Just So Stories

link here.

www.danspulpit.com

Regarding comments

I received another comment. The e-mailer was unclear as to what “TE” meant. I explained it and suggested that perhaps next time they might ask their question in the comment section of the post. The e-mailer said he/she didn’t want to ask a “stupid” question.

There are no “stupid” questions, and if one person wonders what I’m trying to say, I’m sure there are others wondering the same thing. Heck, for that matter, I may not even know what I’m trying to say. So, ask away.

And, if you don’t want anyone to know your name, just hit anonymous or make up a name. I don’t care.

Anyway, TE stands for ~Theistic Evolutionist~.

Some evolutionists believe that the entire universe originally sprang forth from ~nothing~. They do not believe there was a Designer involved, and they believe that everything in the Universe manifested from the same single cell (or whatever).

Theistic evolutionists believe the same thing, except they believe that there was a ~something~ involved (a Designer of sorts) which started the evolutionary process in motion, but that Designer cannot be detected through nature. Most TE’s believe that we can have a relationship with this Designer. Many Christians are TE’s, and most TE’s do not support the Intelligent Design movement.

There are different types of TE’s as well. Deists believe that the universe was started by some type of outside element (a god or whatever), but after the initial creation, He stepped out of the picture, and all that we see evolved on it’s own accord from that point on. The creator does not have further communication with us in any form, and we know nothing of Him/Her/Whatever.

There are other beliefs held by those under the label TE, but that’s a basic explanation.

One other thing about commenting. I am moderating the comments. The reason for that should be obvious, but if not, I’ll give some examples of what I won’t accept in the comment section.

If someone were to post a comment like, say...

“Jonathan Wells doesn’t know what he’s talking about”

I’m probably not going to post it, because I have no idea how to respond to that. The conversation that followed would probably look something like this:

“yes, he does.”

“no, he doesn’t.”

“yes, he does.”

“no, he doesn’t.”

etc., etc., etc.

The problem is that neither of us are learning anything, and it only adds to frustration. So, I’ll just bleep those comments off into space.

Also, if you feel it necessary to put me down, or get down right nasty, I’ll again just hit the ‘ol reject button. I’ve only had a couple rejects so far, so I don’t foresee a huge problem.

I like the comments because I don’t learn anything if I just sit here and talk to myself, so feel free. Just be nice please.

Thanks!!!

More on the 3.3 million year old australopithecus afarensis fossil find...

I found an interesting article at the Discovery Institute’s blog, Evolution News and Views.

Interesting, that the Seattle Times chose to print a misleading comparison of the fossil find and a human.



The actual comparison should look more like this:



Par for the course...

Seems there’s always a critic...

A lurker sent me a couple interesting comments the other day. I’m going to refer to the person who sent the e-mail as K.

K. took exception to the following paragraph from this post:

Let me give you the straight scoop here, there is nothing wrong with being an atheist. To each his own, but let’s not try to pretend that those mentioned above and many other scientists have a prior commitment to purely naturalistic evolutionary beginnings, and a strong aversion to anything that might represent the possibility of a Designer. Due to their philosophical outlook, they are not about to let a "Divine Foot in the door".

K. wondered why I used the words, “there is nothing wrong with being an atheist.”

My initial thought, which I threw back immediately, was that I don’t dislike or disassociate with people who don’t believe in God. I’m certainly not an atheist basher!

K. immediately replied that he/she was not either, but that is not what I had said. I had said “there is nothing wrong with being an atheist”.

I thought about that for a minute, and then realized that I should have worded that differently. My personal belief is that, yes, I certainly do disagree with atheism.

People who don’t believe in God, in my mind, are rejecting their own Creator. It would be like my son turning his back on me, and even though I still kept trying to reach him, he would not accept my love and guidance.

But, I don’t believe it is my place to judge an atheist. That is God’s area of expertise. The Bible is clear that we are not to judge those outside of the church:

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

That is why I steer clear of that type of thing. I do find myself in passionate discussions at times with ~other Christians~ regarding various issues of biblical interpretation, but I believe that it is always good to discuss our Christian faith and learn from others through dialogue that may sometimes feel a bit uncomfortable.

I have a real problem with various televangelists who are constantly bashing atheists or predicting harm to those who don’t follow God’s word. True, I believe there will be repercussions for those who reject Christ, but that will be determined by the maker Himself, not by some over zealous preacher.

