As a young and foolish man, I actually thought I was the smartest person I had ever known. In later years I have met and communicated with people much smarter and it has been a pleasure. I treasure the hours my wife and I got to spend with the brilliant, funny and gracious Jonathan Sarfati. I am facebook friends and occasionally have contact with brilliant men like Ian Juby and Tas Walker. I've exchanged emails with guys like William Dembski and Spike Psarris. Sometimes you get to be friends with people you have never met, for instance, Karl Priest and Bob Sorenson. What I have found is that the world of Creationists and Intelligent Design guys is that they are pretty uniformly gracious. In the world of science, I am a dust mite observing the greats and taking notes. I share the wisdom of others more than my own opinions because they have the training and have done the research. I have just enough training and time in the field to understand what they assert and share it with you. My field of expertise is actually the ability to research and report, skills learned and honed as a journalist. It really isn't about anything but the evidence, people, and the evidence should have debunked evolution before it even got started. Too late, but we can work on killing off the monster and burning down its castle. Like Frankenstein's Monster, Darwinism should not be alive and should not be allowed to keep wreaking havoc. Grab your clubs and torches!!! The Monster needs to die!
Today I give you a CEH article and I think it is great food for thought!
If evolution were true, well, then— who wouldn’t want to embrace the truth, even if it means a radical change to one’s beliefs? Ay, there’s the rub. Any aimless material process has no necessary connection to truth. As Charles Darwin himself wrote to a friend the year before he died,
Eugenie Scott and the NCSE
Retiring this year from her 26-year headship of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), an organization whose sole purpose is to prevent “anti-evolution” from gaining any headway in public schools, Eugenie Scott was honored by Science Magazine this week. Jeffrey Mervis described the NCSE as a “U.S. Center That Fights Antievolution Forces.” Whether that means creationism, intelligent design, or simply honest teaching of Darwinism with its pros and cons, Eugenie Scott has been a tireless advocate of Darwin-only in the schools, and a formidable opponent of even the academic freedom laws that attempt to prevent school boards from punishing teachers who teach evolution honestly.
Mervis’s article is filled with accolades for Dr. Scott from like-minded Darwin-only people. She herself long ago decided not to pose as anti-religious (after all, there are liberal theologians who embrace evolution, and lately she has tried to make overtures even to evangelical Christian groups to agree on some of NCSE’s goals). Aware of the political and cultural issues at hand, she relies on “powers of persuasion” to defend what Mervis calls “integrity in science education.” Uh— what was that Darwin quote again? It would seem hard to define “integrity” in Darwinian terms. To a Darwinian game theorist, cooperation evolves by the same aimless processes of natural selection that changes a finch beak, and non-cooperation is just part of the game. None of that appears dependent on truth.
Melvin Konner and Daniel Dennett
Melvin Konner is a self-proclaimed admirer of Daniel Dennett, a Darwinian philosopher (if that oxymoron can be resolved). Konner loved Dennett’s earlier books, but in a review in Nature, had a few problems with his latest, titled Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking. Konner usually appreciates Dennett’s dedication to “facts” and “clarification of discourse.” Strangely, he never seems to insist Dennett define those terms from materialistic processes of aimless selection. Maybe that’s because Konner disclaims any expertise in philosophy, which is obsessed with clarity.
In the course of his review, Konner described how he likes to disabuse his students of their doubts about Darwin. He had just puzzled about the usefulness of Dennett’s categories of “skyhooks” (“thinking-tools that hang an explanation on nothing”) and “cranes” (“concepts built on a solid factual foundation”). Predictably, Konner pigeonholed intelligent design as a “skyhook” for its “explaining too-intricate bits of biological machinery.” Anyway, here’s what he said he does to his students in class:
CEH likes to use green for their take on the articles they publish, taken from secular science sites and published peer-reviewed papers. Therefore I have used that same color for their comments. Do you want to publish a comment? Go to the original post and go for it!
On to the castle!!!