news aggregator

First Things is a magazine I like and find interesting. Just recently they have come out with a criticism of intelligent design by philosopher-scientist Stephen Meredith. Howard Ahmanson

A major journal observes that key assumptions of the neo-Darwinian synthesis are being overturned. Casey Luskin http://www.discovery.org/p/188

It rhymes with "merchants of death." How is that for fair, honest, scientific commentary? Donald McLaughlin http://www.discovery.org/p/611

Even staunch evolutionist Hank Campbell at Science 2.0 says: "It is the story of Bruno as if it were written by a blogger on some 'free thought' site." Casey Luskin http://www.discovery.org/p/188

"Your policy banning professors from expressing their views on intelligent design raises many troubling questions." Evolution News & Views

I guess I am a theistic evolutionist when it comes to waterfalls. Granville Sewell

Three unexpected instances of coding have been found in the living world, supporting ID's focus on information in nature. Evolution News & Views

The materialist bias of the producers, editors, and writers of Cosmos is so complete that they couldn't be bothered even to check Wikipedia. Jay W. Richards http://www.discovery.org/p/9

It seems like nowadays every Hollywood entertainer needs his own policy on science education. Kelley J. Unger

You have probably heard that our DNA, the stuff that makes us human, is only 1% different from chimps. Ann Gauger http://www.biologicinstitute.org/people

With an introduction and approbation from President Obama, no less, the new Cosmos updates Carl Sagan's famous franchise. Here's the result. Casey Luskin http://www.discovery.org/p/188

You may wish to have access to the antidote handy before grappling with the ailment itself. David Klinghoffer http://www.discovery.org/p/209

Post by fnxtr
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 12 2014,07:25)   Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 12 2014,16:34)   Quote (sparc @ Mar. 11 2014,23:46)       Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:

Liars For Darwin

is running.
If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
It worked for L. Ron Hubbard.  

And he didn't even get the theology degree.
Hubbard? Of course he only used the tools of theology sycophancy and greed the rest were sheep & collateral damage.
Whereas ID, on the other hand... um...

Post by k.e..
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 12 2014,16:34) Quote (sparc @ Mar. 11 2014,23:46)   Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:

Liars For Darwin

is running.
If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
It worked for L. Ron Hubbard.  

And he didn't even get the theology degree.
Hubbard? Of course he only used the tools of theology sycophancy and greed the rest were sheep & collateral damage.

Post by midwifetoad
UD conducts a debate against an invisible opponent.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....allenge

Post by CeilingCat
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 11 2014,23:46)   Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:

Liars For Darwin

is running.
If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
It worked for L. Ron Hubbard.  

And he didn't even get the theology degree.

Post by k.e..
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 12 2014,07:46) Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:

Liars For Darwin

is running.
If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
Demski not a good enough speaker? Doesn't he have a Sunday school class weekend child minding gig?

Post by sparc
Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:

Liars For Darwin

is running.
If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.

Post by Glen Davidson
Quote Quote    This is all no great surprise. Why on earth should we expect that a theory drawn up 80 or so years ago will remain inviolable today? As I am sure Darwin expected, evolution is complex and doesn’t have a single operative principle, although obviously natural selection is a big part of it. (I need to be careful what I say here – one ticking off I got was from a biologist who was unhappy that I had over-stressed natural selection at the molecular level, which I freely confess was a slight failure of nerve – I have found that saying such things can induce apoplexy in folks who see the shadows of creationism everywhere.) My complaint is why this seemingly obvious truth gets so little airplay in popular accounts of genetics and evolution. I’m still puzzled by that.

Ball apparently doesn’t realize that Darwinism is the creation story of new atheism, and must therefore be held inviolate.

Yes, that's why such sentiments appear in prominent science journals, blogs, and in the responses we make the grotesque ignorance of UD posts.

No, wait, it's the IDiots who have to invent an inviolate "Darwinism" for "atheism," and are too stupid even to notice the difference between "Darwinism" and "Neodarwinism."

Better than dealing with what science actually says, the evidence, or anything like the truth, of course.

Glen Davidson

Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
DI EN&V:

  Quote
But there's one problem: Bruno's execution, troubling as it was, had virtually nothing to do with his Copernican views. He was condemned and burned in 1600, but it was not because he speculated that the Earth rotated around the sun along with the other planets. He was condemned because he denied the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and transubstantiation, claimed that all would be saved, and taught that there was an infinite swarm of eternal worlds of which ours was only one. The latter idea he got from the ancient (materialist) philosopher Lucretius. Is it any surprise, then, that, as a defrocked Dominican friar denying essential tenets of Catholic doctrine and drawing strength from the closest thing to an atheist in the Roman world, he might have gotten in trouble with the Inquisition? Yet a documentary series about science and our knowledge of the universe fritters away valuable airtime on this Dominican mystic and heretic, while scarcely mentioning Copernicus, the Polish guy who actually wrote the book proposing a sun-centered universe.


and

  Quote
Neil deGrasse Tyson does include a few hedges. While wandering the streets of modern-day Rome, he admits that Bruno wasn't a scientist and that his view of a sun-centered solar system was a "lucky guess." And during the animated dramatization of Bruno's sentence, the dark and menacing judge finds the brave Dominican guilty not just of being a Copernican, but of various theological trivialities which are never otherwise mentioned or explained. Despite these hints at nuance, not one viewer in a thousand could miss the real message: Christianity has been the enemy of science, and its henchmen tried to kill off the first brave souls who ventured a scientific thought.


From the Cosmos narration by Tyson:

  Quote
Giordano Bruno lived in a time when there was no such thing as the separation of church and state, or the notion that freedom of speech was a sacred right of every individual. Expressing an idea that didn't conform to traditional belief could land you in deep trouble. Recklessly, Bruno returned to Italy. Maybe he was homesick, but still he must have known that his homeland was one of the most dangerous places in Europe he could possibly go. The Roman Catholic Church maintained a system of courts known as the Inquisition, and its sole purpose was to investigate and torment anyone who dared voice views that differed from theirs. It wasn't long before Bruno fell into the clutches of the thought police.


The DI complains that Bruno wasn't killed for his views on cosmology alone. But the point that Tyson clearly laid out in Cosmos was that disagreeing with "traditional belief" could be, and sometimes was, fatal. I don't see any workaround for the lead-up that Cosmos *actually* used, rather than the one the DI would like people to think that they used. People could, and did, end up paying the ultimate penalty for expressing views that were not entirely compatible with "traditional belief". And the grounds upon which death could be served up were sometimes incredibly narrow. Regardless of whether the DI thinks Bruno was a negligible non-entity in the history of science or not, his death stands as a significant event in the annals of religious intolerance, just as Cosmos rightly pointed out.

Well, we've long known that the DI couldn't be troubled to read things for comprehension that they critique (see here for details), but now they can't even watch a TV show?