K. also mentioned that I shouldn’t “take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”.

I was like...huh??

K. reminded me that exclamations like “Good Lord” and “holy crap” could certainly be replaced with something more appropriate. K. also wasn’t fond of the word “sucks”.

[sigh...]

My mouth does tend to get me in trouble at times, and K., I promise I’ll try to watch my language. That’s always been a bit of a challenge for me, but you’re absolutely right, and I’ll try to do better.

Oh, and I changed the wording of the questionable sentence as well. Here’s the revision, though I’m still not sure it’s exactly what I’m trying to say:

“I’ve got nothing against humanists or atheists, personally.”

Better now?

I just returned from the lecture at KU, where Judge Jones said...

...absolutely nothing regarding the Dover case last December. I drive to Lawrence expecting to hear the details of the trial from his viewpoint, and what does he give me?? No information whatsoever!!!

The entire lecture centered on his whining about the fact that he is (supposedly) not an activist judge. Basically, he told us he’s a victim of persecution by the conservatives. He even mentioned that he needed a US Marshall for a week after the trial. Good Lord....supposedly someone threatened him in some way. I have no idea why anyone would get that worked up over this case, but whatever.

He also informed us that students need to receive more education about the US Constitution, and how the court system works. He feels that will help eliminate negative comments about judicial activism, which he seems to think is non-existent.

I should have guessed that was what he was going to focus on. He’s been getting a lot of heat regarding his decision, not only from supporters of ID, but from other lawyers as well. From the book “Trapising into Evolution”:

The dogmatic tone of Judge Jones’ opinion is already attracting criticism from thoughtful scholars. Distinguished University of Chicago Law Professor Albert Alschuler, for one, has rebuked Judge Jones smearing ID proponents as Biblical fundamentalists:

“If fundamentalism still means what it meant in the early twentieth century...accepting the Bible as literal truth - the champions of intelligent design are not fundamentalists. They uniformly disclaim reliance on the Book and focus only on where the biological evidence leads. The court's response - “well, that's what they say, but we know what they mean” - is uncivil, and illustration of the dismissive and contemptuous treatment that characterizes much contemporary discourse. Once we know who you are, we need not listen. We’ve heard it all already.”

According to Alschuler, in Judge Jones’ eyes “Dover is simply Scopes trial redux. The proponents of intelligent design are guilty by association, and today’s yahoos are merely yesterday’s reincarnated.” Alschuler added that “proponents of intelligent design deserve the same respect” as evolutionists in the evaluation of their arguments, something they did not get from Judge Jones. Their ideas should be evaluated on their merits, not on presumed illicit motives. As Alschuler put it, “[f]reedom from psychoanalysis is basic courtesy.”

[Albert Alschuler, The Dover Intelligent Design Decision, Part 1: Of Motive, Effect, and History, The faculty blog university of Chicago Law School, (-Dec. 21, 2005), last visited Jan. 21, 2006)]

The lecture was scheduled for an hour and a half, but after a ~lengthy~ introduction, Jones spoke for only about 35-40 minutes. They took written questions for about 20 minutes and we were out of there 15 minutes early. Good grief, what a waste.

I’m still shocked that he said nothing about the case itself. NADA!

Here’s what I think happened. Jones said he ate dinner with the sponsors of the event before his lecture. He probably told them what he was going to cover (which was nothing), and they thought, “holy crap”, we’re going to have to get some information about the trial in there somewhere! That’s probably where the idea sprang forth for the tedious introduction.

Leonard Krishtalka, director of the Biodiversity Institute, and Victor Bailey, Director of the Hall Center for the Humanities, led the welcome and introduction. Krishtalka talked about the intent of the lecture series, and Bailey provided us with a short overview of Jones 139-page decision on the case. Of course, that was more of the same...ID is creationism in disguise, it’s religiously motivated, etc., etc.

Ugh....

Too much caffeine sucks...

Yup, those Monster drinks are killer. I drank one on my way to Lawrence to listen to Jones lecture. I figured I'd be so fired up afterwards about the content of his presentation that I'd need to sit down and rant a while. I find that writing clears my mind.

