Quinn/Dawkins transcript

Here is the transcript of the interview with Quinn and Dawkins on the Ryan Tubridy Show.

I have officially had enough of the negative campaigning

I'm afraid if I hear or read one more campaign add, I'm going to become physically ill. And, if I hear anything more about stem cell research or abortion, I'm going to scream loud enough that I will be heard for miles.

I will now don my "politics suck" t-shirt until elections are over...

'Politics SUCK, I'm a disgruntled voter and I approve this message.'

Cocaine??!

Okay, I’ll admit that I have a serious love for these new energy drinks on the market....my favorite being the Monster drink.

But, check out this new one. It’s called Cocaine. What in the world were the makers of this drink thinking??? I guess it’s already been pulled from the shelves of 7-Elevens.

I mean look at that can! The word Cocaine is spelled out in what looks like lines of white powder, and it's marketed as “the legal alternative“. This just seems wrong on so many levels.

Evidently the caffeine content is off the charts. Some of these energy drinks simply cannot be good for us.

Man, I need to find another crutch to keep me awake during the day. Perhaps more sleep versus staying up all night blogging might do the trick?

Is an “exodus” from public schools wise?

Last week, I ran across this article from the Christian Newswire.

From the article:

The call for an “exodus” from the public schools continues to build momentum within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).

...The Exit Strategy Resolution is based on Dr. Albert Mohler’s recommendation in a 2005 op-ed article that, in light of the spiritual, moral, and academic decay in the government schools, Southern Baptists develop an exit strategy from the public schools. Dr. Mohler is President of the SBC’s flagship seminary, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, and is also one of the SBC’s leading theologians.

Hmmm...my first thought was that I’m not sure this is the best idea. There are many very good public schools, yet I understand the concern that at some schools, we are seeing spiritual, moral and academic decay, especially at the university level.

My fear is that if Christians start pulling their children out of the public schools to send them to private schools, we may be causing an even more daunting division between those of various worldviews. It seems as though this would display an elitist attitude. But, the alternative is to throw our lambs out to the wolves and hope they survive.

I feel very strongly that students who are subjected to evolution as a basis for our existence along with secular religion and philosophy of religion classes are being set up for disaster.

Most religion classes at public universities are taught by agnostics in order to ensure that no particular ideology is imposed on the students (as if agnosticism or atheism isn't an ideology itself). KU is a classic example of this. We are all aware of the Mirecki episode. If you are not familiar with this fiasco, please read the link carefully.

Mirecki commented that:

But the religious-studies department may not be the healthiest environment for any kind of retreat: “The majority of my colleagues here in the dept[ment] are agnostics or atheists, or they just don’t care,” Mirecki wrote in explaining, correctly, that it wasn’t the job of the department to make converts. “If any of [the other professors] are theists, it hasn’t been obvious to me in the 15 years I've been here.”

So, our students are taught that all religions have similar concepts and that they all boil down to mythical beliefs held by various groups of people for whatever reasons. I took one of those courses in college and it made quite an impact, but that’s another story.

From the Christian newswire:

Anyone who thinks that a few hours of youth group and church will have more influence on a child's faith and worldview than 40 to 50 hours a week of public school classes, activities, and homework is simply not being honest with himself.

This is true, and that is why it is vitally important to teach our kids not only ~what~ we believe, but ~why~ we believe it. If we send our kids off to college without giving them evidence and reasons why we believe what we do, then there is a good chance that they will graduate from college and reject their Christian faith at the same time. We base our Christian beliefs on faith, but the basis for our faith is based on facts that can and, in my opinion, should be investigated.

For examples of this, start your kids out with Lee Strobel’s, "The Case for Christ, student edition". Then show them the DVD of Strobel’s "Case for a Creator". Before sending them off to college, have them read Frank Turek and Norm Geisler’s, "I Don’t have enough Faith to be an Atheist".

