'Signature in the Cell'

Paul Burnett »

Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:40 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

"Signature In The Cell" spends 611 pages re-stating the logical fallacy "argument from incredulity" / "Argument from ignorance." Unfortunately for Meyers, even if he could somehow prove evolution was untrue, it would not mean that intelligent design creationism was true.

I went to Barnes & Noble and bought a copy of "Signature In The Cell" - it was not in the "Science" section, but in the "Religion" section of the bookstore. It's published by a religious book publisher - not a science book publisher. There's a clue there, folks!

Chuck Colson has been awarded the Templeton Prize, given each year to the one person in the world who has done the most to advance the cause of religion. Chuck Colson is not a scientist but a religious apologist. His support for the pseudoscience of intelligent design creationism is just more proof of the easily observed fact that intelligent design creationism is all about religion - it has nothing to do with science. Thanks, Chuck.

And in all seriousness, thank you for your prisoner support work. It's a shame your good name and good works are being abused by the forces of wilful scientific ignorance and deliberate scientific illiteracy.

'Creation' Producer Called Out for 'Too Controversial for Religious America' Claim

Paul Burnett »

Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:57 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Ken Ham's Creation Anti-Museum is a monument to scientific illiteracy. Yet "tpique1" criticized "gem of tki's" criticism of it as an Ad Hominum tactic.

Here are a few examples of the many inaccuracies in Ham's anti-museum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum#Controversy_and_criticism

How Intelligent Design Is Misrepresented by Its Friends

Paul Burnett »

Sat Aug 22, 2009 8:52 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

I am not accusing Randall of lying. But some cdesign proponentsists have been known to lie. For instance, here is a quote from the Federal judge's 2005 Dover decision, about some of the sworn witnesses who appeared before him: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the Intelligent Design Policy."

Also, as I mentioned earlier, the website www.expelledexposed.com discusses the many lies and distortions of the film "Expelled." The continuing efforts by creationists to demonize science and scientists, to equate evolution and science with religious belief, to claim that creationism is gaining scientific acceptance and that evolution is a "theory in crisis" all contribute to the stench of untruth surrounding creationism and intelligent design creationism.

How Intelligent Design Is Misrepresented by Its Friends

Paul Burnett »

Sat Aug 22, 2009 1:29 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Of course I read your article, Randall, and I perceived your mild moral outrage in your critique of "Expelled." But you read too much into "Expelled," which was a propaganda vehicle in the same mean spirit as "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy#Darwin.27s_Deadly_Legacy.

Every quote in "Expelled" - whether from a theologian or an actual scientist - was carefully quote-mined to prove the pre-determined point that evolution (and biology and science) is evil and should be destroyed. Most Christians probably enjoy the benefits of 21st century science too much to retreat to the Dark Ages of ignorance and repression so fervently desired by the Christian Reconstructionists and Theocratic Dominionists behind "Expelled."

My comments were aimed at your article's title, "How Intelligent Design Is Misrepresented by Its Friends." Intelligent design creationism has essentially two types of "friends" - those who are in on the scam, and those who aren't. The innocent pilgrims who conflate intelligent design and creationism (such as Buckingham and Bonsell, late of the Dover PA school board) are what Lenin called "useful idiots" - they are probably the majority of "friends" of ID.

Why not write another article, about the Dishonesty Institute and those other "friends" of intelligent design creationism?

How Intelligent Design Is Misrepresented by Its Friends

Paul Burnett »

Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:21 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 5

Shame on Randall for giving credence to the execrable film "Expelled" and its spokesperson Ben Stein - this is unfortunate, as essentially nothing Stein says in the film is true. Please see www.expelledexposed.com for a discussion of the non-stop lies and distortions of "Expelled."

"Cdesign proponentsists" - the technical term for intelligent design creationism proponents (Google the term if you're unfamiliar with the sordid story) - do sometimes misrepresent their pseudoscience as having some resemblance to actual science (it doesn't...at all).