So here I sit, jacked up ready to vent, but Jones didn't give me much to rant about. He merely stated that he wasn't an activist judge.

Hmmm.... what to do. Can't sleep...

...so, I guess I'll comment on one thing that really irks me about this case. Jones declared in his 139-page decision that the Intelligent Design Movement is “religiously motivated”. ID is no more religiously motivated than Darwinism.

Intelligent Design certainly has religious ~implications~, but no more so than Darwinian evolution. Why you ask?? Well, let me tell you...

Darwinists are quick to point out that many of the vocal supporters of the Intelligent Design movement are Christians and that ID supports their faith beliefs.

Yet, let’s take a look at the the vocal movers and shakers pushing Darwinian evolution and doing everything in their power to make a mockery of the Intelligent Design movement.

First on deck we have Eugenie Scott, from the National Center for Science Education...

"NCSE is a nonprofit, tax-exempt membership organization working to defend the teaching of evolution against sectarian attack. We are a nationally-recognized clearinghouse for information and advice to keep evolution in the science classroom and "scientific creationism" out.

Sounds a bit militant, but whatever. Personally, I don’t support biblical creation or any other religious agenda being forced on the science classroom. Separation of church and state is a good thing for many, many reasons. But, for Eugenie, I think there is a bit more going on here.

She's a "Notable Signer" of the Humanist Manifest III, which makes broad theological claims that "humans are...the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing.”

So, she is an atheist and a humanist, which means that Darwinism supports her philosophical position that there is no God, and that “nature is self-existing”. After reading her biography, I see that she has received some interesting awards:

“...the Isaac Asimov Science Award from the American Humanist Association, the First Amendment Award from the Playboy Foundation, the James Randi Award from the Skeptic Society.”

Neato...can’t imagine why they are so fond of her science.

Shoot, she even commented in one interview:

"I have found that the most effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!"

Meaning that if she can convert a preacher to accepting darwinian evolution, she can get him to convert his entire flock. Interesting that she used the words “backward collar”. I wonder if those poor clergyman know what she is up to.

Or how about Barbara Forrest? Barbara was a witness for the plaintiff at the Dover trial, and she wrote the anti-ID book, Creationism’s Trojan Horse.

She serves on the Board of Directors of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association. They describe themselves as “an affiliate of American Atheists, and members of the Atheist Alliance International”.

NOSHA is also an affiliate of the Council for Secular Humanism which it describes as “North America’s leading organization for non-religious people.” And NOSHA’s links page boasts “the Secular Web,” who's mission is:

...to defend and promote metaphysical naturalism, the view that our natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself.”

Sounds darn near like the Christian creeds.

Then we have leading evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, who made the infamous admission that, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Dawkins clearly rejects God and believes the universe is a singularly random and meaningless place which arose without the aid of a designer. BTW, Dawkins will be speaking at KU October 16th. That should be a treat.

Let’s peruse a few other comments made by ardent evolutionists...

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promise of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

[Professor Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.]

Sounds like ‘ol Prof. Lewontin has his own “prior” commitment, yet all we ever hear from “mainstream science” is that those who don’t swallow the entire theory of evolution have a “prior” commitment to a supernatural God and Biblical creation. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

Steven Weinberg when he was addressing the “Freedom From Religion Foundation“ said...

“I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive to religious belief, and I’m all for that!” he said. The hope that science would liberate people from religion, he went on, is “one of the things that in fact has driven me in my life.” If science helps bring about the end of religion, he concluded, “it would be the most important contribution science could make.”

[Weinberg’s comments were reported in “Free People from superstition,” Freethought Today, April 2000]

Francis Crick and James Watson (double-helix structure of DNA), freely admit that anti-religious motivations drove their scientific work. “ I went into science because of these religious reasons, there’s no doubt about that,” Crick said in an interview. “I asked myself what were the two things that appear inexplicable and are used to support religious beliefs.” He decided the two things that support religion were “the difference between living and nonliving things, and the phenomenon of consciousness.” He then focused his research specifically at demonstrating a naturalistic view of both.

Religion is just so many “myths from the past,” Watson added during the same interview. The discovery of the double helix, he said, gives “grounds for thinking that the powers held traditionally to be the exclusive property of the gods might one day be ours.”