Frank Muncaster has written a series of booklets, titled "Examine the Evidence". These booklets lay out the reasons why the Christian faith is based upon facts. Information regarding biblical manuscript reliability, along with archeological, prophetical, statistical, and historical data supporting biblical facts are provided. Josh McDowell’s A Ready Defense is also an excellent source. There are many more along these lines, but those mentioned above provide a great starting point.

Parents also need to become more active in their church life (vs. being a Sunday morning church goer), and encourage their kids to become involved in activities and biblical instruction so that they are equipped to answer questions when non-believers question their faith.

If we work hard within our churches to equip our children with the answers to the questions coming from non-believers, perhaps we’ll find that our children are persuading the non-believers toward faith in Christ rather than the opposite occurring.

[Yikes, after writing those last few paragraphs, I’m mildly concerned that Richard Dawkins is going to send out the secret atheist police to put a stop to my attempt to teach my children the truth.]

From the Christian newswire:

Roger Moran states, “Although changing the hearts and minds of people is often a slow process, attitudes about how we educate our children are changing within Southern Baptist life. Increasingly we are recognizing that if we are going to profess the name of Christ, then our lives should be a testimony to authentic Biblical Christianity. Yet, how can we expect our children to have that testimony when they are “trained up” in secular public schools to have a secular mindset that excludes the acknowledgement of God and the Word of God at every point?

We need to work harder at equipping our kids with answers. After all, isn’t our calling to spread the good word to all nations? Our children have a marvelous opportunity to do that during their school hours, and by that I don’t mean handing out Bibles and shoving their beliefs down their friend's throats. I mean through their attitudes and the way they live, and when they are asked about their faith or their faith is being questioned in class, they can speak with conviction about the truth that they find in scripture.

Hopefully, our kids will be the persuaders versus the ones being persuaded to reject their faith, though it doesn’t always work that way. One word....prayer.

Email from a reasonable Kansan

I received an interesting e-mail from a fellow reasonable Kansan the other day. I was given permission to post it below. The email was in response to this post and the comments that followed.


Excellent FTK,

We should give you the recognition Drudge has received for changing people's perception and incorporate it into the new media since the old media has done such an abominable job.

In regards to Jeremy's repeated position that he reiterates on his 7:02 response:

"And, again, I contend that we have a difference in definition. It is not “new” information that is added, but information that has been granted success from pre-existing elements. Nothing new has been added."

And when that gene copy mutates, then what? You have a gene that did not previously exist, one that can potentially produce a novel protein. This is one way that evolution of new traits can occur."

Are those “new” traits actually greater complexity that would permit an organism foresight to develop techniques to protect them from new environmental hazards? Many environmental hazards have a history of occurring quickly. We have a pre-existing genetic capability to withstand a certain amount of change in conditions (like up to 8 degrees change in body temperature), but can we evolve to cope with extreme conditions? I'd find it interesting to break down how much science can be applied to their belief. Jeremy does list symbiotic transfer among his descriptors, but be aware that other evolutionists say there isn’t much chance in what many of the evolutionists claim as enough genetic variation to bring about macroevolution—Margulis and Sagan, in their book, Acquiring Genomes, argue from a evolution position that only through symbiotic exchange of genetic information in soil microbes could you possibly get enough exchange of genetic information to bring about the changes that has to occur in order for evolution to proceed. They also state, p. 28,
That Darwin invented, in the end, a Lamarckian explanation—his "pangenesis" hypothesis to explain how heritable variations arise—tends to be forgotten, as described in Mayr's book (1982). By his reckoning, "gemules," theoretical particles borne by all living beings and subject to experience during the lifetime of their bearers, send representatives into the offspring of the next generation. Darwin's view, scarcely distinguishable from Lamarck's, was absolutely a statement for "the inheritance of acquired characteristics." Ultimately, however, Darwin equivocated on where these "sports," "mutants," or "heritable variants" came from. He simply did not know.

