21

21

2014

10:21 PM

10

10

21

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

After I came to realize how bankrupt Darwinism of any real scientific support, then I began to more fully appreciate just how dependent Darwinism is on its 'hidden' Theological premises. From the start, Bad Theological premises were baked all throughout Darwin's book 'Origin Of Species":

Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html

And bad Theological premises continue to be a mainstay of Darwinian arguments:

The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning - Paul A. Nelson - Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517 Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution. http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3n5415037038134/?MUD=MP Dr. Seuss Biology | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - 2013 video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVx42Izp1ek

In this following video Dr. William Lane Craig is surprised to find that evolutionary biologist Dr. Ayala uses theological argumentation in his book to support Darwinism and invites him to present evidence, any evidence at all, that Darwinism can do what he claims it can:

Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg

Many more references and quotes can be provided along this line of exposing Darwinism's dependency on faulty theological premises. But the main point to make in all this is that if Coyne and all the other members of the atheistic inquisition, who are up for censor of the year award, are so determined to keep any mention of God out of science altogether, then I strongly suggest they take a good hard look at their very own foundational arguments for Darwinian evolution and start right there. In others words, to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, I suggest that these champions of 'scientific purity' censor any mention of God in Darwinian thought. Verse and Music:

Matthew 7:5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. THE GREATEST GIFT – Yancy - music video http://www.worshiphousemedia.com/worship-tracks/22345/The-Greatest-Gift

bornagain77

January 21, 2014

January

01

Jan

21

21

2014

05:22 PM

5

05

22

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The funny thing about atheists demanding all mention, or even thought, of God to be expunged from the science curriculum is that, as Dr. Hunter keeps pointing out, Darwinian evolution is at its foundation, since it has no real empirical and/or mathematical support/basis, primarily is a religious position. Indeed, despite what Darwinists say about science being limited to only 'methodological naturalism, the fact of the matter is that science itself refuses to be reduced to methodological naturalism,,

Is Life Unique? David L. Abel – January 2012 Concluding Statement: The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy. Neither can language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems, the integration of circuits, computation, categorizations, results tabulation, the drawing and discussion of conclusions. The prevailing Kuhnian paradigm rut of philosophic physicalism is obstructing scientific progress, biology in particular. There is more to life than chemistry. All known life is cybernetic. Control is choice-contingent and formal, not physicodynamic. http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/

It is simply impossible to rationally practice science without some sort of Theological presuppositions as to the intelligibility of the world/universe and the belief/faith that human beings are able to master it. Indeed science was built upon such a worldview (the worldview Coyne fights so desperately against)

Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf

Yet instead of atheists ever honestly admitting that Theistic presuppositions are necessary for science, in their twisted naturalistic worldview, even the necessity for the free will of the scientists doing the experiment is denied prior to investigation:

Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris (and Coyne) on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html

Which is ironic, since the 'science' of quantum mechanics has now shown that the free will of the scientist doing the experiment is axiomatic in Quantum Mechanics,,

What Does Quantum Physics Have to Do with Free Will? - By Antoine Suarez - July 22, 2013 Excerpt: What is more, recent experiments are bringing to light that the experimenter’s free will and consciousness should be considered axioms (founding principles) of standard quantum physics theory. So for instance, in experiments involving “entanglement” (the phenomenon Einstein called “spooky action at a distance”), to conclude that quantum correlations of two particles are nonlocal (i.e. cannot be explained by signals traveling at velocity less than or equal to the speed of light), it is crucial to assume that the experimenter can make free choices, and is not constrained in what orientation he/she sets the measuring devices. To understand these implications it is crucial to be aware that quantum physics is not only a description of the material and visible world around us, but also speaks about non-material influences coming from outside the space-time.,,, https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/what-does-quantum-physics-have-do-free-will

But how has Darwinian evolution been so successful as to pulling off its ruse as a 'science' if it denies even the most basic Theological presupposition (free will) that is necessary for science? AAAHHH, and herein lies the rub! For the longest time I had a hard time realizing how deeply Theological premises are embedded in Darwinian thought. But slowly, after I came to realize how thoroughly bankrupt Darwinian evolution is of any real empirical and/or mathematical support/basis,

“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. … http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/05/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician/

bornagain77

January 21, 2014

January

01

Jan

21

21

2014

05:21 PM

5

05

21

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Its a great idea to highlight this as it teaches as well as entertains about the desperation of the bad guys. However. Words are dangerous. A few people with words have done good or evil in history. Today is MLK day in america. His words made some difference. LIkewise words should be said there should not be a MLK day. its insulting to Americans. Everyone inclines to censor. Everyone has a point. the conclusion was reached in america and later the rest of the English speaking civilization that in order to have important truth be spoken then NOONE could control the speech of the people. this means allowing dangerous or offensive speech as one sees it. Hitler or Churchill both must be tolerated in a free nation for the purpose of truth. The bad guys can't take the truth but the good guys fear freedom of speech too. Canada is censored today more then ever before I think. America is less ready for this but the establishment, so liberals, are chomping at the bit to silence America. Its not just in these contentions but this contention shows a profound problem in our time. Creationists and any opposers to evolution etc are just another battlefront for the soul of America and mankind. Just as it always was. I am convince most North americans desire or demand freedom of speech. We are on the winning side here also.Robert Byers

January 20, 2014

January

01

Jan

20

20

2014

03:40 PM

3

03

40

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Wikipedia's "progressivist" mods and administrators, given the sheer scale of the site.kairosfocus

January 20, 2014

January

01

Jan

20

20

2014

10:56 AM

10

10

56

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I would vote for Professor Jerry Coyne. Coyne in his position of professor at a major university is an "agenda setter" and is in a position to influence generations of young minds. In my view, this influence is a huge negative both for those young but growing minds, as well as the culture as a whole. Coyne is an atheist, and I'll grant him that right under the 1'st Amendment. But his atheism is a problem in the following areas as I see it: 1) Coyne seems to have abandoned his career as a scientist/biologist and has instead become a professional atheist. I say this after monitoring his web site for several years now, where seldom will you find science, but plenty of anti-religious propaganda. He self sensors his own site and you will search high and low for any comment contrary to his own opinion and world view. Coyne has quite a following on his web site which brings me to the next problem I have with him. 2) Coyne uses his position to advocate for and influence censorship in the public arena, in particular education. He is a board member of the Freedom Form Religion Foundation which has been quite successful at censoring out any views which counter his own neo-Darwinian evolutionary view. Ball State and Professor Edward Hedin being one of the more prominent cases. He also pressured a Los Angeles Museum into removing a sign acknowledging God. 3) Since Coyne is still on staff at the University of Chicago which receives much federal and state grant money, I wonder how much of Coyne's atheist advocacy is funded by US tax dollars. Should an investigation be opened up and a demand for a refund of such funds as is discovered by such an investigation - as well as cutting off future funds for atheistic advocacy under the guise of science? And should such scrutiny be also applied to all federal funding applied to folks such as Coyne at his university as well as others around the nation. If Intelligent Design or Creation Science can be taught there, then why should atheism be allowed? Thus my vote for the (less than)distinguished Professor Jerry Coyne as censor of the year.ayearningforpublius

January 20, 2014

January

01

Jan

20

20

2014

10:42 AM

10

10

42

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link