How P.Z. Myers Does Science?
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Atheism, Darwinism, Evolution
A few weeks ago PZ defended his religion of Darwinism in the post Darwin and the vermiform appendix. PZ Myers is a Darwinian Prior, who refuse to allow silly things like facts stand in the way of his worship of atheism. So when a lot of press starts to suggest evolution might be in error, PZ the Darwinian Prior, must spin the fairy tale once again.
Where they go awry, though, is in trying to pick a fight with a dead man, and making that the focus of their public relations. … Charles Darwin is dead. Your research can’t be very cogent if your approach to drum up interest is to dig up a 120-year-old corpse and kick it around; is there anyone alive who disagrees with you who can put up a more informative and entertaining struggle? What this does is pick this one fellow as a symbol of the whole edifice of evolutionary theory
I agree. Darwin is dead and no one should make him the symbol of the whole edifice of evolutionary fairy tale theory. I mean only a crazy person would make such a big deal about a dead guy right? A rational and smart scientist like PZ would never make such a big deal about a 120 year old corpse who does not have very cogent research to science, right? Hey, PZ do you know the Darwin corpse worshipper from Fairyngula who said this?
Get out and celebrate the 200th anniversary of the birth of one of the most important scientists of all time, Charles Darwin, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of one of the most important books in biology, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. It’s that day!
Atheist Darwinian Bigot
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Atheism, Darwinism
I know I am being redundant with the post title.
Pixie’s Misrepresents Behe on Common Descent
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Atheism, Dstortions
This post is created to hold the OT comments from Methodological Naturalism: Is it Necessary for Science?
Its All About the Evidence…Evidently!
Posted by DonaldM | Filed under Atheism, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Theology
In many discussions across the blogoshere about the existence of God or supernatural entities, the claim is often made that there’s no reason to think that such things exist because there simply is “no evidence”. Those who do think such entities exist are either “delusional” a la Richard Dawkins, or holding such beliefs “without evidence”. In either case, the theist has somehow failed in his or her epistemic duties to retain such beliefs, especially in our modern, scientific world.
But what precisely is the problem? Is it really a case of “no evidence”, meaning that no observation or phenomenon has ever or could ever provide evidence for the existence of God?
If that is what is meant, it would seem to be reasonable to ask for evidence that such a claim is true. But what that evidence would even look like isn’t at all clear. Or maybe what is meant is that there may be some observations that could be seen by some as evidence for the existence of God, but that there are no known principles that can connect that evidence to the conclusion. In its stronger forms, it is added that no one has ever or will ever know of such principles. What evidence there is for such a claim isn’t clear either. Read the rest of this entry »
Methodological Naturalism: Is it Necessary for Science?
Posted by DonaldM | Filed under Atheism, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Philosophy
I’ve recently had the “privilege” of discussing some of the implications of so-called methodological naturalism (MN) on one or two blogs. For Darwinists, especially Darwinists who take philosophical naturalism (PN) as true, MN is an absolute necessity for scientific practice.
Thus MN becomes an extension of PN, and has the effect of making science a correlate of PN. Now, many defenders of MN would argue that isn’t the case at all and that MN is quite separate from PN and in no way implies its truth or even demands that PN be followed. But is that possible? Given what MN says and how it operates within science, is there a principled way to distinguish between it and full-blown PN?
I don’t think there is. Read the rest of this entry »
Prominent Darwinist commits suicide
Posted by scordova | Filed under Atheism
Clark Adams was on the board of directors of Internet Infidels, the organization that hosts the infamous “swamp” (the infidels creation/evolution discussion board).
It was the swamp creatures the heroic ID proponents and creationists have fought on the internet in various places for many years, and these battle continue to this day…
But now, one of the Darwinsits generals in the person of Clark Adams falls on his owns sword in the middle of battle!
At first I was about to seriously gloat that yet another Darwinist was vanquished. He killed himself in a manner thoroughly consistent with his pointless Darwinian world view. But alas, I find the passing of this particular enemy to be an unhappy event…
Read the rest of this entry »
Atheist Bigots Abound
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Atheism, Darwinism, Intelligent Design
While not every Darwinist is an atheist, just about every atheist is a Darwinist. So don’t tell me that there is no connection between ID, Darwinism and Atheism.
Thank you to EN&V for bringing this bigotry to our attention and another demonstration of atheist morality.
Chronicle of Higher Education Unearths New Evidence in Support of Gonzalez, But Tries to Discount It
Iowa State’s Spokesman Tells Another Whopper about University’s Tenure Standards
U.S. Senator Expresses Alarm Over Denial of Tenure to Gonzalez at Iowa State
Key Developments in Gonzalez Tenure Denial Case, May 14-19
Darwinists Spread Misinformation about Guillermo Gonzalez’s Denial of Tenure
ISU Faculty Admit ID Played Role in Gonzalez Tenure Denial
Intellectually Fulfilled Theism
Posted by derudo | Filed under Atheism, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Theology
Isn’t it interesting that 19th century (the great “death of God” era) Darwinian “science” made it possible for Dawkins to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist, but that late 20th century science has made faith and theism more rational and reasonable than ever before in human history (in my opinion)? It’s an interesting turn of events. The “science” in which Dawkins put his atheistic faith turned out to be bogus.