Going a bit further with terms, when saying no “new” genetic information, one could say no “greater complexity” genetic information is added to the genome, because like Jeremy says, they can show that genes mutate and recombine, but I have yet to find any evidence that the genes have recombined to form greater complexity to enable an organism to speak or acquire a conscience. There isn't science empirically documenting this kind of complex reformatting of genetic information, however, reading Jeremy and Jack’s comments makes me think that they think that since science can empirically show mutations, recombination of genes, and lateral gene transfer, it should be permitted to hypothetically deduct complex reformatting of genetic information. I didn’t bookmark it well enough to return to it now, but when I looked this up a year or two ago, there were evolutionists claiming hypothetical-deductive science several hundreds of years ago opposing empiricists Bacon, Kepler, and Newton. And how should science treat the empirical evidence of a frog maintaining its DNA for as long as frogs have lived and the empirical data on DNA polymerase, DinB DNA polymerase, and the corrective function of what was earlier thought of as “junk” DNA.

The question we all ask is how did the complexity we have today, come about? Do we defer to the science textbook or do we include other sources to answer the question. The problem with science today, they have convinced themselves that we are not endowed with unalienable rights from our Creator as it states in our Declaration of Independence and Newt so succinctly points out in his new book—that is what makes us American—we’ll end up giving up our rights when we no longer have: We the People—forming (a more perfect union) government that gets its’ authority from God. So we in America are left with a big question, do we subject our future to science or do we subject our future to God? The left-wing media and too many Republicans and especially Democrats, don’t want to subject our future to God, and that is why sitcoms, news stories, and too many other venues support gay rights, Darwinism, abortion, relinquishing family authority, and other God deleting practices to gain ground in our culture—and if you take a stand against these practices—you get politically tarred and feathered.

What’s really been working on me is the consciousness and awareness of God that this country was known for and now it is rapidly trying to erase that consciousness and awareness—and what better way to erase all that than to believe that we came from a primordial slime that didn’t need a God to breathe life into it.

You taking those guys to task on making Kansas sound like a hick state because of the misinformation was awesome and you should be recognized as new media for this country.

Thanks again and have a great day,

Sebelius is at it again...

From an article in today’s Topeka Capital Journal:

The candidates also disagree on whether the State Board of Education should retain its power of education policy, with Sebelius saying again Monday that she would support a change.

The governor said the current school board isn't accountable to taxpayers, parents and business leaders. Its 10 members are elected and pick a commissioner to run the department of education.

"Frankly it has become somewhat of an embarrassment as I travel across the country. People often know about the work of our school board -- and they don't think very highly about it. It is not very good economic development," she said. "I'd like to see a school board that works more closely with the Legislature."

She means she would like the board under the complete control of a liberal governor. Many people think very highly of our school board, but others have had the wool pulled over their eyes by the media. If the truth regarding the issues the board votes on were circulating throughout the state versus the misinformation being pushed by the media, the Governor would hear more praise for the board's actions.

Barnett, a state senator from Emporia, said he would make some changes to the board, including giving it an odd, rather than even, number of members to avoid tie votes. But he said he supports the current system and doesn't want to disenfranchise Kansans any further on the issue of education.

"I do not support taking the right to vote away from people, and to me this is a fundamental issue," Barnett said. "We may or may not like some of the discussions, some of the decisions, but the system works."

Thank goodness someone is using the good sense God gave him. Kansans should have a vote as to who they want making decisions on issues concerning their children’s education. We should not have that right taken away! This type of decision is something that would make me really consider whether my kids belong in a public school. I have always supported public schools, but I want a vote in what and how my kids are being taught.

Sebelius has criticized the board of education's conservative majority for drafting science standards last year seen as anti-evolution.

UGH!!! They are not anti-evolution. Many of them feel molecule to man is questionable (Darwinian evolution) and should be critically analyzed, but they certainly did not take the theory out of the standards. What on earth is it going to take to get the truth to Kansas citizens? It just seems hopeless.

Sebelius has said she will propose a constitutional amendment to allow the governor to appoint a secretary to oversee the department of education and make the 10-member board advisory.

I cannot believe that she wants to take away our right to vote as to who we, as parents, want running our state board of education. Unbelievable.

I have to wonder what the liberals will think of this idea when a conservative governor is again appointed to office, or God forbid, an ID sympathizer!!! Yikes.