Other proponents continue to confuse and conflate intelligent design creationism with other variants of creationism - this explains why "Expelled" was previewed exclusively at religious venues rather than scientific venues. It also explains why essentially all of the supporters of intelligent design creationism are religious fundamentalists who are also scientifically illiterate. Stein was preaching to a statistically small choir, not representative of the entire Christian faith community.

Diseases: Creations of God or 'Intelligent Evil'?

Paul Burnett »

Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:30 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

Dr. Winter's "intelligent evil power" sounds awfully similar to the duality of the Manichaean Heresy, or even Zoroastrianism, with co-equal gods of light and darkness. He obviously believes there is (or was) more than one "intelligent designer" which puts him at odds with the official policies of intelligent design creationism. And if he believed in more than one co-equal god, that makes him a heretic to all monotheists - his beliefs should be anathema to all believing Christians.

Evolution and Christianity Impossible to Reconcile, Says Evangelical Theologian

Paul Burnett »

Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:03 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

A "widely respected evangelical Christian theologian" says ""There is no way for God to intervene in the process (of evolution)..." Isn't it blasphemy to set limits on what God can or cannot do?

Dr. Mohler has just provided another example of the logical fallacy "argument from personal incredulity." In his ignorance (and I really do mean that in a nice way) of evolution and biology and geology and all of science, he doesn't understand how evolution could possibly work in the 6,000 years of the earth's existence, so he arrives at the conclusion it's not possible.

Dr. Mohler, since God gave us brains, why wouldn't He expect us to use them to figure out how things really happened? Why do you continue to rely on Bronze Age creation myths? Humans are reaching out to touch the mind of God and figure out how creation works. What's wrong with that?

Biola to Feature Leading Christian Apologist, 'Godfather' of Intelligent Design

Paul Burnett »

Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Abhodim asked Steve: "Stunned by your Ken Ham comment. Do you state that he makes an intelligent argument for creationism, or do you state that he is up front with his creationism without relying on an ID approach?

Ken Ham and Answers In Genesis properly condemn intelligent design creationism for its heretical removal of the Creator from Creation:

"However, the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other." - http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement and "Templeton Award-winner Denies Intelligent Design. $1.6 million winner claims intelligent design is a "grave theological error" - http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/03/14/catholic-priest-awardedpriest-awarded

Answers In Genesis openly advocates Young Earth Creationism, which a totally unscientific religious viewpoint (which by definition cannot support an intelligent argument that creationism is science). Intelligent design creationism is a pseudoscience that tries to sound "sciency" but is not science, in that its anonymous supernatural designer cannot be observed, experimented upon or predicted. And its designers have taken all the good parts out of the Creation story: No Adam or Eve, no Noah or Ark, no Eden, no Creator. Intelligent design creationism is neither fish nor fowl - it cannot be science, and it claims it is not religion - it's nothing more than carping about strawman versions of evolution and biology and science.

Biola to Feature Leading Christian Apologist, 'Godfather' of Intelligent Design

Paul Burnett »

Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Odd...my comment was truncated AGAIN!...trying again:

Eric Young reported: "(Philip) Johnson, meanwhile, is best known as one of the founders of the intelligent design movement...which critics view as a variation of creationism... According to Biola, Johnson will be awarded for having "a clear evangelical Christian testimont and having demonstrated "significant service and achievement over an extended period of time, which...is relevant to the mission of the university.

The mission of Biola University, a "biblical institution," is clear. This award thus helps make it even more clear that intelligent design creationism is religion, not science, as a Federal Court judge ruled in 2005: "We have concluded that intelligent design is not science, and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

Thanks, Biola.

Scientist Coalition Accused of 'Suppressing' Evidence Against Darwinism

Paul Burnett »

Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Unfortunately for Dr. West, there is no such thing as "scientific evidence challenging Darwinism." A cereful review of the entire body of scientific literature finds only reinforcement for the concepts of evolution. ("Darwinism" is a code term used by supporters of the pseudoscience of intelligent design creationism - when they say "Darwinism" they are usually referring to evolution, the cornerstone theory of modern biology.)