Then we have Michael Ruse who states that:

[Evolution is]“…a full-fledged alternative to Christianity…Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” [Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians. National Post (May 13, 2000). pB-3. Ruse makes the same argument in his most recent book, Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction?]

Ruse is absolutely right!! Evolution is a religion.

And, of course, we have our dear Professor PZ Myers at the University of MN who never misses a chance to diss Christians or anyone else who doesn’t agree with his “science”. It only take a few minutes to scan through some of the entries at his blogsite, Pharyngula, to see that the guy has a bit of a beef with Christianity and religion in general.

Last month I stumbled across one of his posts in which he was reviewing this article and the following chart:



The first words he typed regarding the chart were, “My first thought was, "Good, now how can we get those numbers higher?"

But, I still hold out hope for PZ. Why, just the other day he was supporting references to God in the Veggie Tales cartoons which have now hit network television. How very "tolerant" of him. Evidently, NBC is is trying to censor the word “God” in the popular kid’s show.

Then again, there was the time when he suggested that everyone sign a petition in order to get the Bible banned from being sold at Walmart. LOL...

Let me give you the straight scoop here. I've got nothing against humanists or atheists, personally. To each his own, but let’s not try to pretend that those mentioned above and many other scientists have a prior commitment to purely naturalistic evolutionary beginnings, and a strong aversion to anything that might represent the possibility of a Designer. Due to their philosophical outlook, they are not about to let a "Divine Foot in the door.”

I could not care less whether scientists are Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sun worshippers, or whatever. BUT, I do care when the "religiously motivated" card is used unfairly.

Okay, now that I have all that off my chest, I feel much better. Venting is so exuberating...

Frog boy

Somebody better tell that little guy that he's eating a very distant relative!!!

The T-Rex Cafe

My husband and I took our two boys to the new T-Rex Cafe at Legends in Kansas City this weekend.

This is one of the coolest attractions to the Legends area, in my opinion. Of course, we love Cabelas and tooling around the entire area, but the cafe was the highlight of our trip.

The second you walk in the door it’s like - WOW! The decor is outstanding. Right in front of you is a MASSIVE, colorful life size T-Rex roaring down at you, and from the ceiling are enormous lit planets adding ambience to the entire experience. There are approx. 3 large fish tanks with all types of exotic fish swimming in them. A wooly mammoth and her two babies peer down from the second floor where the ice age area of the cafe is located.

The main floor eating area is located around a large fish tank supporting an enormous octopus with moving tentacles swimming on top of it. There are brightly lit jelly fish hanging above some of the tables, and the back wall of the cafe resembles a moving lava spill.

Your kids can pick from a variety of plush dinosaur bodies which are then stuffed and designed to their liking (much like build a bear). There are all kinds of little gizmos to purchase, and one area of the cafe has a dino dig where the kids can dig for fossils.

I highly recommend a visit to the cafe. The food is a bit pricey, but very, very good. The entire experience gets an A+. Be sure to stop by the next time you’re in Kansas City.

Dunford quotes my e-mail

Mike Dunford over at The Questionable Authority pulled a section of my e-mail to Casey Luskin that was posted at the DI’s Evolution News and Views.

It's started a fairly interesting discussion over there. Check it out...

Evidently, he posted the same paragraph at the very pro-evolution blog, The Panda's Thumb. Yikes, pretty scary when you've got all those militant evolutionists considering your opinion.

I think I'm gonna go hide...

Fox to Offer Films for Christian Viewers

Hey, this is kind of cool....

Fox is planning to offer as many as a dozen family friendly movies a year and market them under the FoxFaith banner.

One of the films will be "Love's Abiding Joy," based on the Janette Oke book series. I’ve read most of her books and always thought they would make for great family movies.

Oh great, we’ve got books for the young evolutionist...

Check out this article from the Topeka Capital Journal: “Trilogy for kids traces our origins”

Really now....and, apparently these books can be found in the public school libraries? I wonder how many children’s books on biblical creation can be found there as well.

The author, Jennifer Morgan, gives more information about her work at her website, and it appears that she is a Universalist Unitarian.

This “Turtle Log” describes a traveling mission she was involved in during the year of 2000. What was their mission?