Wired magazine: Battle of the New Atheism

Care to take a peek at what the leaders of the atheist fundamentalist movement have to say about religion?

I find it fascinating that atheism is making such a strong push to get people to stand up against religion at the same time that there is such a strong debate regarding evolution and intelligent design in this country.

Supporters of evolution keep trying to reassure me that evolution is not the basis for atheist beliefs, yet everywhere I turn, major players in the atheist movement are using science and evolution to try to negate all religious belief.

If we have atheist apologetics being played out in the science class, shouldn't we give equal time to religious apologetics?

In the article, Dawkins is quoted as suggesting that:

"Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists," he says. "Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. It just doesn't add up. Either they're stupid, or they're lying. And have they got a motive for lying? Of course they've got a motive! Everybody knows that an atheist can't get elected."

Is this guy for real??!

He also says:

"How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?" Dawkins asks. "It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?"

????? Is he suggesting that the government should get involved when it is confirmed that parents are instructing their children in various religious beliefs? Should one notify the Gestapo, or what? I’m sorry, but this guy is downright scary.

The author of the article (who is also an atheist/strong agnostic) comments that:

While frontline warriors against creationism are busy reassuring parents and legislators that teaching Darwin's theory does not undermine the possibility of religious devotion, Dawkins is openly agreeing with the most stubborn fundamentalists that evolution must lead to atheism. I tell Dawkins what he already knows: He is making life harder for his friends.

No kidding. Though some of us already know that “secular” schools don’t always mean secular. They mean agnostic or even atheistic. It's fine to mention religion as long as it's taught as myth. Our kids come out of the universities brainwashed that religion has no meaning and random chance evolutionary explanations account for our existence.

Is the title of this book for real????

Darwin Loves you, written by George Levine.

From amazon.com:

His main premise is that a close reading of Darwin disproves Max Weber's contention that a "rational scientific" outlook "expels meaning and value from the world." Levine argues persuasively that an understanding of Darwinism can lead to a secular enchantment of the sort experienced by Darwin himself as he worked to make sense of the world around him: "an attitude of awe and love toward the multiple forms of life" in all their extraordinary diversity. Enchantment of this type, Levine explains, is no less important or meaningful than enchantment arising from religion.[my emphasis]

Good grief, I wish Darwinists would make up their mind. Is Darwinian evolution the basis for a type of humanist religion, or not??

Is it sinful to look for evidence of design?

Denise O’Leary provides the links to a few reviews of Richard Dawkin’s book, The God Delusion, over at Uncommon Descent.

She made an interesting comment at the conclusion, which I must say I tend to agree with:

If I were Microsoft billionaire Charles Simonyi (an atheist who funded Dawkins’ chair at Oxford), I would try to get Dawkins to retire, in favor of a mild-mannered science prof who holds down a pew at the local tabernacle and is firmly convinced that we sin when we look for evidence of God’s work in the universe. To be truly faithful, we must ignore evidence in favour of blind faith. Such a scientist would do far more than Dawkins to limit the growth of ID, because he makes it a positive sin among religious believers to wonder whether the heavens really do declare the glory of the Lord.

I often wonder why a person who believes that there is more to our existence than mere chance would not support the Intelligent Design movement. The majority of people in this world believe that a Designer had a hand in the creation of the universe. Why then is there so much animosity toward Intelligent Design?

I’ve heard various responses to this question, and some Christians have even told me that we cannot detect design in nature. That statement goes against biblical scripture which states that, "The Heavens declare the glory of God". His fingerprints are everywhere.

Some claim that evolution is God’s creative mechanism. Yet the theory of ID does not invalidate the theory of evolution. Certainly, there are many in the ID camp who believe that molecule to man is a fallacy, but the theory itself does not negate even Darwinian evolution.

Unlike Dawkins, who is very outspoken about his atheism, Eugenie Scott has recognized what O’Leary is alluding to in her quote above. In an earlier entry, I pointed out Scott’s statement during an 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!"

