Category Archives: NADA – New American Dark Ages

New American Dark Ages

ID, The Atheist's Pulpit

From The Atheist’s Pulpit

Somebody light a

candle because Krauthammer and I are on the same side of an issue. Holy cow! Even as I savor this moment of worlds-colliding, I marvel

that I could argue Krauthammer is being unfair to some IDers (this is a disturbing universe, indeed). Those very few IDers who

believe they are pursuing a “science of irreducible complexity” — a bold new way of looking at things — feel tarred by the “Jesus on a

dinosaur” brush. Sorry, but there are many more who believe evolution is the devil’s tool and the world is 4000 years old than believe

there are merely points in an otherwise clockwork system where god intercedes. Not that truth is a popularity contest.

Still, I

always enjoy the Clash of Conservatives. Krauthammer is one of the cardinals of the Radical Right — a ‘must read’ in the West Wing (or

have read to you). Here we see the arrogance and utterly unshakable certainty directed against — good god! — forces equally arrogant

and unshakable. ‘The Truth is Ours‘, both sides shout with equal ferocity, and ‘those who disagree are beneath contempt.’

The true gift from god here is not that the ranters can’t simply give up and shout “Commie! Hippie! Democrat!” No, no, sweeter still

is that somewhere deep inside each opponent has to realize, “damn, I just called another right-winger wrong.” The Monolith of Radical

Right Infallibility called into question by its own faithful?! Hosanna! mjh

PS: I believe Krauthammer

would join me — again! — in irritation at the Albuquerque Journal’s headline, “God and Science Made the Lemurs”. There isn’t

a person alive — whom you’d want to talk to — who would say ‘science made the lemurs’. Made? Are headline writers less

educated than real journalists or does years of straining for groan-inducing puns dull the wits as much as it seems to?

Two more

specimens:

Kansas wrong to see science as an enemy of God, just ask Einstein — Quad City Times

[mjh: so much for the pursuit of brevity]

Science isn’t religion’s foe: an idea that’s still evolving — Bothell Herald

[mjh: groan]
—–

Charles Krauthammer: Evolution by any other name is still . . .

BECAUSE every few years this country, in its

infinite tolerance, insists on hearing yet another appeal of the Scopes monkey trial, I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be

superfluous � that the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and they were both

religious.

Newton’s religiosity was traditional. He was a staunch believer in Christianity and member of the Church of England.

Einstein’s was a more diffuse belief in a deity who set the rules for everything that occurs in the universe.

Neither saw science

as an enemy of religion. On the contrary. “He believed he was doing God’s work,” wrote James Gleick in his recent biography of Newton.

Einstein saw his entire vocation � understanding the workings of the universe � as an attempt to understand the mind of God.

Not a crude and willful God who pushes and pulls and does things according to whim. … Newton’s God was not at all so crude. The laws

of his universe were so simple, so elegant, so economical, and therefore so beautiful that they could only be divine. …

Let’s

be clear. “Intelligent design” may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud.

It is a self-enclosed, tautological

“theory” whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge � in this case, evolution � they are to

be filled by God. …

How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple,

more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet

interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give

us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education too.
—–

QOTD: “How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God.” Amen.

ID

a Newtonian God

My first thought on

hearing that the Vatican’s astronomer spoke out against ID as pseudo-science (it is, more

correctly, “anti-science”), I thought, ‘wow, the Vatican has an astronomer?!’

Before you know it, they’ll be dealing with this

guy as they did Galileo. mjh

Vatican official rejects intelligent design teaching By NICOLE WINFIELD, The Associated Press

The

Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in

school programs was “wrong” and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

“Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends

to be,” the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. “If you want to teach it in schools,

intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.” …

In a June article in the

British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne reaffirmed God’s role in creation, but said science explains the history of the universe.

“If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must

move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a

watch that ticks along regularly.”

Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.

“God in

his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and

greater complexity,” he wrote. “He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves.”

[mjh: as Jas. put it, ‘our god is a CEO, not some middle-manager bogged down in the daily details.’]

The Vatican

Observatory, which Coyne heads, is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world. It is based in the papal summer

residence at Castel Gandolfo south of Rome.
—–

Evolution News & Views
News Analysis of Media Coverage of the Debate Over Evolution
(a

site that believes “scientists, teachers, and students are under attack for questioning evolution” — [mjh: the cult

of paranoid victimhood])

CSC – Challenging Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and promoting Intelligent Design [mjh: The Discovery Institute is the center of their universe]

ID

Creationism and intelligent design are two widely different things

The Daily Sundial – Keep classroom free of

intelligent design by Sean Paroski

[C]reationism and intelligent design are two widely different things. Creationism is based

solely in the text of the Bible, taking as literal the account in genesis of God creating the world in six days. While creationism

advocates will often try to cite scientific “facts” to back up their thesis, creationism specifically rejects evolution as a scientific

theory (except as a modern phenomenon) as well as discounting geological, astronomical and other physical evidence for the age of the

universe.

Intelligent design differs significantly from creationism in several key aspects. First, it has no basis in any specific

religious tradition, unlike creationism’s reliance on the Bible.

Second, it does not reject scientific findings about the origins

of species, the age of the universe or other discoveries of the natural sciences. Intelligent design is primarily a critique of the

interpretation of the evidence derived from those sciences.

Intelligent designers claim that missing evidence in the fossil record

and the natural complexity of living creatures cannot be accounted for by the theory of evolution alone. They claim that such complexity

and missing evidence implies that the universe must have some supernatural designer that directs the development of organisms. This

“designer” is non-denominational and its hands-off approach to directing the universe bears little resemblance to the God of the Bible,

who is always involving himself in human affairs in one way or another.

