Truth

Unfortunately, I’m the type of person who has the audacity to confront Darwinists in some of the anti-ID on-line forums when I feel they are misrepresenting me or my position in this debate.

I really should steer clear of these folks because there is ~no~ reasoning with them. From what I’ve experienced, they are extremely hateful individuals who seem to complain daily about the intolerance of others, yet they display the most rabid intolerance I have *ever* witnessed personally.

They continually write posts and articles about religion and politics and complain that the Bush administration has fouled up the war in Iraq, yet they are starting their own war and don’t even seem to realize it. Wars start with words, and from what I can tell, they are *dead set* on taking this culture war to a whole new level. To read some of the things they write is, in all truthfulness, frightening at times.

The latest bit of misrepresentation in regard to my position in this debate that I need to address is as follows:

FtK says that she is looking for the "truth", and acts as if her search for truth includes a scientific seeking. But it is most assuredly not true. Her truths are pre-ordained, and fixed, and she admits in her most recent rant that she doesn't think that her mind will ever be changed. If she had admitted from the start that she was really focused on atheism, and equated atheism with mainstream science, AND that she apparently feels that atheists are less than honorable/respectable/human, she would get respect for her honesty (at least from me). She is not honest about her motives, and that dishonesty is a sure route to getting disrespect from anyone in the scientific community.

Everyone is searching for truth to some degree. Science is not the only source in which to find it. I search for truth from many sources, and both theology and science are important (to me) in that search. I've never stated otherwise. I’ve made many changes in my outlook about both topics from the discussions I’ve had online, but those will remain private.

Then there was this statement...

"... [she] acts as if her search for truth includes a scientific seeking. But it is most assuredly not true",

...the only way a person can make a statement like this is if they believe they have the truth, and can the truth about life only be understood through the eyes of scientists? Some Darwinists believe that since I question them, I cannot be searching for the truth. Their own truths must be “pre -ordained and fixed” to make a statement like that. This particular Darwinist has never shared his beliefs about "truth" other than stating that I’m wrong in regard to my belief that common descent should be examined with a more critical eye by our students. By his own words in various forums and blogs, he obviously believes that religious beliefs are open for ridicule, and that religion is most probably an evolutionary trait that has been passed on for generations.

He accuses me of conflating discussions about atheism/theism with science, but religious and philosophical beliefs are absolutely a major part of this debate. These religious and philosophical beliefs affecting the work of science are not limited to the ID advocates by any means. The writings of Dawkins / Harris / Dennet / Weinburg / Hitchens et. al. have made it very clear that they are out to put an end to religious thought and they mean to do it by ridiculing religion and raising science to a level by which it is the only avenue to truth. PZ Myers plays out this objective every day via the internet.

I do believe that there is a strong surge from a very vocal group of atheists, who have a strong footing in the scientific community, to denigrate religion at every opportunity. I watch them do it *daily*, I've read their books, I've listened to their lectures...so it's not possible to convince me otherwise. I certainly don’t feel that the majority of scientists feel this way, but I do believe that those Darwinists holding the reins in this debate have a strong influence on what will and will not be considered in the domain of science. I don't know where I've been “dishonest” about my beliefs in this regard. I've been writing both about religion and science since starting my blog.

I’m also not sure what hidden "motives" this individual thinks I have. I can't think of a time when I've ever said that I am only interested in scientific truth. I don't think we are anywhere near the point where science is the only means by to establish *truth*.

He wrote:

AND that she apparently feels that atheists are less than honorable/respectable/human...

Where have I ever said this? This is what you want to believe about me, it's not actually who I am. If I had only to go by the attitudes and the hatred displayed by the majority (not all) of the atheists at AtBC and the horrendous tactics and hate filled rants of atheist bloggers like PZ Myers, then yes, I’d believe that atheists are less than honorable and, in fact, quite hateful and despicable individuals.

But, luckily, I know people personally who do not believe that there is an ultimate creator, and they are no different than my family. But, on the other hand, the atheists I know personally don’t wear their atheism on their sleeve. They have respect for themselves and the beliefs of others, and they aren’t on a mission to do away with or ridicule religion, neither do they treat me like dirt because of my personal religious beliefs.