There is a reason that essentially every actual science organization in America supports evolution and condemns intelligent design creationsm, while the only supporters of intelligent design creationism are overt or covert apologists for religion - not science.

Ex-Science Director Sues Over 'Neutral' Policy on Intelligent Design

Paul Burnett »

Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

This is a good illustration of the difference between political leadership and technical leadership. Comer (a techie, not a political) does something that makes sense to her, only to find out that the politics trumps the technical. And then we wonder why political bureaucracies can never get anything done...

La. Governor Signs 'Science Education Act'

Paul Burnett »

Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:28 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"The law will also help to supply teachers with supplementary textbooks..." That would likely include the intelligent design creationism pseudoscientific "textbook" titled "The Edge of Evolution," also known as "Pandas 2" after its predecessor publication which was made famous in the 2005 Dover trial (Google "cdesign proponentsists" to see what this is all about). "Pandas 2" is, oddly enough, closely associated with the organization that drafted the template for the new Louisiana law (which has also been considered by legislatures in Florida, Maryland, Michigan and several other states). Can you say "conflict of interest"? And Pandas 2's author has been disavowed by his employer, Lehigh University - see www.lehigh.edu/bio/news/evolution.htm .

Battle Over Teaching 'Weaknesses' of Evolution Moves to Texas

Paul Burnett »

Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:46 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

The anonymous creationist hiding behind the username "crc" writes: "Numerous great scientific contributors who were not creationists have major problems with Darwinism..."

Is this referring to the Dishonesty Institute's infamous list of 704 Scientists Who Are Dissenters From Darwinism? That bogus list constitutes less than 0.001 per cent of all scientists, who are neither "numerous" nor "great."

Louisiana 'Academic Freedom' Bill Advances to House Floor

Paul Burnett »

Mon May 26, 2008 11:35 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"logicshouldprevail" wrote: "Macro evolution, is where one species morphs into another. To my understanding I have never seen a dog, for example, morph into a new never before seen species have you? Also, with respect to origins of mankind, neither you nor I where there, so how and if man evolved cannot be subjected to the scientific method. That should answer your question."

Not at all. You didn't even look at the reference materials from Dr. Padian or Dr. Shubin that I cited for you, did you? Rejoice in your ignorance and enjoy the theocracy.

Louisiana 'Academic Freedom' Bill Advances to House Floor

Paul Burnett »

Mon May 26, 2008 6:28 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

"logicshouldprevail" stated: "What I would like is evidence showing that one species has morphed into another completely different species via macro-evolution."

At what point does your creationist pseudoscientific term "microevolution" turn into macroevolution? What you are really saying is that you believe in inches but you don't believe in miles; you believe in teaspoons but you don't believe in gallons. Because of your limited mortal perceptions, and your pre-conceived deliberate ignorance, you refuse to accept the truth of the fact of evolution, when it is obvious to anybody who understands geological timescales. Or are you a Young Earth Creationist - 4004 BC and all that? That alone will cripple your perception. And maybe explains why you want to similarly cripple innocent children.

Dr. Kevin Padian's sworn Federal court testimony (available via http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/ZZ/47_meet_padian39s_critters_5_3_2007.asp ) - and his slideshow - explains thoroughly how species evolve into other species. "Padian's Critters" might convince you, if you can keep an open mind. But Dr. Padian is an an actual scientist - not a creationist (at all) - so this may not work for you.

Or here's an even more basic explanation - Dr. Neil Shubin's book "Your Inner Fish" ( http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/book.html ) explains the grand scale of billions of years of evolution and how the human body's most basic structures reveal direct our connection to our very distant ancestors: fish. This book explains how evolution happened, in basic yet detailed terms which make lots more sense than the creation myths of Genesis.

