Anti-evolution
sb admin | January 10, 2006So what do you see? A groove and some lines? Truth be told, this is possibly the oldest recorded chordate fossil (or, should I say, one of a number of seventeen specimens of same). It dates from the pre-Cambrian - i.e. before 543 million years ago - during a period known as the Ediacarian. Found by Ross Faraghar seven years ago in the Flinders Range of Australia, the specimens represent our earliest view of chordate evolution, that is, the evolution of the group that we belong to (along with a few squishy things, and the more familiar fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals). Unfortunately,…
jlynch | January 6, 2006It appears once again that Dembski, contra the official DI position, supports the teaching of ID - rather than the "controversy" - in science class. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas has announced that ID is a "valid scientific theory" and should be taught (source). Indeed, a spokeswoman noted that Perry “supports the teaching of the theory of intelligent design. Texas schools teach the theory of evolution; intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, and he believes it should be taught as well” (emphasis mine). Dembski's sole comment is: "Leave it to a Red State to come through in time of need…
jlynch | January 6, 2006In a piece published yesterday in the World Peace Herald, Lloyd Eby (an Assistant Professorial Lecturer at the Department of Philosophy at George Washington University*) writes:
Even if you favor some form of ID, as I do, you should recognize that the ID proponents vastly overplayed their weak hand in this Dover case and deserved to lose. Nowhere did or do ID proponents perform any of the philosophical heavy lifting needed to show where and how the demarcation should be made between science and non-science, nor did or do they produce any credible attempt - credible to the larger non-ID…
jlynch | January 5, 2006I've noted before that a significant number of lawyers not only to deny evolution but also appear to think that their training as a lawyer enables them to adjudicate scientific "controversies" (real or percieved). As Nick notes over at the Thumb, the Discovery Institute seems to agree with me by approvingly ("Arizona Republic Columnist Hit the Nail on the Head in His Dover Trial Analysis") quoting the following from an op-ed in the Arizona Republic:
Moreover, based upon the extensive expertise he [Judge Jones] professes to have acquired in the course of a six-week trial, he defined science…
jlynch | December 20, 2005Pat Robertson on the Cobb County sticker case (700 Club, December 15th):
ROBERTSON: You know, what we have got to recognize just there in this case is that the evolutionists worship atheism. I mean, that's their religion. And evolution becomes their religion. It is a matter of religion. So this is an establishment of religion contrary to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. And the fact that somebody comes along and says, "We are not sure that it's accurate, it's a theory and not a fact" -- how can you say it's a fact? You are talking about 10 to 15 billion years ago. Who…
jlynch | December 20, 2005Quick post as I have to head out for the day but will post again later...
Judge Jones has found for the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v Dover, holding that ID is not science and that the ID policy violates both the purpose and effect prongs of the Lemon test. See here, here, and here.
Legal buffs can read the 139 page decision here (pdf). From the conclusion:
In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
Both…
jlynch | December 6, 2005Via Red State Rabble:
"These evolutionists are saying that Jesus was half-chimpanzee, so was Mohammed and Buddha," said Alan Detrich, a 58-year-old Lawrence Republican who takes classes at Kansas University. "I dont think thats right."
In this story, Detrich gives us the minimalist version of Paley’s watchmaker argument:
The question is the story of the rock and the clock. If you find a rock in a field, no big deal. If you find a clock in a field, you look around for who created it. Did we just appear like the rock? Or did it take intelligent design to make us? I think it took intelligent…