I have tried very hard to get along with atheists in this debate, and a handful have been kind to me, and I appreciate that more than they’ll probably ever realize. But, the majority I’ve run across on-line are simply nasty, unforgiving individuals who truly *enjoy* the opportunity to treat those whose views they oppose like they are less than human with no feelings or importance in life whatsoever.

One Minute Each Night

In WWII, there was an advisor to Churchill who organized a group of
people who dropped what they were doing every night at a prescribed
hour for one minute to collectively pray for the safety of England,
its people and peace. This had an amazing effect as bombing stopped.

There is now a group of people organizing the same thing here in
America.

If you would like to participate: Each evening at 9:00 PM Eastern
Time (8:00 PM Central, 7:00 PM Mountain, 6:00 PM Pacific), stop
whatever you are doing and spend one minute praying for the safety of
the United States, our troops, our citizens and for peace in the
world.

Someone said if people really understood the full extent of
the power we have available through prayer, we might be speechless.

Our prayers are the most powerful asset we have.

Tiny tablet provides proof for Old Testament

A very interesting cuneiform tablet was discovered which provides further evidence that the historical books of the Old Testament are based on fact.

The full translation of the tablet reads: (Regarding) 1.5 minas (0.75 kg) of gold, the property of Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, the chief eunuch, which he sent via Arad-Banitu the eunuch to [the temple] Esangila: Arad-Banitu has delivered [it] to Esangila. In the presence of Bel-usat, son of Alpaya, the royal bodyguard, [and of] Nadin, son of Marduk-zer-ibni. Month XI, day 18, year 10 [of] Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.

Archaeological finds in regard to biblical accuracy are quite intriguing. It's interesting to note that a few great archaeologists were quite impressed with what they discovered when trying to refute the bible’s historical claims.

William Ramsay had set out to disprove Luke in the late nineteenth century, but after 30 years of archeology in Asia Minor and the middle east, Ramsay concluded the opposite of what he initially believed. He ended up calling Luke one of the greatest historians ever, and eventually converted to Christianity.

Likewise, William Albright had originally regarded the Bible as simply a book of literature that was not based on historical fact. During his field studies in the from 1930-1971, he found conclusive evidence to reverse his position. He found that the bible was consistent with archaeological findings.

HT to Salvador at Young Cosmos.

Definition of Atheism

As I surf various blogs and forums, it seems that the definition of atheism is something that is continually being discussed. I ran across a Q&A with William Lane Craig that fits my understanding of the various versions of the definition.

You can read his response here.

Attn: AtBC Members

Evidently Elsberry or Steve shut me down over there. I can't read or receive private messages anymore. There were 3 in my inbox, but I can't access them. You can send me an email, or just post here and note that it's private so I don't put it through moderation.

Thanks.

Scienceblogs

I wonder if there are any Sciencebloggers who are Christian. I was just thinking that the ones I'm familiar with are either atheists or strong agnostics.

Does anyone know?

Meeting Nancy Boyda

I met Kansas Congresswoman, Nancy Boyda, last night.

A neighbor/friend's daughter was celebrating her 7th birthday on 7/7/07 with a big birthday bash. We were also celebrating our LAST BASEBALL GAME FOR THE SEASON (thank goodness), so we ambled over to their place after the game and awards ceremony.

The gal is a lawyer and her husband worked at the state house while the legislature was in session this year, so evidently he had invited Nancy over to celebrate his daughter's birthday.

I had no clue she was coming until around 8:30pm when everyone started mumbling excitedly from one person to the next that "Nancy Boyda is on her way over". Mercy, you'd think the President of the United States was making his way to our humble little neighborhood. My son's best friend's Mom and I were probably the only hard core conservatives at the entire party, and we had both voted for Jim Ryun in the election.

There was a lot of picture taking with Nancy which I politely avoided, and since I didn't make my way over to meet her right away, the host brought her over to meet us. I smiled sweetly and said it was very nice meeting her. Then, thank goodness, my husband took over and made small talk. He laughed about it afterward and said he was trying to protect the poor woman from the two staunch Republicans at the party.

My friend and I wondered if we should have gotten our picture taken with her, doctored it up with microsoft paint and posted it on my blog. We decided we could never do something that nasty so we went on about our evening wishing it would have been Jim Ryun we were meeting rather than Nancy Boyda.

I still haven't met Sam Brownback and he lives right down the street about a mile away. I walk past right past his place when I'm out exercising.