She puts this idea to good use. I’ve seen her at presentations alongside preachers and Jesus Seminar advocates telling the flocks that evolution doesn’t go against biblical teaching and then the Jesus Seminar folks will follow up with their idea that Jesus was not a deity and was never meant to be considered as such. They state that Christ was a mere man, and that the supposed resurrection was merely an analogy of something that gives our Christian lives meaning. They basically reject the good news of the gospel, yet claim to be Christians.

I’ve just started reading Eugenie Scott’s book, Not in our Classrooms, which she has recently written along with Glenn Branch. Reverend Barry W. Lynn wrote the forward for the book. I have to wonder whether she considers this gentleman a “Clergyman with a backward collar”.

In his foreword, he states that...

“Intelligent design represents a religious viewpoint, but this does not mean that all leaders of the faith community support it; in fact, many do not see any conflict between the evidence for evolution and their own theological views about divine purpose in the universe.”

I very much disagree with this statement. The theory of ID, in and of itself, does not represent any particular religious viewpoint. Intelligent Design states that "it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than by unguided processes."

The theory has religious ~implications~ in that it could be assumed that the "designer" is a god of some type, or it could also support the idea that aliens created our particular universe through natural means. ID does not play favorites, nor does it attempt to describe or put a name to the Designer. That is something best left to theologians, not scientists.

So it’s not the theory itself that has some of these clergymen up in arms, it’s that they feel their philosophical and theological positions are being questioned and they don’t care for that. Hence, they fight the ID movement and instead of looking at what the theory actually says, they focus on what they feel is an attack on their evolutionary beliefs.

Anyway, Eugenie’s on the right track in her goal to squash ID. If she can convince those of religion to follow her footsteps, she furthers her humanist/atheistic goal which 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.”

The Humanist Manifesto III also professes that:

“Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.”

These statements are based as strongly on faith as any religious belief may be.

I have no idea why anti-religious philosophical positions are given free reign in the classroom, but support for Design is completely rejected. Even Dawkins, a strong atheist, states that the universe gives the "illusion of design". Follow the evidence where it leads, Dawkins. I thought that was what science was all about.

But, between the two of them, I would certainly state that Scott is more of a threat to Intelligent Design, and religion for that matter, than Dawkins is. Dawkins is so vocal about his atheism and his hatred toward religion that he actually hurts science. Scott on the other hand often works within the church to further her cause against Intelligent Design. Many churches have accepted her view of science, which in part is based on faith and inferences, to the extent that they have turned their backs on the truth of scripture because they feel that they can no longer hold their belief in God on anything more than blind faith. What a shame.

Facing the Giants

Several friends have mentioned that the film, Facing the Giants, relays an outstanding Christian message. It’s currently playing in theatres throughout the country.

From the film’s website:

From the award-winning producers of FLYWHEEL comes a new, action-packed, family-friendly drama about a high school football coach who draws up a new game plan for his team … and himself.

In his six years of coaching, Grant Taylor has never had a winning season. Even the hope of a new season is squelched when the best player on his Shiloh Eagles decides to transfer schools. After losing their first three games of the season, the coach discovers a group of fathers are plotting to have him fired. Combined with pressures at home, Coach Taylor has lost hope in his battle against fear and failure.

However, an unexpected challenge helps him find a purpose bigger than just victories. Daring to trust God to do the impossible, Coach Taylor and the Eagles discover how faith plays out on the field … and off.

With God, all things are possible …

My brother and his wife watched the film Friday night, and they enjoyed it so much that my brother took his four kids to see it the next day. They loved it as well. It sounds like it’s an uplifting family film. I can’t wait to see it.

Christmas cards are just around the corner

I found an awesome Christmas card to send out this year. Check it out:


Matthew 2:9 is featured on the inside along with the words, "May the Maker of Heaven and Earth light your way this Christmas".

Even some of you theistic evolutionists can probably get away with this one. But, I’m thinkin’ you probably won’t want to order them from AIG.

Well, looky here...

Today’s Topeka Capital Journal Letters to the Editor section features a letter submitted by our Chairman of the Board of Education. Cool. Abrams let Governor Sebelius have it again.