"Our mission: (1) To teach and preach the Great News of the Great Story and promote the Great Work in colleges, universities, churches, synagogues, retreat centers, and private and public schools across North America. (2) To network with and support others who are committed to a just, healthy, beautiful, and sustainably life-giving world for future generations of all species. Our message: The marriage of science and religion for personal and planetary wellbeing. Our vision: The clear and unmistakable emergence of the Ecozoic Era — i.e., a mutually enhancing human-Earth relationship — within our lifetimes. Our market: mainstream North Americans (especially young people) who have never heard The Great Story or who have not yet fully realized its magnificence. Our commitment: to trust that all our needs will be taken care of and to go wherever there is interest, regardless of a group or organization's ability to compensate us."

Now, this is interesting. Biblical creation stories are looked down upon because they might reflect a religiously motivated agenda by the teacher presenting the stories. Yet, clearly Jennifer Morgan has religious motivation as well. If you consider her involvement with the Universalist Unitarians and Connie Barlow, it is obvious that she has a religious agenda.

A few excerpts from the books are as follows:

The Universe's first letter to Earthlings, beginning with a reminder that, just like the 13-billion-year-old universe, we are 13 billion years old, too, because we are part of the universe.

The story begins with the birth of the universe. Dreaming of stars, grass and lions, the universe turned energy into the very first tiny particles. Then, into atoms of hydrogen.

Next came hydrogen globs, mother stars and galaxies, including our very own galaxy. Our mother star died in a supernova, cooling into the stardust Earthlings eventually were made of. Next came our sun and the planets, including "a burning red ball of molten stardust," our Earth."

The Universe tells the story of Earth, beginning with the formation of oceans and "that ancient living stew" that brought forth the very first Earthlings -- bacteria. Then came Eukaryote and finally plants, fungi, insects, reptiles and dinosaurs.

...after a great meteor hits Earth, and "little by little, land, sea and air began to shape the mammals to come." The Universe ends this magnificent trilogy by writing: "Our adventure has only just begun. There's so much still to come. Follow your dreams, my dear Earthlings. They are my dreams, too."

Sounds like a creation story for the parent who is teaching their child the religious beliefs of agnosticism.

I also have some news for Jennifer Morgan - evolutionists no longer support the primordial soup theory (“that ancient living stew”), and the rest of the “trilogy” sounds like an evolutionary fairy tale.

But then, that’s just my opinion...

Traipsing into Evolution

It’s been a year since the Dover, PA trial where Judge Jones dismissed Intelligent Design as being a scientific theory. Next Tuesday, Sept. 26th at 7:30pm, Judge Jones will be giving a lecture at the KU Student Union regarding his views of the trial.

After reading about this trial from the perspectives of both evolutionists and supporters of ID, it is clear that Judge Jones’ opinion was obviously biased against Intelligent Design before the trial ever began.

Michael Behe, lead witness for the defense, has written a detailed response to Judge Jones’ opinion. Behe is a Discovery Institute Fellow who authored the book, Darwin’s Black Box. In his response to the decision, he offers powerful examples of Judge Jones bias in this case.

If you missed the details of the Dover trial, you can read through the transcripts for yourself.

If you are interested in further viewpoints from supporters of Intelligent Design, read the book Traipsing into Evolution.

This book gives an overview of the misconceptions about ID which surfaced at the trial, and covers the issues that Judge Jones misrepresented regarding both the facts and the law.

A Funny

Amen to that!!

Truth in Science

It appears that the United Kingdom is open to teaching the criticisms of Darwinian evolution. They also allow for discussions of Intelligent Design.

Truth in Science was launched this month in order to support teachers and parents as to how to handle these topics.

Scientists uncover ancient skeletal remains

The skull of a 3-year old supposed female Australopithecus afarensis was found in Ethiopia in 2000 and has recently been plastered all over the media as another "missing link" between ape and man.

Could be...

But, I think a critical lens in which to view these type of discoveries is always appropriate.

There are many links that one can peruse to get the scoop on the fossil remains.

But something to bear in mind is that the media, for some reason or other, loves to embellish on these type of finds.

As the website Truth in Science reminds us:

Anyone reading the scientist's reports in Nature in detail finds a rather different story. Even the sex of the fossil is open to question: it is a "presumed female" based on the shape of its teeth. The fossil's anatomical features do not "lie squarely in between those of humans and other apes". The morphology, especially of the upper body is more similar to Chimpanzees and Gorillas than Humans. The brain size is roughly a quarter of what would be expected for a human of similar age.

