There is someting that's just not right about this video -

"Hey Mike, since your views about Intelligent Design are so different from mainstream ID, why do you insist on calling them 'ID'? Why don't you come up with a new name?" For those who have these questions, I provide you my reasons.
Read the rest of this entry »

Recently there has been a rash of anti-religion books. One would think from all the rhetoric and broad public exposure of the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and other critics of religion that they are in the vanguard of those criticizing elements of irrationality and ill conceived dogma in religion. That could not be farther from the truth. These atheistic critics seem completely unaware of those within religion over many decades who have lodged many of the same criticisms they offer. Neither do they seem to know that many prominent thinkers in religion are just as serious about dispelling the superstitious and destructive elements in religion. The fact is that some of the best minds in religious thought have worked indefatigably to place religious thinking on a sounder footing within a modern world. These efforts have been an ongoing pursue of those who have been categorized as part of liberal theology.

Read the rest of this entry »

Richard Dawkins wants put to Hitler behind us and resurrect a discussion of eugenics:

IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.

Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?

It's a typical example of Dawkins and his "consciousness-raising." Let's talk about religious people as child abusers. Let's discuss whether religion is the root of all evil. Now, it's let's discuss whether eugenics is really bad. The new Anti-Religion Movement is off and running.

I encourage everyone to download session 9 of the Beyond Belief seminar, as it is very informative. First, you'll see Sam Harris give a rather mundane, anti-religion talk. But then it gets interesting. Next up, is James Woodward. It seems pretty obvious to me that Woodward is disgusted with what he has been watching and felt compelled to throw together a new intro to his talk, where he has to teach the scientists how to do basic science. Then comes Mel Konner, who put together an excellent talk that echoes Woodward and truly spanks Dawkins and Harris.

Of course, I am biased here. Both Woodward and Konner make the same basic point I have been making about Dawkins and his followers for years. Put simply, Dawkins has abandoned science and the scientific approach when it comes to his condemnation of religion and his solution to the Religion Problem. Dawkins and Harris substitute emotionalism, rhetoric, anecdote, and stereotype for science. Yet they posture as Ambassadors of Science.

Then came the discussion, with Woodward and Konner on one side of the table, and Harris and Dawkins on the other side.
Read the rest of this entry »

Scientists have discovered a dramatic variation in the genetic make-up of humans that could lead to a fundamental reappraisal of what causes incurable diseases and could provide a greater understanding of mankind.

The discovery has astonished scientists studying the human genome - the genetic recipe of man. Until now it was believed the variation between people was due largely to differences in the sequences of the individual " letters" of the genome.

It now appears much of the variation is explained instead by people having multiple copies of some key genes that make up the human genome.

- Read the rest here.

These days, it seems that getting contacted by ID critics badly disguised as ID supporters is even more likely than getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince who wants to make you rich.

Celeste Biever, Bob Holmes, Donald M. O'Malley… The list of ID critics going undercover to get supposedly embarrassing information from ID supporters is getting longer and longer. From Larry Caldwell at Evolution News & Views comes the latest example: Mark A. Farmer, biology professor at the University of Georgia, who sent Caldwell and his wife e-mails, asking them if they "support the word of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ being taught in our public schools." Only one little snag: He's an anti-ID activist, involved in letter-writing and petition-signing against intelligent design.

Figuring him out was no trouble - he even used his real name and university e-mail address. What's the thinking behind that? Hasn't he heard of Google?

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

More on Larry Moran, the biochemistry professor who wants universities to "flunk the IDiots". He was criticized by Ed Brayton, and now has a post up, at the same claiming that he was just kidding and that he wasn't:

Ed Brayton's opening attack on me refers to my tongue in check suggestion that students who reject evolution should be flunked, or not admitted to university in the first place. Anyone with a brain can recognize the humor and sarcasm in such a remark. The fact that it sets the Intelligent Design Creationists all atwitter is part of the fun.

However, behind the humor is a serious point. If students entering university have already made up their minds that evolution should be rejected, then that's a serious problem. It's not a question of ignorance. Those students have made an active decision to choose superstition over science. Given a choice of students to admit into university science programs, I would choose the ones who show some understanding of science over those who reject one the fundamental facts of biology. Wouldn't Ed?

Read the rest of this entry »