I bet we’re going to have a long wait for that apology though.

Apology due

The governor owes the Kansas State Board of Education as well as the citizens of Kansas an apology.

Personal insults from this liberal governor are the only arguments she can make, due to the lack of her own accomplishments.

It is predictable to have differing political beliefs and policy beliefs. I expect a big government liberal like our governor to oppose conservative politics. But to infer that the State Board of Education is responsible for the lack of economic development in Kansas is laughable. The state board has authority regarding education policy and teacher accreditation, but none regarding economic development.

Trying to place her own lack of success in economic development on the state board by comparing us to Fred Phelps is another one of the governor's liberal red herrings, similar to her claiming on TV ads that she held the line on taxes.

To find the true reason for Kansas' comparative lack of economic development, she might look at the high growth rate in state employees, as well as the high tax structure in Kansas -- items that she has a direct influence upon.

Her demand to place the Kansas State Board of Education under the authority of a secretary of education, who would be on her staff, is nothing more than an unadulterated power grab from the voters by an elitist. But that is typical of an elitist, thinking they know better than the voters.

We on the board have differing visions about education in Kansas, but at least we have a vision. The governor has yet to talk about her vision for Kansas. She apparently prefers innuendo, name-calling, deflection of responsibility and an attempt for a power grab.

STEVE E. ABRAMS, chairman, Kansas State Board of Education Topeka

VERY WELL SAID! Abrams is an outstanding board chair, and Kansas has been very blessed to have him advocating for what is best for our children.

The New Seven Wonders of the World

This link provides the opportunity to participate in choosing the “New Seven Wonders of the World”.

Teachers could put this link to good use.

One of my favorites was Machu Picchu. Very cool.

Philosophy and theology in the science textbooks??

I just read an interesting article over at Uncommon Descent written by Gil Dodgen. The article gives special thanks to Casey Luskin (there’s that name again).

Anyway, check out what we can find in our biology textbooks:

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”

(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”

(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”

(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”

(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed.. D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any ‘goals.’ The idea that evolution is not directed towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”

(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. Natural selection is totally blind to the future. … Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains … Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”

(Richard Dawkins quoted in Biology by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has ‘chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors—little by little, generation after generation—merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces …. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. … [J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.”

(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. … The real difficulty in accepting Darwin’s theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”

(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

“The advent of Darwinism posted even greater threats to religion by suggesting that biological relationship, including the origin of humans and of all species, could be explained by natural selection without the intervention of a god. Many felt that evolutionary randomness and uncertainty had replaced a deity having conscious, purposeful, human characteristics. The Darwinian view that evolution is a historical process and present-type organisms were not created spontaneously but formed in a succession of selective events that occurred in the past, contradicted the common religious view that there could be no design, biological or otherwise, without an intelligent designer. … The variability by which selection depends may be random, but adaptions are not; they arise because selection chooses and perfects only what is adaptive. In this scheme a god of design and purpose is not necessary. Neither religion nor science has irrevocably conquered. Religion has been bolstered by paternalistic social systems in which individuals depend on the beneficiences of those more powerful than they are, as well as the comforting idea that humanity was created in the image of a god to rule over the world and its creatures. Religion provided emotional solace … Nevertheless, faith in religious dogma has been eroded by natural explanations of its mysteries, by a deep understanding of the sources of human emotional needs, and by the recognition that ethics and morality can change among different societies and that acceptance of such values need not depend on religion.”

(Evolution by Monroe, W. Strickberger (3rd ed., Jones & Bartlett, 2000), pg. 70-71)

“Nothing consciously chooses what is selected. Nature is not a conscious agent who chooses what will be selected. … There is no long term goal, for nothing is involved that could conceive of a goal.”

(Evolution: An Introduction by Stephen C. Stearns & Rolf F. Hoeckstra, pg. 30 (2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2005).)

“[A]s E.O. Wilson puts it, a chicken is really the chicken genes’ way of making more copies of themselves. … [A]s an evolutionary biologist I believe that in some sense we exist solely to propagate the genes within us.”

(Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach, by John Alcock, pgs 16, 609 (Sinauer Associates, Inc, 1998).)

Interesting...and they say Darwinian evolution doesn’t support a ~theological~ stance for atheism. Darwinian evolution is without a doubt a form of religion. The only difference is that the advocates of this religion claim to have no god. I’m not sure I agree with that, but I’ll keep those thoughts to myself.

What’s sad is that our students take this information to heart. Just the other day, a graduate student who describes herself as a "proud Darwinian Dawkobot", added her 2 cents in my comment section:

“Dawkins is advocating the ultimate overthrow of the final, unnecessary king-deity in a relationship that has become maladaptive to our species.”

It’s sad to watch what is happening to our youth.

Isn't it interesting that we allow this type of philosophy into our science classes, yet Darwinists feel it is inappropriate to mention the theory of Intelligent Design. ID, in and of itself, makes no religious claims whatsoever. There are obviously religious implications to the theory, but we certainly find religious implications within the theory of Darwinian evolution as well.

Dawkins and Quinn debate the issues

Via the Discovery Institute, evidently Dawkins got creamed in a debate with David Quinn. The DI gives the link so that you can decide for yourself. I haven’t had the chance to listen to it yet, but I’m certainly anxious to hear what they have to say.

Maybe Eugenie Scott is right in suggesting that evolutionists shouldn't debate IDists. They may just get handed their hat.

Let me know what you think of the debate...

Intelligent Design? NO!! -- Porn? YES!!

Sigh...

Here's what really kills me...

The Dover school board supported a 4-paragraph statement suggesting that Darwinian evolution be considered with a critical eye, and mentioned a book that gives insight to the theory of Intelligent Design. Mind you, they were not going to teach the kids anything in the class about Intelligent Design, nor did they remove evolution from the curriculum.

But, on the other hand, some states allow porn classes to be taught at the university level

Good grief...

The Case for a Creator

I watched the DVD, The Case for a Creator, last night. It was outstanding.

There was a tremendous amount of scientific information relayed in this 60 minute flick. It was a nice change from the Darwinists tactics of late.

The Discovery Institute fellows are front and center providing us with amazing detail about Intelligent Design. Illustra Media puts together an awesome film, very eye-catching and educational.

Comparing this to Dawkins' spoof on The Colbert Report, I actually feel sorry for our university students. They love the comedy, but they aren't learning a thing. It's the same thing with the KU lecture series. Dawkins and Miller are providing lots of laughter, but the science being relayed is about nil. But, hey, they get a good laugh.

I sure hope Behe comes packed with some solid science rather than trying to be a comedian.

More negative and misleading coverage for Kansas

The Washington Post gives Kansas more negative and misleading coverage. Why am I not surprised?

The article makes this statement about Phil Kline:

His most controversial moves were subpoenaing the medical records of more than 80 women and girls who received abortions in 2003 and seeking to require health workers to report the sexual activities of girls under 16.

My goodness, it sounds awful in that context. But, why is Kline actually subpoenaing medical records?

Planned Parenthood of Indiana, under investigation by the Attorney General's Medical Fraud Unit, has denied investigators access to the medical records of 12- and 13-year-old child abuse victims. In Kansas, abortion clinics have failed to turn over court subpoenaed medical records to Attorney General Phill Klein's investigation of unreported child rape and illegal late term abortions. Child rape is a serious crime, and when a girl under 14 is pregnant, under Kansas law and Indiana law, she has been raped. And abortion clinics routinely cover up child rape as was previously proven by Life Dynamics.

Kline should be applauded not demonized.