Al Gore III gets busted

Tree Hugger Jr. seems to have a few issues to deal with. He was busted driving a blue Toyota Prius about 100 mph on the San Diego Freeway.



Seems he had also been smoking weed, and had in his possession prescription drugs Xanax, Valium, Viocin, and Adderall. Evidently, he didn’t have a prescription for any of them.

Bummer...

Behe answers to critics

I've been reading Behe's new book in what spare time I can find this summer. Some of the reviews of the book have been interesting, though Dawkins review was predictable. Pure rhetoric. Again, he hallows natural selection as if it is the holy grail in which he finds complete assurance that a designer is not necessary for the "illusion of design" we observe in nature. He stated that:

Natural selection is arguably the most momentous idea ever to occur to a human mind, because it — alone as far as we know — explains the elegant illusion of design that pervades the living kingdoms and explains, in passing, us.

When Dawkins spoke at KU, I was taken aback by his sense of awe, wonder and praise for natural selection. I swear you'd think that he revered NS with an almost spiritual reverence.

I guess that would support Nancy Pearcy's observation in her book, Total Truth, where she makes a very profound statement, IMO. She wrote:

Humans are inherently religious beings, created to be in relationship with God - and if they reject God, they don’t stop being religious; they simply find some other ultimate principle upon which to base their lives.

Anywhoo..you can find Behe's response to the negative reviews of his book here.

Be sure to check out the brief interview with Behe here. I find it interesting that so many of the articles in response to the book are making a huge deal out of the fact that Behe accepts common descent. They act as if they are shocked by this admission, but they know as well as everyone else involved in this debate that Behe has never had a problem with common descent.

The interview I posted above poses an interesting question in regard to CD:

Q: In Edge of Evolution you indicate that some of the evidence supporting common ancestry is pretty persuasive. Yet a number of scientists have questioned some of the evidence for common ancestry. Do you think it is beyond the pale for them to do so? In your mind is it scientific to question common ancestry?

A: In my view it is certainly not “beyond the pale” for a scientist to question anything. Questioning and skepticism are healthy for science. I have no solutions to the difficult problems pointed to by scientists who are skeptical of universal common descent: ORFan genes, nonstandard genetic codes, different routes of embryogenesis by similar organisms, and so on. Nonetheless, as I see it, if, rather than Darwinian evolution, one is talking about "intelligently designed" descent, then those problems, while still there, seem much less insuperable. I certainly agree that random, unintelligent processes could not account for them, but an intelligent agent may have ways around apparent difficulties. So in judging the likelihood of common descent, I discount problems that could be classified as "how did that get here?" Instead, I give much more weight to the "mistakes" or "useless features" arguments. If some peculiar feature is shared between two species which, as far as we can tell, has no particular function, and which in other contexts we would likely call a genetic accident, then I count that as rather strong evidence for common descent. So, if one looks at the data in the way that I do, then one can say simultaneously that: 1) CD is very well supported; 2) grand Darwinian claims are falsified; 3) ID is confirmed; 4) design extends very deeply into biology.

Hmmm... I still believe common descent to be the materialist's mythical creation story. A microbe evolving from primordial stew has the makings of a fabulous bedtime story for imaginative children.

Science and the Mayans on the same page?

Everyone has their Apocalypse worries, don't they? Christians certainly aren't alone in wondering about end times.

Evidently, we're now looking at December 2012 for doomsday. Wasn't it Gore or some other tree hugger who said there will be MAJOR detrimental changes in the environment within the next decade? The Mayans are right with him in that respect, although we've only got 5 good years left according to them.

Start making your end times preparations (again).

A Couple Sickos visits the Creation Museum

These jerks not only poke fun of Ken Ham and the Creation museum, but also set the worst possible positive example for atheist morality imaginable. They apparently give no consideration whatsoever to those who have loved ones who are disabled. It is truly unbelievable that people can be so nasty, deceitful and utterly disgusting.

I'm still hoping this is some kind of joke, because I can't imagine another human being stooping so low. Apparently telling lie after lie doesn't seem of concern to these jerks at all. Obviously, the museum is going to take a lot of hits from people who disagree with Ham's opinions. But, to make fun of the disabled as part of this little scheme is repulsive.

It's Not Easy Being a Materialist

Egnor is still going strong against PZ Myers illogical claim that the mind is solely a product of the evolutionary process.