Thus, the claims of scientists and anti-religion types

that intelligent design is a violation of separation of church and state is inaccurate since intelligent design does not advocate a

specific religious creed.

However, the argument that intelligent design is not science does have significant weight.

ID

the company one keeps

3 Comments

Letter: Proof of

intelligent design exists – Friday, 11/18/05

Unfortunately, the idea that intelligent design is religious faith in disguise is

simply wrong. It appeals to those with such faith, because it assures them their faith is in fact independently supportable by science.

But when they intrude with their beliefs upon the scientific arguments for or against intelligent design, the faithful are as wrong as

the scientists who dogmatically oppose it …

Intelligent design is about the fact that one can today determine, scientifically,

that the world was largely designed.

The real news is that this is possible because there is not merely a single, one-time design

of everything in the world. Whatever you may believe about an original Creation of All, the fact is that there was, less than twenty

thousand years ago, a deliberate redesign. According to the scientific evidence–of which mainstream scientists like Dr. Cornell are

ignorant, and disdaining to learn–not only the Earth but the entire solar system was remade. …

[Scientists] complain that there

are no articles showing evidence for design in the peer-reviewed literature, but that is because such articles are not allowed, by

official fiat. Readers need to know that is simply an incompetent stand for a scientist to take: You may not be able to prove God, but

you can demonstrate design of the world. I know. I’ve done it. And I am being suppressed, denied the opportunity to contribute knowledge

that would stop the current war of words over design, and show how intelligent design can – and must (if you want students to learn the

truth)- be presented in science class.

Dale Huffman
Gallatin, TX
—–

The End of the Mystery: The Design of the Gods – Lulu.com

I am

a professional research scientist in physics and mathematics. I submitted this article to the magazine New Astronomy, only to have the

online submission unceremoniously “removed by the editor”, without explanation. (I have in the past also sent letters announcing my

discoveries to Science magazine, but they too were ignored.) Modern science is broken; it is not confronting the evidence, it is not

seeking the truth. …..

[from] Finding the Design of the gods
by Harry Dale Huffman

The first light shone on the

design in 1996, when I discovered the location of Hyperborea, which the Greek poet Pindar described, around the time of the seventh

century BC, with these words: Neither by ship nor yet by land shall one find the wondrous road to the gathering place of the

Hyperboreans.

Hyperborea was no ordinary land, you see. It was a “blessed” land, in Greek myth, where the inhabitants celebrated

always, and “the dances of the girls, the twanging of lyres and sound of flutes are continually circling.” (Pindar again.) Above all,

“Hyper-borea” means “beyond north”, so its location was said to be “beyond the north”.

It turns out there is such a place, and if

you happen to pass by it, and remember as you do the above quotes, you’ll very likely find it, as I did. It is in the starry sky, near

the celestial north pole (CNP)

ID

know your enemies

The Wedge Strategy – Center for the Renewal of Science and

Culture

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western

civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative

democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal

idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. … This materialistic conception of

reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art….

The

cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. …

Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of

Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. …

[T]he Center explores how

new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case

for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs

policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism. …

FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY

The social

consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are

convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. …

We are

building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has

come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist

worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. …

Alongside a focus on

influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. …

The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design

theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific

social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.

GOALS

Governing Goals

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic

explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

* To see

intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design

theory.
* To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
* To see major new

debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year

Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
* To see design theory application in

specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology,

ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
* To see design theory permeate

our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

more

Antievolution: Features

AntiEvolution.org | The Critic’s Resource on AntiEvolution

AntiEvolution.org provides

concise and accurate information for those who wish to critically examine the antievolution movement.

Dump Duhbya

lying is good for business

Many people have forgotten that the first Executive Order Duhbya signed was to greatly restrict

public access to executive documents, even long after one’s term is over. It was a clear declaration of how secretive and paranoid this

administration, chockful of Nixon compatriots, would be.

Who leaked this document? We’ve been demanding this info for 5 years —

gone to court for it. Now it is handed over just in time to make these well-paid execs look like tools and fools. Thanks, leaker! mjh

Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force By Dana Milbank and Justin

Blum, Washington Post Staff Writers

A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President

Cheney’s energy task force in 2001 — something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week

by industry officials testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials

from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with

the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp.

and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not

participate “to my knowledge,” and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know. …

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who

posed the question about the task force, said he will ask the Justice Department today to investigate. “The White House went to

great lengths to keep these meetings secret, and now oil executives may be lying to Congress about their role in the Cheney task

force,” Lautenberg said. …

The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to

charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the

executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making “any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent

statement or representation” to Congress.

Dump Duhbya

Row over Plan B unearths suspicion of political manipulation

Republicans say whoever is in power pushes their own agenda. Sounds like the defense of a child or

schoolyard bully. Everywhere, Republicans are following Duhbya’s lead to change everything they can as quickly as they can, like

vandals. mjh

Row over Plan B unearths

suspicion of political manipulation
Congressional investigators are saying there is a suspicion that senior U.S. Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) officials may have decided to reject a politically sensitive request for over-the-counter sales of a “morning-after”

contraceptive months before agency scientists finished reviewing the scientific data.

In a report from the Government

Accountability Office (GAO) it was found that found the FDA’s May 2004 rejection of Barr Pharmaceuticals’ bid for the Plan B

contraceptive was “unusual,” because of the involvement of high-level managers.

The investigation requested by the congressional

Democrats say it provides evidence that opposition from political conservatives had swayed the FDA review.