It turns out that the universe did not always exist, and that it began in a flash of light (high-frequency gamma rays, but that’s electromagnetic radiation, just like light, only much more highly energetic). And who would have expected in Darwin’s time that life was not fundamentally based on chemistry, physics, and probability, but on information, information processing, and nano-technology super-machines?
Paul had it all figured out 2,000 years ago when he pointed out in the book of Romans that we are without excuse to disbelieve, because God has made Himself evident in things that are made (i.e., designed), and these things are all around us, especially us, who are fearfully and wonderfully made.
ID, Darwinism, and Divine/Fallen Human Uniqueness
Posted by derudo | Filed under Atheism, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Theology
Dear Teleological Folks,
I posted the following over at UncommonDescent.com but it is undoubtedly long lost in the comments. I thought it might be of interest here. As some of you may know, I used to be a militant, Dawkins-style atheist. All that changed in 1994 after I bought my five-year-old daughter a cartoon video entitled The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. Everything went downhill from there as I apostatized from my former religion of atheism. 
(Yes, it is a religion!)
***
The gap between humans and all other forms of life on the planet — in so many categories that one would have to write many books on the subject — is so profound that it represents the ultimate discontinuity in nature, which is characterized not by seamlessness, but by discontinuities. This is the antithesis of Darwinian philosophy.
As a former atheist, I would suggest that the great divide is not between Catholics and Protestants, but between materialists and those who recognize the uniqueness of humankind (this includes our great capacity for good, and our great capacity for evil). It is only by recognizing our divine origin — which seems increasingly difficult to deny, in my view — that we have any hope of cultivating the good and suppressing the evil. But this requires brutal self-honesty, which is antithetical to the fallen part of our nature referenced above.
These are ultimate issues, and are ultimately the only ones that really matter, because they affect and reflect upon all areas of our lives, which is why the (ID/Darwinism) debate is so heated.
Richard Dawkins Gives Humility Lessons
Posted by DonaldM | Filed under Atheism, Humor, Theology
In a howling funny ironic letter to the editor of the London Times our favorite foil Richard Dawkins tries to commit humility while accusing theologian Alistari McGrath of hubris and dogamtism. After picking myself up off the floor where I was rolling in laughter, I thought I’d share this little tid-bit with you all here at TB. I don’t know whether to file this under “humor” or “sarcasm”. Either will do. Here’s a little tid-bit from RD’s (humble) letter: Read the rest of this entry »
SNIP SNIP If You Disagree With Dawkins
Posted by DonaldM | Filed under Atheism, Darwinism, Philosophy
As if we needed any more evidence of just how disingenuous Richard Dawkins is, check out this little tidbit I got from a friend of mine.
Richard Dawkins: 4 December 2006
Richard Dawkins You Ask The Questions
Question: Why have you not engaged in public debate with Alister McGrath, Mary Midgley, Michael Ruse, Keith Ward, or indeed anyone else who would present you with a serious challenge? JAMES RADFORD, By e-mail
RD: The producers of my Channel 4 documentary [Root of All Evil?] invited the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and the Chief Rabbi to be interviewed by me. All declined, doubtless for good reasons. I don’t enjoy the debate format, but I once had a public debate with the then Archbishop of York, and The Observer quoted the verdict of one disconsolate clergyman as he left the hall: “That was easy to sum up – Lions 10, Christians nil.” Read the rest of this entry »
Torturing Muslims for Buddha
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Atheism
IMHO, Joy is one of the brightest minds I know among Internet personalities. Her latest post on “New Atheist” Sam Harris is spectacular. I will refrain from making any comments, just read it if you haven’t yet. What a great find! 
Atheism, Not Science Verses Religion
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Atheism, Darwinism
I am going to offend a few people who read this blog. My intention really is not to offend anyone. I am not being deliberately provocative. I am simply worried. I am going to worrying out loud. I am going to deal with belief, specifically the problem of religious belief. Because I happen to think how we deal with religious belief, or fail to criticize the belief of other human beings at this moment has more to do with the maintenance of civilization than anything else that is in our powers to influence. Our world has been Balkanized by incompatible religious dogmas. We have Atheists against Christians against Jews. The books themselves make incompatible claims. We have this founding notion that Darwin wrote one of our texts. Unfortunately we have many such books on hand. I see no reason to survive our religious differences indefinitely. The fact that a few short years from now, you will be able to sit in a cave in Afghanistan and with your thousand-dollar laptop, you will essentially have a supercomputer that can kick off its genetic algorithms, its malicious code, to the rest of society. You would be able to buy this malicious code from some atheist hackers here in the U.S. This alone makes this Balkanization of our world, the separate moral identities, the fact we are not identified just merely as human beings but we are Atheist and Muslims. It makes it untenable. Read the rest of this entry »
Eugenie Scott in Kansas
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Atheism, Darwinism
I think most of our readers here would have read this from Mike Gene already. But just for the record here is nice catch by him, Myers Attacks Scott. Enjoy!
BTW, I am still holding my breathe for this dream job.
PZ Myers’ Review of Darwin’s Deadly Legacy
Posted by teleologist | Filed under Atheism, Darwinism
PZ Myers is for the most part an honest atheist. He worships and mimics Dawkins for his hate speech. Read the rest of this entry »