Atheism intrigues me to no end. It is the single most illogical conclusion about life that one can ever succumb to, IMHO.

Busy Summer

Posts will be very sparse for the next couple of weeks. Hopefully things will slow down around here soon.

Guillermo Article

It's been a busy week for me, but I hope to get back to bloggin' again next week.

Meanwhile, here's an excellent article that DaveScot linked to in one of my comment sections.

The article mentions the part Avalos played in GG's hanging...

For those unaware, Hector Avalos is an embittered apostate ‘Christian’ who now describes himself as ‘a secular humanist’, and believes that ‘the Bible has no intrinsic value or merit’.8 He achieved some infamy by being quoted in the journal Nature as advocating cutting out parts of the Bible which deal with ‘theologically inspired violence’.9 In answer to Bill Muehlenberg’s question as to just what should be cut, Avalos said,

‘In the first phase what I hope will be deleted is any endorsement of violence that cannot be proven by scientific means to be coming from God. In the final phase, we hope to persuade humanity that the entire Bible should be removed as an authority in the modern world.
‘Yes, that should include removing the repugnant idea that a god sent his son to be slaughtered for the “salvation of man.” It is apalling that in the 21st century anyone still thinks that slaughtering one’s son should become a basis for “salvation.” It is an idea that has a long pre-Christian history, anyway, and it is rooted in notions of blood/sacrificial magic that our world should leave behind.’10

According to John West of Discovery Institute, ‘Avalos has led the charge against Gonzalez and intelligent design on ISU’s campus, helping to draft a 2005 petition denouncing intelligent design that ultimately was signed by more than 120 ISU faculty.’11 Concerning this Avalos says, ‘We were starting to see Iowa State mentioned as a place where intelligent-design research was happening. We wanted to make sure that people knew the university does not support intelligent design.’2

...and, Behe's assessment of the situation:

Michael Behe, biochemist, prominent advocate of intelligent design at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and author of the ‘irreducible complexity’ book Darwin’s Black Box, says, ‘Academia seems to be in a rage about anything that points to any purpose. They are penalizing an associate professor who’s doing his job because he has views they disagree with.’2

The Edge of Evolution

I finally got around to ordering Behe's new book, The Edge of Evolution. Can't wait to dig into it.

The part Avalos played in GG's denial of tenure

Denyse O’Leary highlights an interesting commentary written by Ted Davis, a "scholar of religion and science in modern America", who is evidently not a supporter of ID.

Here it is in it’s entirety:

My views on the mugging of Guillermo Gonzalez are already well known. Now that the president of ISU has made his final ruling (though I understand that a further appeal to the Board of Regents is still possible), and now that Guillermo has also made a public statement that confirms the concerns I have had throughout this process, I am making public a portion of the letter I sent to the ISU president a couple of weeks ago. It should be seen as a commentary on his situation, from my point of view as a scholar of religion and science in modern America. I continue to think that an inappropriate form of viewpoint discrimination was a decisive factor in the decision not to grant him tenure. We may never know for sure if this is correct, just as we may never know many other things with certainty, but the evidence IMO strongly suggests that Avalos' completely inappropriate activities had a lot to do with Guillermo being denied tenure.

Here are my comments on this aspect of the situation, unedited, from the letter I sent ISU president

Geoffroy:

Let me be as clear as possible: Dr. Avalos’ activities were unwarranted. Dr. Gonzalez is hardly the only scientist to write books for the general public, giving religious interpretations of science. Whatever one may think of his book, it is not an appropriate response for a faculty member to organize a petition against Dr. Gonzalez, simply for adding his own religious opinion to those of many others. For example, when the late Carl Sagan presented his popular television series, Cosmos, more than twenty-five years ago, he began the first program with what can only be called a religious credo: “The universe is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” This is a religious credo, pure and simple (and many of his other statements are consistent with it), despite its incorporation into a series of programs that was used for many years in public high school and college science classes. Yet none of his colleagues at Cornell petitioned to dissociate the university from Sagan’s openly religious interpretation of cosmology.