They quote some interesting comments from Sebelius:

"These are people [former Republicans] who felt banished," Sebelius said in an interview before crowing to Democratic campaign workers: "We have some remarkable conversions. My favorite kind of revival is going to a place where someone says, 'I've been a Republican all my life, and I've seen the light.' " Sebelius, who has a solid lead over Republican challenger Jim Barnett, is the daughter-in-law of a Republican former member of Congress, and she likes to say the first Republican she converted was her husband. She has shown, notably in debates over school funding and the state budget, that she can negotiate compromises acceptable to both parties. Kansas has had a balanced budget for four straight years after six years of deficits.[my emphasis]

Is she talking about politics or a religious conversion?? The first thing that came to my mind was Ann Coulter’s Book, Godless, where Coulter supposedly “confronts the high priests of the Church of Liberalism”.

Granted, Coulter is certainly not building any bridges with her constant digs, but some of the Sebelius quotes above have an odd ring to them considering we are talking about political positions here.

Weird.

Steve Abrams takes Governor Sebelius to task...

Abrams let Sebelius have it, but good...

“The governor owes the Kansas State Board of Education as well as the citizens of the state of Kansas an apology,” Abrams said in a statement sent by e-mail to news organizations across the state. “Personal insults from this liberal governor are the only arguments she can make due to the lack of her own accomplishments.”

“I expect a big-government liberal like our governor to oppose conservative politics. But to infer that the State Board of Education is responsible for the lack of economic development in Kansas is laughable,” he added.

Laughable is right.

If Sebelius thinks that the ID/evolution debate going on in Kansas is a contributor to the lack of economic development in Kansas, I’ll tell you exactly who we have to blame for that...

1. The media
2. Darwinian evolutionists

Why, you ask??

Because for the last year, all we’ve had is a replay of ‘99. The media throughout the country, and internationally as well, has repeatedly stated that Kansas has “taken evolution out of the curriculum” or “out of the science standards”. If that were true, I'd be up in arms as well. But, it's NOT TRUE!

Where do they get this information? Darwinian evolutionists!

Darwinists are so put off with the fact that the board allowed a few statements that would suggest that critical analysis of the theory of evolution at the macro level is acceptable, that they threw a huge fit. The fact is that this actually allowed for our students to learn ~more~ science, not less. Shoot, even Kenneth Miller stated during his KU lecture last month that the KBOE took evolution out of the standards and the curriculum!

This misinformation has been spread repeatedly throughout the nation!

The last article I read went as far as to say:

They replaced the teaching of evolution with intelligent design, or ID. Parents in Dover, Pa., even sued the school board to restore the teaching of evolution to the curriculum—arguing that ID is based on a biblical view of creation and isn’t science. [my emphasis]

Neither the Dover nor the Kansas BOE’s “replaced the teaching of evolution with intelligent design”. And, parents in Dover didn’t “restore the teaching of evolution to the curriculum”.

Here is a summary of the changes made to the Kansas science standards.

The Dover board merely wanted a 4-paragraph statement to be read to the class before the theory of evolution was presented. They certainly did not replace evolution with intelligent design, neither did they eliminate it from the curriculum in any way, shape or form.

So, if we are going to blame anyone for the “lack of economic development in Kansas”, we can point the finger at the media and the Darwinists. They wanted to make a big stink about the board questioning their theory so they started something that has come back to bite them in the butt.

Oh, and I guess we can also blame Governor Sebelius for spreading this misinformation as well. So look in the mirror, love. You’re hurting your own state.

Evidently, she also made a comparison between the KBOE and Fred Phelps:

Abrams also attacked Sebelius for saying that the state has to deal with negative publicity created by the board, just as it does with the anti-gay picketing of the Rev. Fred Phelps Sr. and his followers.

Unbelievable. I’m not going to comment further on that statement. It wouldn’t be productive.

Luskin comments on Dawkins...

I knew I could count on Casey for some remarks about the Dawkin’s lecture.

Richard Dawkins told a crowd in Kansas, “I know you here are in the front-line trench against powerful forces of darkness… Fight the good fight” against the “the ‘rotten logic’ of intelligent design and creationism,” which he claims argue the religious viewpoint that “God did it.”

I left those quotes out of my review because it was just too creepy to think about the implications of that type of attitude.

Hey, Casey, I’m still workin’ on that fan club!!

Go Casey! Go Casey! Gooooo Casey!!