Louisiana 'Academic Freedom' Bill Advances to House Floor

Paul Burnett »

Sat May 24, 2008 11:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

The DIshonesty Institute has a recent article on this issue at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/05/barbara_forrests_shameful_misi.html

If you rotate the article about 180 degrees, you will be able to synthesize a pretty good story about this latest attempt by creationists to dumb down Louisiana students in an effort to destroy science.

Survey: 16 Percent of Science Teachers are Creationists

Paul Burnett »

Thu May 22, 2008 5:53 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 3

The article states: "...Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, and Michigan have been prompted to pass a series of “Academic Freedom” bills."

Last Tuesday's Washington Post editorial, "Creationism's Latest Mutation - Red-herring arguments about 'academic freedom' can't be allowed to undermine the teaching of evolution" ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/19/AR2008051902616.html?wpisrc=newsletter ) explains what a hoax and a fraud these “Academic Freedom” bills are.

Providing aid and comfort to the pseudoscience of intelligent design creationism, the bills were prompted by the Discovery Institute of Seattle, source of the infamous "Wedge Document" ( http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html ) which explains how the Discovery Institute seeks to "overthrow...materialism and its cultural legacies" such as evolution, biology, physics and all of science.

It's 1984 in the Academy

Paul Burnett »

Thu May 08, 2008 12:25 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 3

Ben Stein is right - biologists who support intelligent design creationism over evolution ARE "expelled," just as doctors who support the Demonic-Possession theory of disease are 'expelled," just as mathematicians who support 2+2=3 are" expelled," just as geologists who support a 6,000-year-old Earth and a 4,000-year-old Grand Canyon are "expelled." Get the picture? As the Dover Federal trial judge ruled in 2005, intelligent design creationism has much more to do with religion than science.

Freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry do not provide a license to teach innocent public school children the myths and lies of creationism, even when it is disguised under the bogus name of "intelligent design," which has no theory, no hypothesis, no science and no definition in the "Expelled" movie - which spends half of its time claiming that intelligent design creationism has nothing to do with religion, and then the second half of the movie proving it does. And has anybody noticed that the only people pushing the movie are religionists? Not scientists, but religious people and organizations. That's a red flag right there.

Take a look at http://www.expelledexposed.com to see what the movie is actually about.

'Expelled' Filmmakers Claim 'Over the Top' Success

Paul Burnett »

Tue May 06, 2008 10:30 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 4

Intelligent design creationism, like Peter, denies God, as well as Adam and Eve, Noah and "his" Flood, and all other parts of the Genesis story - for political expediency. The inane claims of intelligent design creationism are neither good science (no theory, no hypothesis, no definition in the "Expelled" movie) nor good religion (they took out all the good parts trying to fool the courts and school boards that it's not religion). What's left is a pitiful hermaphrodite, neither fish nor fowl.

And yes, biologists who support intelligent design creationism over evolution ARE "expelled," just as doctors who support the Demonic-Possession theory of medicine are 'expelled," just as mathematicians who support 2+2=3 are" expelled," just as geologists who support a 6,000-year-old Earth and a 4,000-year-old Grand Canyon are "expelled." Get the picture? As the Dover Fedewral trial judge ruled in 2005, intelligent design creationism has much more to do with religion than science.

And the film has earned an astounding $6.6 million after being in theaters 3 weeks - "astounding" is certainly the word, as the producers had predicted $12 to $15 million.
Please look at http://www.expelledexposed.com to see refutations of the non-stop lies in "Expelled."

Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Award for 'Expelled'

Paul Burnett »

Mon Feb 18, 2008 11:16 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

His movie isn't even out yet (some say not even finished yet), and already a "Bible college" is giving him an award named after the leading evolution denier? Does anybody else find this vaguely disturbing?

It has already been reported that the movie is so bad that the film makers are bribing church schools to organize mandatory field trips and force the children to watch the film. Others have compared "Expellled" to such breakthrough films as the Coral Ridge Ministries' "From Darwin to Hitler," "Birth of a Nation" and "Triumph of the Will." But we will have to wait to see, won't we?