Nor has anyone at Oxford, Texas, Harvard, or Brown petitioned against the views of Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg, Edward Wilson, or Kenneth Miller, who have all given religious interpretations to aspects of modern science in popular books. Is there something about Dr. Gonzalez’ design interpretation that makes it any less acceptable than Dawkins’ atheism, Wilson’s materialist reductionism, or Miller’s Roman Catholic interpretation of evolution? It is not hard to understand why Dr. Avalos, who advises a campus atheist group, would find Dr. Gonzalez’ book less acceptable than those of Dawkins or Weinberg; but that type of viewpoint discrimination should not be acceptable to the larger academic community at Iowa State, and I urge you to underscore that conclusion by overturning this decision.

From where I sit, the impact of Dr. Avalos’ deeds is not hard to see: he poisoned the environment for Dr. Gonzalez, by undermining his academic reputation and isolating him at Iowa State*and all based on a book that is actually one of the best popular books about science in recent years. I am an expert on the history of religion and science in the United States (my current project on modern America has received significant support from the National Science Foundation), and in my opinion Dr. Gonzalez’ treatment of historical topics in The Privileged Planet is far superior to the treatment of comparable topics in Sagan’s famous series. His debunking of the so-called “Copernican principle,” associated with the late Harvard astronomer Harlow Shapley, is an excellent corrective to the false view of Shapley, Sagan, and many other scientists that Copernicus somehow “demoted” humanity by moving us out of the center of the universe. As Dennis Danielson has shown decisively (in an article in American Journal of Physics and in The Book of the Cosmos), Copernicus and his followers believed no such thing, and Gonzalez’ clear explanation of the details helps the record straight for many in the general public. A leading historian of astronomy, Owen Gingerich of Harvard (a former student of Shapley), justly praises Dr. Gonzalez for this in his recent book, God’s Universe (Harvard University Press, 2006), itself yet one more example of a scientist offering a religious interpretation of his work to the general public. I have to wonder*if Professor Gingerich were also a junior faculty member at Iowa State, would Dr. Avalos now be organizing another petition drive against this particular book, for its defense of a designed universe?

Ted

Guillermo Gonzalez's Tenure Appeal Denied

I’m too shocked by this decision to even blog about it. Tom Gilson addresses the decision over at Thinking Christian. You can read more about it there.

Weigh-in week 20, June 4

We've completed week 19, and God only knows what our total weight loss is at this point. Starving & I are at a stand still and seem to lose a pound one week and gain it back the next.

Dieters, please use the comment section to post how much you lost (or gained) this week, and your ~total~ weight loss since day 1 of dieting. When everyone has done so, I’ll post the results.

Evolutionary Informatics Lab at Baylor

Baylor University has a new "Evolutionary Informatics" Lab at Baylor University, and William Dembski has collaborated on three papers with Prof. Marks, who heads the lab.

Golly...this sounds like an ID lab!!! Far out.

Read more about it at Uncommon Descent.

More thoughts on the Deace Piece

Okay, I’m getting all kinds of comments due to my last post in regard to the article in which Steve Deace has quite the little rant about Hector Avalos, the religion professor at ISU who has headed up some pointed petitions. I started to respond to yet another comment and got entirely carried away. I’m making it into a separate post because it’s getting to long for the comment section [besides that, I’ve been too busy to post much this week so this rambling post will have to do.]

The comment was as follows:

“my point was that you seem to dismiss the ideas of people who don't agree with you for reasons very similar to "they're angry materialists" or "scientists are only faith-based materialists" and other such unsupported nonsense.”

I believe that, *overall*, scientists are just scientists, atheists are just atheists, and theists are just theists. Period. Some are “angry”, some aren’t. But, individually, scientists have various worldviews that may on occasion affect their work, and there are certain fields of science that would obviously be more affected by a person’s worldview than others.

I don’t think most scientists give these religious or philosophical issues much thought in their day to day work, but there are those who do (both theists and atheists) due to the nature of their work. There is a point where science and theology merge, and there is absolutely no way to get around that issue, IMHO. There is also no way we are ever going to be able to eliminate either materialism or the question as to whether there is a supernatural component to our existence. So, all this anger directed toward each other is, in a sense, a waste of time and leads to nothing more than further hatred between groups of people. Beating each other up every day is getting us no where. FAST.