The lower parts of the fossil are apparently more human-like than the other parts. These were mainly found separately to the upper body, and as the journal notes, "the pelvis, the lowest part of the back and parts of the limbs "are still missing". Furthermore, the only foot which has been found is still largely encased in sandstone, and requires months of painstaking work before its description is possible. At present we only have a limited ability to assess the human-likeness of the creature's lower half.

Though not clear in some news reports, the question of whether the ape walked on two feet or swung through trees is still debated. A commentary in Nature notes: "There remains a great deal of controversy regarding the posture and locomotion of A. afarensis. Most researchers accept that it could stand upright and walk on two feet, but whether it could climb up and move through trees is still disputed."

A concern of Truth in Science is that excellent scientific research is presented by mainstream media with far too much speculation and claimed certainty. Sometimes this occurs even in news articles within scientific journals. For anyone who does not have time to go back and read the original research articles, it is difficult to separate fact from speculation, resulting in false impressions of what is and is not proven by scientific evidence.

I've only seen the skull of this new find, but here are the bones of the famous "Lucy" fossil:

It's still unclear to me how they determine all that they proclaim about these fossils by examining a few bones that many times are not even found close together.

sigh...

I guess I'll have to do some digging to get more answers.

Ken Miller at KU

My e-mail to Casey Luskin at the Discovery Institute was featured at Evolution News and Views on Sept. 20. Content below:

Ken Miller gave a lecture at KU a few weeks ago titled, "God, Darwin, and Design: Creationism's Second Coming". He was first at bat in the "Difficult Dialogues at The Commons” series of lectures.

The thing that bothered me the most about Miller’s presentation was that he repeatedly stated that "In ‘99, the Kansas Board of Education took evolution out of the standards”. He even said at one point that they were planning to “take evolution out of the curriculum”. That is blatantly untrue.

I am very familiar with how the ‘99 fiasco went down. I’ve read portions of the ’99 standards, the standards prior to ‘99, and the new standards. Before ‘99, evolution was only mentioned in approximately two lines of the standards. No one “took evolution out of the standards” in ‘99 because prior to ‘99 it had never been included. That certainly didn’t mean that evolution was not taught in Kansas!!

Both the board and the standards committee recommended a set of standards. The standards committee added all kinds of macroevolutionary statements to the set of standards they recommended, but the board preferred to let the districts handle how those issues would be addressed so they did not include as much evolutionary content in the set of standards that they recommended. But, certainly, no one proposed to “take evolution out of the curriculum”. That is a blatantly false accusation. Obviously, that would be a big deal to Miller if it actually occurred because he is the guy writing the textbooks!

Miller made it sound as though ID is a done deal now that Judge Jones has declared ID creationism. He was very clever in how he presented his case to the college crowd. He worked them just right, with lots of humor and derogatory comments about Discovery Institute fellows. He poked fun of Johnson, Dempski, Behe, and others ~at length~. This seemed like bragging and gloating, and was most uncollegial.

He also said that the bacterial flagellum has been determined to have arisen through evolutionary processes. He proclaimed that Behe’s book is outdated because of this fact. This is sheer nonsense, as I’ve read the responses from the DI regarding this bogus claim.

In the last 20 minutes, Miller finally confronted the difficult question. How does one accept Darwinism and hold to a particular religious faith? He gave Dawkins rave reviews and declared his science to be impeccable and his books outstanding.

But.... Miller tells us.... the difference between he and Dawkins is that Dawkins believes the universe is a singularly random and meaningless place which arose without the aid of a designer, and Miller holds the opposing view. That was pretty much it. No explanation whatsoever as to why he believes a designer exists, especially in light of the fact that he does not acknowledge that we can observe design in nature.

So essentially, both Dawkins and Miller see no evidence of design, and their philosophy as to how evolution works is the same, yet Dawkins follows that evidence and declares the world is without a designer and Miller claims to believe there is a designer. Bizarre. So Miller apparently, like most TE’s, holds to his religious beliefs on faith ~alone~. That’s the problems with TE’s - they can give you no reason whatsoever as to why they believe what they do in regard to their religious beliefs other than they take it all on faith.