Having said that, I do believe that those heavily involved in this debate are fighting for the scientific theories that they feel are best supported by the evidence. I don’t think anyone is lying, but I do think that those of us fighting the hardest can’t get around the fact that our worldviews have an impact on how our minds perceive the information that we digest in regard to science and theology. Fr’instance, those who oppose my views regarding the issues in this debate believe that I am shunning reality. They feel that I am insincere in my quest for truth since I have stated many times that I feel Creationists and IDists have extremely compelling arguments for the scientific theories they put forth. They tell me “Creationism” is not science and that to accept it as such requires a blindness to science that is both willful and powerful.

Funny thing is that their belief that I am blinded may be spot on. For the absolute life of me, I cannot in my wildest imagination come to the realization that some of the theories these ardent evolutionists state as being a “fact” are indeed “factual”. I’ve considered the ToE from every freaking angle, and it is seriously lacking in many respects. And, when they tell me that “Creationism” is unscientific and proceed to explain why they feel that way, I truly believe they are the ones who are willfully blind. The work put out by Creationists and IDists (completely separate ideas) is science, and that is as plain as day. You can disagree with the interpretation of the evidence, but you can’t claim it isn’t science. Granted, there are some Creationists who state that if something doesn’t coincide with a particular interpretation of the Bible, we must dismiss it regardless of how compelling it may be. That doesn’t sound very scientific to me, but not all Creationists come at their work in this manner, and IDists certainly don’t.

Sometimes when I hear some of the statements that are thrown at me about willful ignorance, etc., it seems to me that some of those people have made science into their form of theology. They make it sound as if science is their only path to truth, and anything else is insignificant. There is almost a reverence for science in their tone, and they simply and quickly dismiss theology with a wave of their hand.

Truth be told, I consider their beliefs in the exact same way the perceive mine. They seem completely and utterly blind to anything other than their philosophical beliefs which they feel correspond with their scientific beliefs.

So, IMO, this is where that all popular term “tolerance” comes in, and let’s be honest...there really are only three options in the running that anyone takes seriously in regard to our origins. Those are philosophical naturalism, creation, and ID. We need to be “tolerant” of those who hold each view, and realize that they aren’t “evil” or “lying for Jesus”, but that due to their particular worldview, they seem to be “blinded” by any other interpretation. It appears we are all in the same boat, IMO. Materialists conclude that our blindness is due to ignorance or religious indoctrination, theists conclude that the materialists are blind to the truth due to their ignorance or rejection of theological truth and understanding. Then we have a whole array of those who fall somewhere in the middle and are so wishy washy that it’s hard telling what they believe, and I’m not sure they know themselves.

“Then, you simultaneously put for as an example of "good points to ponder" a rant from someone who clearly makes the same sort of argument. You can't have it both ways; are we supposed to take this guy seriously? If we are, why can the whole of science be dismissed with the same sort of bogus "scientists are immoral materialist" argument?”

Here’s the deal. Deace let lose with a heck of a rant, and while I don’t agree with everything he said...he makes some good points. Personally, I would have chosen to eliminate the overall tone of his rant. He might want to consider his last name and replace that D with a P.

BUT, he makes some points that I’ve been thinking about recently, and his presentation in no different than that of numerous evolution blogs I read every day...in fact, it was quite tame compared to some. Sometimes, I think a mirror placed in a person’s face might help them realize how they are acting, how it feels, and the affect it has on their readers. Although, I don’t think all evolutionists and atheists are how Deace describes them, I do feel that are those who fit Deace’s description to a tee. They are a small, but very loud crowd that gets a lot of attention because of their megaphone’s and their attitudes. They are an intolerant group, and nothing good will come of their constant nasty confrontations with those who disagree with their opinions. Both sides have individuals like this, and I have no patience for them. They are accomplishing nothing other than creating intense hatred for their fellow man. There are ways to be firm and state your point without tearing people apart as individuals.

You asked, “Why can’t the whole of science be dismissed with the same sort of bogus “scientists are immoral materialists” argument?” Personally, I think that is an absurd question. Of course, no one would ever conceive of dismissing “the whole of science” because there are scientists who adhere to materialism. But, on the other hand, when we witness supporters of ID being blackballed in the scientific community because of their connection with ID, it doesn’t sit well. What the heck are we suppose to think? It would seem that anything that doesn’t fit within the materialistic paradigm is halted by the Darwin police. They have a monopoly on what can and cannot be considered in regard to the origin of life and how that may affect various fields of science.

In conclusion, I guess there will always be those who consider me to be willfully ignorant until I abide by their particular version of truth.